Oil on board. Title "Corner"
Oil on canvas. Title "Silver1"
They are referenced from photos that I took.
They don't have a particular narrative; I like to paint images that can go in many directions. What do you think is going on in them?
Oil on canvas.
oil on canvas
Patrick, your subject matter is very interesting, and I enjoy where you are going with the pieces, but there are some issue that pop out at me.
First, there looks to be some odd color temperature relationship issues in your work. Your colors, for the exception of the third piece, seem extremely hot in both the light and shadow and it is coming across very harsh and muddy.
Secondly, I'd like to see some work on the edges. The first and second paintings for example, everything is very hard, from the hair, to the crease in the buttocks, to the fingers, blood, knee shadows etc. Some careful observation and variation in the edges, as well as getting rid of those hard black lines here would bring these pieces together better. I'd concentrate on keeping things for the most part softer and introducing only those hard edges where you need them most, such as the center of focus.
Third, and this is an issue everyone deals with, including me, pay attention to your drawing as much as possible, try not to leave proportion issues or mistakes behind. And when I say drawing, I don't just mean line, lay down your brushstrokes carefully, your first piece looks like it could have used a little more attention to the drawing in the face on the front sitter.
Keep working hard though, get your hands on some good paintings and observe what these artists do, especially pay attention to their handling of the shadows and lights and observe those edges, paint applications, and color relationships more closely.
Good job, nice work, keep on posting.
Ya, your right about the color temp of my paintings; I have just recently discovered that gray is my friend; up until very recently I've had a hard time distinguishing colors that are dark from colors that are cool, so I've been adding black to my shadows instead of a similar value gray.
As far as my edges go I've got a long way before I make up my mind on how soft they should be; I know my edges are hard, but I feel most artists make their edges too soft. This problem is in my thoughts.
I agree about the first painting; I think I may have gone through a lazy period last year, I had just returned to school, after way too long, and my mind was there.
If you have any suggestions of artists for me to look at please let me know. The help is most appreciated.
these are fantastic, they are above my level of oil painting so i dont have much to add. But your white values in the girl (fetal postion) are great. Im interested in how you work, do you take photos of models, or work from drawings, etc? plz explain your process from concept to canvas if you would be so kind.. i am def impressed
Thanks for the complement on my painting.
Well, from concept to canvas is pretty simple; I begin by thinking up an image that is interesting, I find a model and take pics; after that I either draw the image onto the surface with a pencil , or I just start to paint. As far as my process with the paint goes I don't really have one; I just keep adding paint until it looks good to me; There is one thing, I paint very thin layers.
Here is the pencil drawing of my latest project, which is now buried in paint.
Patrick..i dont know I appreciate your ideas..and the big effort you put in your paintings. You really do have some strong drawing skills,the last drawing show a lot of feeling in it, and the look of the people on the first painting are full of life, but i think your paintings still look flat,because of your dependance of photographs. Also i think when you say you have a concept,you should really think about what you are painting and what you want to say with it..what message you want to impose. An artist has a particular view of the world, his own world and that is what we communicate..to say that you just paint something to go into many directions..means there is no thought behind?? if so what directions they are going u should know if you dont, you are not designing. to be honest all i see in the first two is two people staring at me, a woman kneeling staring at me, the girl is drinking ,but thinking about what? is there any sort of clue to give me what is she thinking..if not it just becomes a fact..she is drinking that is all, always think of the why?the last one ,a guy in pain but why??? you dont have to be literal about it..but think of it like a poet...he tells you a reality,made up in his own words..beautifullly done...he wont say like a regular guy..hey look at the coulds...he migh say..the white snows flying thru the air..haha..you get what im saying..? be creative..think more..do many many sketches..from your mind then ,i guess use your models (if you prefer pictures is cool, i personally like drawing from life )
I also think if you want to be competitive in the figurative world..I dont mean to impose what you should do,but look around here ,what sort of studies people are doing? Look at the thread of Pancho..
there are many minimal errors in your figures, anatomical, even perspective,and shading..composition wise they could be better,Although i really like what you have done with the guy and the saw..nice..
I think if you want to improve you must study..other artists..especially the greatest masters of figurative art through history..You have a lot of talent,but there are more lessons to be learnt, just step back look at what has been done, and that you have the potential to become better.
I cannot paint like you though hehe..that you have master to some extent,but i think you might need a little help from the Masters of art..
take care..hope you dont get offended..oh a great site to get started is ..
http://www.artrenewal.org/ ,Im not sure the kind of artist you like..it depends on your temperament...I know most of them haha..they all have something to teach..I might say look at Caravaggio..is very similar with what you are doing..If you really whant to learn the most from him..get to know all of his paintings..copy them ,extensevely..a head, a hand..do research on his technique and working methods..what he studied..do what he did..i think you can..be an apprentice of him..sumerge yourself into him..he will teach you a little thing day,by day, He is a Master and well he has a lot to teach..just be patient..you will see your paintings improve eventually
Last edited by the_allejo05; August 3rd, 2008 at 01:31 AM.
