Tag: writing

  • Velázquez

    There are so much to say about Velazquez from this trip. Let’s break them down a bit and see how they work together.

    Drawing is the foundation for everything else. Without accurate drawing, we won’t be able pinpoint the exact lines, or the lack of. But there is more to accurate drawing, which is to omit certain things so the illusion of space is more obvious.

    Sargent does that really well. Sargent understands that what’s important and what’s not important, and paint accordingly. For example, from distance, you don’t need to fully render a ring, or the individual pearls on the necklace. You need to abstract the shapes, and distill the most important value contrast, and get the value contrast right, then you can paint a lot with very little.

    Abstraction, abstraction, abstraction. How we abstract indicates what kind of artist we are.

    The conversation with Paul really makes me understand the importance of soft edges. The biggest take away is the distance from the picture plane to the subject. If everything is very clear, that means the viewer is very close to the object. If everything is blurry, then the distance is much larger. Take the mirror image of King Philip IV and his wife on the wall in Las Meninas, and see how blurry they are. That’s what soft edges mean.

    But besides the soft edges, I think Velazquez used wet on wet techniques too. The dazzling brush works on top of the dried layers indicates that he leveraged the brushy and free looking brushes to bring more energy to the painting.

    Use long brushes to paint. Use the shoulder and elbow, not too much in the fingers.

    Squint to see the soft edges!

    The direction and orientation of the planes are super important. It really communicates the form in space, and we are in the space depiction business.

    Velazquez use color shrift alone to indicate plane changes.

    If Velazquez paints light, and the atmospheric effects, then what can I do with light to paint what I want?

  • Difference between fine art and illustration

    One of my Illustration professor said that there isn’t a lot of differences between a fine art painting and an illustration, the only difference is the context in which the artwork is in. Same work displayed in a gallery verse in a storybook could give the work different meaning, or value.

    I think I start to disagree with him a little. There are a lot of illustrations that could be considered fine art, but a lot of them can’t. After seeing many illustrations and fine art works, I start to think one of the main differences is that illustration is about a very narrowly defined subject matter, and there isn’t a lot of ambiguity in them. Fine art paintings could be about a narrow defined subject matter, but the amount of ambiguity exceeds illustration by a large margin.

    A fine art piece needs to stand up on its own, while an illustration is to serve a purpose. Illustration’s purpose is to illustrate a certain ideas, stories, or messages. It aims to get a point across to the audience. Meanwhile, a fine art piece has way less directness, but more room for interpretation within the work. The amount of ambiguity a fine art piece carries far exceeds an illustration can. Fine art pieces often try to get a point across too, but the great ones often is less direct, and more muddy and blurry in terms of subject matter, or why it exists.

    I am not saying there isn’t overlaps between illustration and fine art. In fact, I think most illustrations and fine art overlap each other. But a great piece of fine art is a conversation piece, and it keeps generating talking points for the audience. It just exists there on its own, without any supplement explanations, waiting for the audience to discover its beauty and charm.