Already had some emails about shapes...and was explaining it to various people who have been in my studio lately.
Typically, if a painter has to explain their painting, they did something wrong. I think that is a bunch of hooie, really. Where is the theory about letting the viewer create their own story from the painting? That's what I'm talking about (besides, it's a good story when you missed your target completely :)
However, this variations project does require some explanation. Remember (from the previous post) that the size and shapes are all that is consistent. Karen Margulis and Marla Baggetta each set a time limit on their little jewels...and for the most part, stuck with a landscape motif. I allowed myself to not only experiment with mixed media, but to explore non-landscape motifs that fit the shapes. I also didn't force them into a daily painting routine. Some came together quickly, some over several sessions.
They both report huge strides in freedom and expression that carried forward into their regular work. I am happy to say that I'm on number 40 or so, and still wake up with ideas.
I chose a strong vertical almost on the thirds here. High sloping line just under a high horizon bumpy shape. Yeah, I know...clump of trees, edge of meadow and mountains. But you'll see why I didn't want to label my shapes. I also think it is good to use thumbnails and not photos so your creativity can kick in a bit.
My source pic and rough thumbnails are first:
Here are Karen's:
a just under center horizontal horizon line, Crop of trees on left, Sky shape completes the image with a good negative shape.
And Marla's: High horizon line, sparse trees, and meandering road/stream
PS: If you are reading this through email as a newsletter, click here to read in the actual blog and see Comment area which is at the bottom of the post. Click on "Comment", then scroll down to see the box. Let me know if this doesn't work...OK?