Silver1 is really haunting.
I imagine it might be a little tricky finding someone to hang it in their living room, on account of the rather disturbing subject matter, but that shouldn't stop you. I think the other pictures here work without much supporting explanation, but that one is probably going to raise a few eyebrows. Just curious, have you shown it anywhere else yet? If so, what was the reaction?
Nice work, in any case. Will be interested to see more
Every painting looks like it was done from a photograph. Painting from them is fine, but you need to have good knowledge on how light works and how we perceive depth. A photo is just a 2d plane, where all the light bounces off the flat surface, whereas in reality we perceive spatial depth. Reasons being that a camera has 1 eye, which is much cruder compared to our eyes and brain, and the range of values a camera is able to perceive at one given time is much narrower. Another problem is that a camera sees every edge in its focal range as sharp. Our eyes naturally focus on one object that stands out the most, whilst the rest of the image in view becomes more blurry. Having hard edges everywhere makes it more difficult on the eyes to see what's supposed to stand out more, and leaves the viewer looking all over.
hey Patrick, thanks for answering , hope to see you update your current WIP soon.. drawing looks good so far. I really like your subjects. Dont worry about ppl telling you your art doesnt fit a genre, you wont have a market , etc.. it will fall into place itself. Good work sells, and yours is great--
First, I must say, a one eyed man can paint a picture the same as anyone else. Secondly depth perceptions comes in two forms Monocular and Binocular; Binocular cues involve the use of two eyes. There are two forms of this type of depth perception, Convergence, which “refers to the rotation of the two eyes in their sockets to focus on a single object (C, 112-114 )”, and secondly Binocular Disparity, which “is a scientific way of saying that because the eyes are a few inches apart, they don’t see exactly the same image. The brain interprets the images on the retina to determine distance from the eyes (C, 112-114 )”. Both of these two Binocular depth cues require there to be actual depth, and cannot be painted into a picture; check it out, look at any painting by any master and it will look the same with both eyes open, or with one eye open.
Monocular depth perception requires only one eye and does not need actual depth because it is a cognitive form of depth perception not a physical form like Binocular; “Monocular cues are often referred to as pictorial depth cues, because artists can use these cues to give the illusion of depth to paintings and drawings (C, 112-114)” There are seven forms of this type of depth perception:
Linear Perspective which is “When looking down a long interstate highway, the two sides of the highway appear to merge together in the distance. This tendency for parallel lines to appear to converge on each other is called linear perspective. It works in pictures because people assume that in the picture, as in real life, the converging lines mean a great distance away from where they are (C, 112-114)”.
Relative Size: “The principle of size constancy is at work in relative size, when objects that people expect to be of a certain size appear to be small and are, therefore, assumed to be much farther away. Movie makers use this principle to make their small models seem gigantic and in the distance. (C, 112-114)”
Overlap: “If one object seems to be blocking another object, people assume that the blocked object is behind the first one and, therefore, farther away. This cue is also known as interposition. (C, 112-114)”
Aerial Perspective: “The farther away an object is, the hazier the object will appear to be, a process called aerial perspective. This is why distant mountains often look fuzzy, and buildings far in the distance are blurrier than those that are close. At greater distance more tiny particles of dust, dirt, and other pollutants in the air can come between the object and a person’s eyes, causing blurred vision (C, 112-114)”
Texture Gradient: “If there are any large expanses of pebbles, rocks, or patterned roads (such as a cobblestone street) nearby, go take a look at them one day. The pebbles or bricks that are close to you are very distinctly textured, but as you look farther off into the distance, their texture becomes smaller and finer. Texture gradient is another trick used by artists to give the illusion of depth in a painting. (C, 112-114)”
Motion Parallax This one isn’t quit as important to painters, but non the less it is a monocular cue: “The next time you’re in a car, notice how the objects outside the car window seem to zip very fast when they are close to the car, and objects in the distance seem to move more slowly. This discrepancy in motion of near and far objects is called motion parallax. (C, 112-114)”.
Accommodation is the only physical monocular cue and like the two binocular cues requires actual depth because of its physical nature: “A monocular cue that is not one of the pictorial cues, accommodation makes use of something that happens inside the eye. The lens of the human eye is flexible and held in place by a series of muscles. The discussion of the eye earlier in this chapter mentioned the process of visual accommodation as the tendency of the lens to change its shape, or thickness, in response to objects near or far away. The brain can use this information about accommodation as a cue for distance. Accommodation is also called a muscular cue. (C, 112-114)”
The key idea is illusion of depth not creating the real thing, and without the real thing binocular depth doesn’t exist; our problem as two dimensional artists is not to capture binocular depth, but rather to create a two dimensional image with such compelling monocular cues that our minds disregard the binocular cues. Because we can not use binocular cues in our paintings, Burl, the argument that one cannot paint a picture with depth using a photo is asinine; photos contain all of the depth cues, which we as two dimensional artists can physically use. The truth is, binocular cues, which one can only see when painting from life, can never be incorporated into a painting anyway.
