How did you create this image? Were there any particular benefits or disadvantages that you noticed? How does this method compare with other ways that you have worked?
I went about the imagination part of the perception project by breaking my object into three different parts: the stem, the flowers, and the bottle. Then, I made a table listing each of the observations made in the description. What I liked about this part of the project was creating a painting from the connotations I had with the words Pheobe used. I struggled though, with knowing how light would fall on my object. In addition, I couldn't remember exactly what a rose looked like (well, at least enough to paint.)
In my description, my object was described as the ruby slippers that Dorothy wore in the Wizard of Oz, so I wanted them to have a whimsical kind of feel to them. I used mainly alizarin crimson to paint the shoes, because it seemed closer to "ruby" than cadmium red. I chose the blue background because it was a nice complimentary color, and also I was hoping it would remind people of a night sky or something.
While I had fun playing with the composition of the shoes and trying to figure out what sequins would look like, I wasn't sure where shadows should go or the exact proportions things should be.
From Siwen... Generally, this project is a little frustrating for me, because we have to paint the same object for three times. So when I came to the third painting from the real object, I don't know what to paint out from the crow anymore.
The first painting from imagination is the easiest one for me. Without the real object, I'm more care free. Since I don't know how to paint a crow exactly, I cheated a little bit, and found a image I liked online. Basically, what I looked for was some kind of emotion in the gesture of the crow.
Ugh!! I hated working from my imagination for this one. Reading the description was intriguing and very well written and I thought it was interesting what I found myself painting from the brief description but the actual painting process just turned out all wrong. I hated this painting and maybe it was just my mindset at the time that I painted it but it was really difficult to have no sense of shadow or light to incorporate. This image turned out to be very flat and uninteresting. Parts of the process were interesting though. I found that the associations that I made to certain words in the description were interesting. For example the "Egyptian" woman became very cartoonized and flat, relating to the typical Egyptian canon with the eye on the side of the head etc. The end result.... horrible!! but the process sort of made me laugh at myself and my inability to paint without seeing something concretely in front of me.
In my opinion, this was the worst method (for accuracy's sake). Without an actual visual, there are tons of possibilities, meaning it is way harder to actually depict the image. I didn't even read the description correctly and assumed the object was something else. Not to mention the lack of light and shadow knowledge and background. I attempted to recreate an image I knew nothing about by trying to make associations with objects that I did kind of know. You can't always rely on words alone.
To get an idea of what my object looked like, I examined my own slippers and then applied the characteristics of the described slippers to my painting. Instead of doing an underpainting, I sketched out the slippers on the canvas and then applied two coats of paint. The benefit of this exercise was that I wasn't tied down to a concrete image so my ideas about the object kept changing and evolving as I was painting. The disadvantage was that I couldn't figure out how some elements of my painting, such as shadows and lighting, were meant to look. I have never really worked from my imagination before so it felt pretty different - liberating but at the same time uncomfortable.
I was kind of lost for this section of the perception piece. I wanted to try out a different style for an imagination work but I didn't realize how hard it was to convey all the elements from the description especially when they do put a really concrete image of what to expect the object to look like in my mind.
I do have a certain abstraction of shapes and how i was going to piece them up to match the description, but it is so difficult to paint without a solid image and to be able to execute it well for the piece to make sense. I went with the safest of trying to paint what i imagined the object to look like, probably a stupid choice because i was not happy with how that turned out and i probably would have had more fun and did a better job of i just did what i originally thought about.
This is the class blog for Painting II and is intended for educational use only. The blog will be a space for posting information about the class, project descriptions, new artists and exhibitions, and other pertinent information. Please see the archive below for subject headings and feel free to add comments.
I went about the imagination part of the perception project by breaking my object into three different parts: the stem, the flowers, and the bottle. Then, I made a table listing each of the observations made in the description. What I liked about this part of the project was creating a painting from the connotations I had with the words Pheobe used. I struggled though, with knowing how light would fall on my object. In addition, I couldn't remember exactly what a rose looked like (well, at least enough to paint.)
ReplyDeleteChristine Dunant
In my description, my object was described as the ruby slippers that Dorothy wore in the Wizard of Oz, so I wanted them to have a whimsical kind of feel to them. I used mainly alizarin crimson to paint the shoes, because it seemed closer to "ruby" than cadmium red. I chose the blue background because it was a nice complimentary color, and also I was hoping it would remind people of a night sky or something.
ReplyDeleteWhile I had fun playing with the composition of the shoes and trying to figure out what sequins would look like, I wasn't sure where shadows should go or the exact proportions things should be.
From Siwen...
ReplyDeleteGenerally, this project is a little frustrating for me, because we have to paint the same object for three times. So when I came to the third painting from the real object, I don't know what to paint out from the crow anymore.
The first painting from imagination is the easiest one for me. Without the real object, I'm more care free. Since I don't know how to paint a crow exactly, I cheated a little bit, and found a image I liked online. Basically, what I looked for was some kind of emotion in the gesture of the crow.
Ugh!! I hated working from my imagination for this one. Reading the description was intriguing and very well written and I thought it was interesting what I found myself painting from the brief description but the actual painting process just turned out all wrong. I hated this painting and maybe it was just my mindset at the time that I painted it but it was really difficult to have no sense of shadow or light to incorporate. This image turned out to be very flat and uninteresting. Parts of the process were interesting though. I found that the associations that I made to certain words in the description were interesting. For example the "Egyptian" woman became very cartoonized and flat, relating to the typical Egyptian canon with the eye on the side of the head etc. The end result.... horrible!! but the process sort of made me laugh at myself and my inability to paint without seeing something concretely in front of me.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this was the worst method (for accuracy's sake). Without an actual visual, there are tons of possibilities, meaning it is way harder to actually depict the image.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even read the description correctly and assumed the object was something else. Not to mention the lack of light and shadow knowledge and background.
I attempted to recreate an image I knew nothing about by trying to make associations with objects that I did kind of know.
You can't always rely on words alone.
To get an idea of what my object looked like, I examined my own slippers and then applied the characteristics of the described slippers to my painting. Instead of doing an underpainting, I sketched out the slippers on the canvas and then applied two coats of paint. The benefit of this exercise was that I wasn't tied down to a concrete image so my ideas about the object kept changing and evolving as I was painting. The disadvantage was that I couldn't figure out how some elements of my painting, such as shadows and lighting, were meant to look. I have never really worked from my imagination before so it felt pretty different - liberating but at the same time uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteI was kind of lost for this section of the perception piece. I wanted to try out a different style for an imagination work but I didn't realize how hard it was to convey all the elements from the description especially when they do put a really concrete image of what to expect the object to look like in my mind.
ReplyDeleteI do have a certain abstraction of shapes and how i was going to piece them up to match the description, but it is so difficult to paint without a solid image and to be able to execute it well for the piece to make sense. I went with the safest of trying to paint what i imagined the object to look like, probably a stupid choice because i was not happy with how that turned out and i probably would have had more fun and did a better job of i just did what i originally thought about.