Going Realistically Abstract

My attempt lately is to abstract my landscapes more. I feel it's important to be able to do them realistically before trying to go more abstract. Because then the abstraction is more informed and has the structure needed to give it strength. See what I did with the same scene twice:

Going from Drawing to Painting

Vermont view

Here is a sketch or study and the pastel painting developed from it and the photo taken at the location. Personally I like the drawing a bit better than the painting. Still, the two shouldn't be set in opposition to each other.

I've been drawing all my life, so that part comes more easily to me. Nonetheless, the challenges presented by the painting are much more involved, and I haven't been doing pastels for nearly so long.

Vermont view with river

Adapting to the Art Medium 

The drawing had to be adapted to a different size and shape, and all the squiggles and shortcuts used in the drawing just don't work in a color format. The painting would look like a confused mess.

I made the river the central motif of the painting, which meant the details of the foliage had to be throttled back, so as not to draw the viewer's eye in too many directions. The tree branches in the top left corner were reversed, so to speak. Since the painting format was more nearly square, I needed the branches to point upwards, so the design would seem more evenly weighted.

The Art of Balance

I wanted to show the sky, which the foliage was obscuring. The colors of the distant horizon fascinated me, and I wanted the river to direct the eye to them. The clouds also needed to be more prominent, to justify the shadows cast on the forests in the middle distance.

The evergreen on the right hand side side was played up, so the whole piece would be properly balanced, and to make the river the center of attention. Unlike the foliage on the left, the evergreen branches point to the river, where I wanted people to look, so they would be drawn to the eerie colors in the far distance. 

What differences do you find between the two?

Thoughts on Trees

Really, this week's blog is more of a horticultural essay than something about art. It's too bad for you readers who happen across this art blog, but it does suggest why some landscape subjects are chosen over others for my pastel painting. 

Blue Spruce 1 by Paul Creedon, pastel artist

The blue spruce in this pastel landscape can be found on the Norwalk, CT Green, which was established over 250 years ago, and I feel is the most beautiful section of the city.

Trees as landscape subjects

I chose this tree as a subject because my father planted two similar blue spruce trees in front of our house before I was born and they eventually reached a height equivalent to three to four stories high. They caught a spruce blight, which meant my Dad had to spray poison on them early every spring to keep them alive. Unfortunately the stuff turned the trees green, but the new growth came in blue. 

If you look closely at the painting you can see some green behind the outermost blue growth. I guess the disease is still around, and the city has to treat the trees to keep them alive. There seem to be very few blue spruce left in New England, as far as I can tell. 

The tree in Norwalk sparked a memory, and I painted a recollection of my childhood, and a reminder of my late father.

So, that's an example of why some pictures come to be, and others which could be as nice or nicer, never see the light of day. 

The Difference Between Landscapes and Still Lifes

It looks a bit like a dinosaur came along and
threw up in the middle of this scene.

Showing more simplification.

With a still life it’s important to include what’s there. I’ve composed it and lit it to my satisfaction and the objects need to look like what they are (since my style is realistic art). However with a landscape, drawing what’s really there is disastrous. Here are examples of what I mean. Trees in a landscape are full of complexity. Each trunk has multiple branches and each branch has multiple leaves. Drawing that causes the artwork to look busy and confused as in the first sample. The second sample shows some simplification of the tree on the left. It actually looks more real than the more complex one towards the right. The third example is the most successful because I’ve simplified it to the essence of the tree’s architecture, using shapes of light and dark. 

Finally, something
with a certain elegance.

The difference then between a still life and a landscape is clear. One can be representative of what’s there and the other, due to shifting light and shadow as well as complexity of form, must be simplified to be successful. Then the beauty that is inherent in a scenic view can come through in its depiction.

Note: these three drawings were done with Cretacolor fine art leads. I don't have a relationship with that company. I just like these leads when I sketch in the field or in the studio.

The Art of the Landscape

House in the Distance by Paul Creedon

Finding one's way as an artist is a path fraught with difficulty. I take my Sheltie on walks (when the weather is favorable) to look for inspirations in the landscapes around my home here in Connecticut. I am looking for new approaches in my pastel landscapes that will please me as much as what I've achieved with still life. It's trial and error when I sit down in my studio with an array of new photos taken in the parks and woods on my dog walks. Frustrations are part of of the process. But I'm used to it and know that every artist goes through this if they are serious about achieving their aims.