For your comment on the sharpness of lines in a cameras focal range, I say this; if you want to paint an image with one specific point of interest then it is fin to do that, but the fact that I, at the moment, render the entirety of my paintings equally has nothing to do with the fact that I work from a photo; When one paints from life they don’t look at only one spot, and then the rest comes out fuzzy because they’ve only seen it through their peripheral vision; the artist makes a chose as to what he renders in what way; I can do this equally as well using a photo.
As for the idea that the surface of a photo is flat, so one can’t perceive spatial depth; well, I believe that I covered that in my rant about monocular depth, but just to stress my point, your logic would render every self portrait painted using one’s reflection in a flat mirror, including portraits by Rembrandt, completely flat and without depth.
If I sound harsh in response to your critique burl I want you to know that I appreciate your interest in helping me, but I feel that there are a lot of misconceptions about working from photos, and my shortcomings as an artist are in no way related to the fact that I work from photos.
Ciccarelli K. Saundra, Glenn E. Meyer. Psychology. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 2006.
Last edited by Patrick Szucs; August 4th, 2008 at 05:46 AM.
What I’m hearing you say Allajo is that I need to create a more vivid or concrete narrative in my paintings; I agree with this and in the near future plan to experiment heavily with this aspect of creating images, though I must say I will never abandon subtlety, or the idea that an image can be free of a concrete history and future; I appreciate your candor in evaluating the lack of impact my paintings had on you, I can honestly say that other then my older sister you’re the first person who seems unimpressed by my choice of subject; I’m sure that this will change now that the ball is rolling.
I enjoy learning from every artist I run across especially the masters, but I am not the type to emulate any other’s style; I know that there is a big market for contemporary paintings that hark back, but I’m only interested in making money if it involves the exact type of art that I want to make; I’m most likely going to end up teaching, which is a freakin sweet job anyway. Thanks for the link to the art site my skills will wax.
My use of photos has nothing to do with the depth of my painting, and though there may be elements of my paintings that look flat, these paintings got depth. Check out what I wrote to Burl above to learn about binocular and monocular depth cues
Thanks for reminding me to study my anatomy.
I figure rich people got all kinds of crazy stuff in their basements; someone will probably hang it next to their shrine to Gary Coleman.
I did hang it at a one night show in san fran, everyone seemed interested and I got a lot of positive feedback; some lady even told me that she wanted to have a threesome with the two characters in the painting. At the time I was showing work at a gallery in Sonoma, but they didn’t want it there.
Thanks for checking out my thread
Last edited by Patrick Szucs; August 4th, 2008 at 04:43 PM.
Hi, Patrick. I guess this was a matter of intent. My post above, although mostly being a mish-mash of garble (a reason I don't try to help so much), I was under the impression that because all of your paintings so far were of a similar nature with the edges and rendering, the issue must have been related to your source material, assuming you were doing it not by free choice. I wasn't trying to weigh favor on either life nor photograph, especially since such topics have been done to death on the internet and I still have a lot more to learn on the matter.
The photo thing is just a hot topic for me, but I like that you crit my stuff. What I did get from your crit, and from other’s, is that I need to start exploring a point of interest on my paintings, and support it with the rest of the painting. Thanks.
Thanks Slipp3ry, I feel like I'm under attack.
A lot of these look very saleable to me. They're quality works, well rendered. Probably is tough to find your market, but keep looking around. All you need is a few good sales or reviews and you're away and running. "glass" and "repose" in particular should find someone who wants them.
I think this is already happening; whether its happening consciously I suppose might be another issue, but I see a lot of points of interest being explored in these paintings. You should just keep on charging ahead, and doing what you're doing. Sometimes you'll receive really helpful crits and praise in this section, other times people will make suggestions that are confusing, or worse, they might leave you with dead silence. In the critique and WIP section too, you kind of have to sort through which crits are valuable to you, and which seem sophomoric or irrelevant. I didn’t mean to open any can of worms about sales in that last post for example (I’m probably the last person to take advice from in that department), just wanted to express that I really liked Silver1. I think it’s a very strong piece and was curious about how others have reacted to it.What I did get from your crit, and from other’s, is that I need to start exploring a point of interest on my paintings, and support it with the rest of the painting.
