My efforts to create artwork have not been lacking, but the results are not good. It was my own fault. I should have kept my mouth shut until I was sure I could produce something worthy of display. I haven't abandoned the mission, but it's clearly going to take longer than I expected to condition my brain to come up with decent ideas. The following items I post only to shame myself into action. My hope is that they indicate an absence of inspiration rather than ability.
1. This was my first foray into oil painting, and was intended to be a portrait of my friend Ariane's daughter Lily. I rather enjoyed painting with oils, which came as a surprise because I expected it to be much harder, but my inexperience is rather obvious. Why is she floating in a murky green sea? Why have I amputated her legs? You'd think years of photography would have taught me something about composition. On top of all that it doesn't look much like her, which is a pretty inescapable flaw for a portrait.
2. This is my first attempt at watercolour. In contrast to the oils, I thought watercolour would be a doddle but it isn't. With oils, you know that what you lay down is what you'll end up with. With watercolour, it's very hard to predict how the paint will react to the wet paper, where it will flow, what effect it will have on surrounding colours and how it will dry. All of this is evident here. The neck and nose are just embarrassing and the overall painting conveys nothing at all.
3. Another watercolour, slightly better, but still lacking focus. Her left eye is badly wrong.
4. My debut in acrylics. You have to work fast with acrylics because they dry very quickly, both on the canvas and on the palette, but the advantage of this is that they're very easy to correct if you screw up. Just wait a couple of minutes and you can paint over it. I screwed this one up so many times that it's got about 20 layers. It's probably the pick of the bunch but straight portraits aren't going to get me very far and I don't really know why I did it. It's no one famous, which is probably just as well as it bears little resemblance to the source image. And yes, it is finished.
I suppose I can use the excuse that I'm just experimenting with new mediums, but that doesn't explain the total lack of artistic merit and inspiration. There are two more that I just couldn't bring myself to post. I need to be braver! I'll write these off to experience and start again.
4 comments:
For a 'complete amateur' I'd say these paintings are an impressive start, Graham; I wonder how many paintings Van Gough threw away before he painted those sunflowers?
Also, is the second water-colour Saorise Ronan (not sure I've spelt her name right, but sh'es the young actress from 'Hanna')?
I can hardly comment on whether or not it looks like you meant it to, but I actually quite like a couple of these.
You've really never painted before? If so, I'm impressed.
#2 makes me think of some classical musician. I think it's the lines at the back that could have notes placed upon them.
It might not convey any message especially, but I quite like it (which is surely what is important in art, anyway?)
I think you've done well with hair, especially in #4.
My only disappointment (if any) is that I was expecting something strange. If anything, I'd say the green-sea-Lily is only half way there. Where's the sea monsters?
What does Luntell Wellingbone look like by the way? I've never seen a celery and mustard sandwich before....
Hadleigh - it's not Saoirse Ronan; I've been deliberately avoiding recognisable faces in the misguided belief that it would matter less if they turned out badly!
Ben - yes, yes, you're absolutely right. I wouldn't have used the word 'strange' but I know what you mean. I think straight replication as art is boring and yet I keep on doing it. I think you could ask a hundred people to define art and get a hundred different answers, but my own view is that it's all about expression and conveyance of ideas. If you end up with a portrait that looks like a photograph then you've demonstrated great skill and patience but it's not art. If the photo already existed you might as well not have bothered. Art should be arresting, provocative/evocative and considered. Otherwise it's just a thing you did.
In my head, Luntell Wellingbone looks like Beaker from The Muppets.
I love painting #3. Would be happy to have it up in my living room if you're selling. If you hadn't mentioned the eye, I'd never have noticed.
As for #4, who is this frisky lady who's been sitting for you?
Post a Comment