Lessons Learned - Is your painting complete or it it finished?

Ammonnoosuc River - Watercolor on Paper

I did some detail work on my large watercolor of the Ammonnoosuc River in Northwestern New Hampshire.  On the lower left, was the early pass at the subject.  I will, from time to time, revisit a subject.  As I had left the picture, it struck me as close to what I was trying to achieve, but overall too dark.  It was accurate feel for the day and time, but the river didn't match the sky.  I decided to just leave things as they were for the time being to get some distance.  Often in Nature - there are times and locations that are quite interesting and moving, but they don't necessarily translate into a strong composition or painting without some artistic license.

There were parts of the picture that seemed flat to me, not enough of a difference in value.  I wanted to increase the interest throughout the picture while not confusing the eye with too much detail.  I remember vividly my first art show many years ago.  I was not really ready to show - but I went for it anyway.  

I walked the grounds and viewed the works of other artists and I found myself to be exhausted by the end as I was focusing on every detail I could.  I didn't really understand the lessons I was learning at the time.  The eye is naturally drawn to detail.  How to balance detail with leaving much up to the viewers imagination?

Years later I went to an exhibition of NC Wyeth, Howard Pyle, and Andrew Wyeth at the Farnsworth in Rockland, Maine.  It was a breathtaking exhibition and really a master class on both composition and using, or avoiding, detail to draw the viewers eye to the intended center of interest.  What I noticed immediately was that these paintings were at once very dramatic and moving, yet very "relaxing" to view.  I wasn't searching the center of interest - it was clear in each and every painting.  It wasn't really until the second or third pass through the exhibition that I began to notice the areas of a painting that were merely indicated with a minimum of brushstrokes and subdued values.

    

I brightened the sky to bring it into line with the river in the mid ground and darkened the water in the shadows in the foreground. and I also did some more variances in value throughout all the areas of the picture to add depth and interest.

            

       Detail Left                                       Detail Center                                      Detail Right

I also added some shadows to the rocks in the foreground and added more variance in the values on the small island.  It is a challenge to know when enough is enough with any subject.  Sometimes one brushstroke can be just what a painting needs to bring it to life, or it can ruin a subject.  As Bob Harris (Robert George Harris (1911-2007) Artist and Illustrator) advised me: 

"It's important to know when a painting is done before it is finished!"

None of this is meant in any way to detract from interest or pursuit of highly detailed paintings or Trompe l'oeil paintings.  Those types of paintings are simply not an area of interest for me - at this time.  I do believe that every type of painting, every attempt, informs my work on my next painting.  If you can express what you want to - what moves you, I don't believe that there is a "wrong" way to approach that painting.  

                            

Is it Done or Is it Finished?

These two photos of two of my most recent paintings give a better sense of the size of the water color sketches to the finished work.   For these two acrylics, the sketches are about 1/4 the size of the finished work.

With the large watercolor I did  of the Amonoosuc River, the ratio was more like 7 1/2 to 1.  At this point, I don't do a detailed scale down or up from sketch to finished painting, it is more just a part of the process.  Trying to keep this as simple as possible for quick and efficient sketching in an attempt to capture the moments which catch my attention.

I'm quite motivated by the idea of capturing the different moods of a subject, and even imagining them based on earlier observations of nature.  Both of these paintings are realistic subjects - they do exist, but in imaginary perspective for the old mill pond, and imaging a winters evening full moon light at a local farm.   I really enjoyed these different exercises in the studio.  Working on location remains my first joy in painting, but studio work is gaining in its standing and enjoyment for me.  

I also try to keep the advice of two well known and highly successful artists front and center as I paint.  John Stobart advised putting only as much detail into a sketch as would be needed to execute a finished painting later.  This was to avoid "copying" even one's own work and maintaining room for the spark of creativity.

The late Bob Harris (Robert George Harris) was very encouraging to me through our correspondence and phone calls.  One of my favorite quotes of his is:  "It's important to know when a painting is done before it is finished."  