Usually if you get a post here, it just means that someone really liked it, or at least found it compelling enough to comment. I wouldn’t be too concerned about working from photos either. Many of us do this. I make liberal use of them when drawing, and it’s been pretty well established as an important part of illustration and representational painting for almost a century now. Did anyone catch Madman last week: “My whole art department is run on tracing paper. Why reinvent the wheel?" Don Draper always plays it so smooth, but really, artists have been putting photography to good use for some time now. Or at least, many people feel that way. The issue has been raised here a number of times, even resulting in a separate stickied thread that tries to help clear the air a bit. Maybe you could contribute to it with some of your thoughts on monocular depth, since they seem well informed and might be usefull to others. Really, any discussions about process or the thought that goes into something, are always appreciated around here.
Thanks again for sharing and sorry if you felt set upon there. Please post more, this section could use the love.
Last edited by Jasonwclark; August 6th, 2008 at 05:12 PM.
Thanks for the complement, I put a lot of effort into every pieces. There is a good deal of marketing that is involved in selling this stuff and I hate marketing; I figure that if I keep putting every effort into producing the best art possible then the art world will come around. Ya, I get a lot of interest in Repose, and Glass sold about 2 and Ĺ years ago.
Patrick..on Rembrandt I begg to differ.. he might have been looking thru a mirror which simplifies and flatenss the image..but if you take a look at his painting here: it is in 3d (if not,well close one eye an be patient,whatch it turn 3d)..this happens because you are still looking and thinking binocular..a painter looks with one eye..and because he has Mastered perspective and geometry, he is able to create a 3d world within the picture plane..
here's another great example..of tiepolo ,master of foreshortening..you know how hard is this to do?? i know of no painter today who can even get to do a head or body in this positions and with such confidence..and in this scale and with this medium..and the extensive use of the minds eye(imagination is extraordinaire)..so please be careful with your words..while Rembrandt was not Tiepolo,nor Tiepolo Rembrand, he certainly could paint better than anybody today.
My arguement can be further explained..since our childhood..we are stuck to a tv..which sadly is flat and distorted..and we accustomed our eyes to looking at those colors and the world that way..When you start really getting deep with perspective and start mastering it..well you look at the tv and notice flat things ,things out of whack..because the camera is one eyed...the same happens with a picture..and the science of Perspective while one-eyed helps you see the world 3d..Also the study of nature (reality) will help you see things as they are.
Pictures are good as reference..hey i used them too, right now im studyng Playboy girls hehe, to see and analyze the kind of beauty people like most.
I have also studied Mudgbridge pictures of movement..thing the eye wont catch..
Im not saying im a master of perspective,but i have been studying it long enough to be able to discern those things..
Last edited by the_allejo05; August 7th, 2008 at 10:42 AM.
allejo05, you either did not read my post to Burl on monocular and binocular depth cues carefully, or it was simply over your head. My point was that a Rembrandt looks three dimensional with one eye closed, or both eyes open, because he uses monocular depth cues so well; the use of binocular depth cues on a flat surface is not up for debate, it is physically impossible, so the use of two eyes to paint or enjoy paintings is not required.
allejo05, you be careful with your words; there has never been a time in history that has produced more great artist then now; and let me tell you something, the human form has been painted from every conceivable position and angle, hundreds of time. Two hundred years from now people we know will be held to the ranks of the great masters, it takes time for such things to happen.
The reason that many TVs look flat is because of poor image quality; if you look at a new high definition TV you can see a tremendous difference in the depth of the picture; and, High definition doesnít come close to competing with the image quality of a photo. And again you must not have understood what I said about monocular depth cues, this is science, if a person has one eye they can paint a picture the same as anyone else. One can not paint binocular depth cues on a flat surface; you can not do it no matter how much you wish it were so; you canít do it.
Allejo, learning from the masters is great, but not at the expense of finding one's own style, or at the expense of progressing the dialogue of painting. You need to lay off of the idea of form a bit, have you ever heard the statement "paint what you see". If I can't see the top of your head then I'm not worried about the top of your head. And if you can't respect my skill level then don't comment on my work; I'm not some amateur. And you could use a few lessons from me.
Patrick..I read your thingie on perspective..i understood it another way..now i get what you say...you have your ideas ,i have mine..is cool..
and yeah I learn from everybody regardless of their skill level,regardless of style....(the other time a girl with no knowledge of the science of drawing did a figure drawing and taught me a little secret hehe) ,Paint what you see is easy..I have no problem with that..painting what you know is where it comes to..,seeing that part of the head u dont see,but only with your minds eye,
If you pretend that any of the painters of today and I know most of them (not personally but thru their art), to compare with the masters...it aint happening at least not today..all their fancy robots and monsters...sorry not impressed ...although I study them also..but again I think their impatience kills their art,but oh well is me..soooo..dont take it personally..
I haven't much to say, really. However I agree with the color temperature critique above by Blackhawk. The relationships are somewhat distracting.
You are a damn fine artist.
The tower is a mighty tall one...