Changing techniques to suit the subject

Cool tones for a cool afternoon.

Here are two pastels, sized 5" by 7". Both depict scenes from Irwin Park about a mile from where I live. The first is quite loose in style, depicting an open field on a windy, sunny day. The "palette", that is, the colors used most prominently in the pastel painting, tend toward blue and white with a little purple added. These are often referred to as cool in tone, and they make the viewer feel that way. That is, cool as in temperature, not attitude. It was a bit chilly that afternoon.

I used a lot of long chalk strokes, hoping to convey the continuously changing patchwork of light caused by the swaying branches and moving foliage around me. The viewer might even 'feel' the vibrant atmosphere.

Getting warmth to show through 

Stillness goes with warmer tones in this scene.

The second painting shows a path about a third of a mile away, running through a small valley sheltered from the elements more than the field shown in the first picture. The canopy of trees is cut off from the wind, producing an environment that feels warm and still.

So the painting tends to use warmer colors, that is greens with a yellow tint, and even the purples have a dose of orange in them. You can still sense the same blue sky with hints of white in it. The drawing is much more traditional, relying a bit on techniques picked up from a 19th century book on how to draw trees. Too much line work would have distorted the sense of stillness. The patches of light are there, but are not constantly shifting.

A technique called scumbling

I did employ a nice late 20th Century technique called scumbling on the lower right-hand corner; I dragged the side of a large yellow pastel over a section of dark green to create the illusion of sunlight filtering through onto a patch of grass and small shrubs.

Although one painting appears tightly rendered and the other full of aggressive line strokes, both pieces are equally abstract. 

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?