I also remember vividly the original illustrations by N.C. Wyeth and Howard Pyle on display at the Farnsworth Museum in Rockland, Maine.  The paintings were monumental in scale, composition, color, and use of limited detail.  They knew how to lead your eye where they wanted it to go.  A large area of background scumbled in with virtually no detail in no way diminished these paintings.  On the contrary, the contrast made the paintings even more powerful.  You really had to be on the lookout to even notice these techniques.

Artists in Studio - Charles LaSalle

I find artist studios fascinating (not that I've been too many in person).  I was looking through some photos of Charlie La Salle at work in his studio in Scottsdale AZ @ 1958 and I found my eye eventually drawn away from the large oil Charlie was working on to the tantalizing glimpses of other paintings and artifacts that Charlie had around his studio.  I wondered about the stories behind each of them.  One of the pictures is below along with a painting by Charlie of his neighbor and one of his closest friends in Arizona - Larry "speed" Richardson.

I also wonder how (or if) an artist's studio reflects the artist, their personality, their working methods.  I think the artists studio must be a reflection of the artist - whether consciously or not.

I then took a quick look around my studio and noticed some of the items that I had around me for inspiration - ranging from mementos from family, close loved ones, as well as professional artists, some of whom took some of their incredibly valuable time to meet and to encourage me on my journey as well as a few I knew only through some of their books and artwork.  The artists that I'll be posting about in the near future include the nationally and internationally known artists:  Charles LaSalle, Robert George Harris, John Stobart, Bill Maudlin, Aiden Lassell Ripley, and Walt Disney.

I'll also be sharing more about those artists that I've been lucky enough to know and love in person and who have enriched my life immeasurably including Aiden LaSalle, Ed LaSalle, Cathy Kahler, and my wife Julie.

Charles LaSalle (Lassell) 1894-1958 - Scottsdale AZ - 1958

Charles LaSalle - A portrait of his neighbor and friend - Speed Richardson

Prints of this were published by Arizona Highways in the 1970's

According to newspaper articles from the 40's as well as interviews with Charlies surviving friends and co-workers his studio was always neat and well organized.  Without a doubt, some of this was necessary for him to be able to juggle the responsibilities of meeting multiple deadlines for illustration work - as he was one of the top contributors to many national magazines (Saturday Evening Post, Liberty, Colliers and many more)  from the 1920's through the 1950's as well as for national advertising accounts for Ford, General Electric, United Airlines and more.  If he'd been disorganized in this sense, despite his clear talent, he would not have been able to meet the necessary deadlines and this would have undoubtedly reduced the high demand for his work.

Some artists prefer to work alone and go to great lengths not to be disturbed. Charlie was not one of those artists.  Charlie moved to New York and shared a studio in the Beaux Art Studio with his life long friend and fellow illustrator Harold Anderson. While this may have started out as a cost saving strategy, the two later shared a studio in Westport Connecticut when they were both highly successful and nationally known.   Socializing was a huge part of the illustration business, but for Charlie it was very much part of his personality.  Gregarious seems to be understatement when used to describe Charlie and his fascination with people and life in general.  He enjoyed company in his studio, friends and family were always welcome.  Jazz music was likely to be playing.  His studio was filled with props related to the subjects he was painting and he would talk while working.  He would also go out of his way to help younger artists get started in the business or with any challenges they were facing with their artwork as he had been helped in his early days by the likes of N.C. Wyeth and Harvey Dunn. Charlie worked in oils, casein, gouache, charcoal, and watercolor.

Charlie moved to Scottsdale Arizona in the early 50's for health reasons and his work focused on his life long passion for the West.   He'd suffered a heart attack and he'd hoped the move would grant him another ten years with his wife and daughters.  Sadly, that was not to be the case.  Charlie suffered a second heart attack while he was painting in his studio in December of 1958.  He was conscious and alert when the ambulance arrived, but he passed away before reaching the hospital.

Charlie died seven years before I was born, but he has been and continues to be an inspiration to me.  More about that at another time.