Blog

As all of you who have painted for a while are probably aware, some subject matter can be a challenge to translate onto the canvas while other subjects might seem to almost paint themselves. We all wish the later would happen more often, but nonetheless, there are a few methods we can employ to tip the scales in our favor. An example I'll use to illustrate this is cats -- which is a favorite topic of mine anyway. The classic dark brown and cream patterns that are common in cats with Siamese markings are so familiar to most people that they're instantly recognizable. Even when painted very loosely --- a couple of dark triangles with a blur connecting them can be all that's needed to  indicate the cat's head and within a nano-second a dark curving stripe will then read as a tail. There are other fairly common cat colors and patterns that most people have stored mental symbols for, which help them to fill in the visual blanks, so to speak. At the other end of the curve are the complex markings of an Abyssinian or a Tabby, which might require a more detailed approach, possibly involving #00 pointed sable brushes.  Felines can also have random markings which, although very striking, might take a moment to sort out even in a close-up photograph. Patterns that are unfamiliar to the average eye will present a far greater challenge to depict in a way that is visually unquestionable and that's even more the case when a lot of the details have been simplified or left out. 

     I think of flowers exactly in this same way. A dark neutral circle with spikes of yellow sticking out all the way around will instantly be identified by most people as a sunflower, regardless of how skillfully or how crudely it has been painted. At the other end of the spectrum are flowers that are basically a puffy ball or made up of hundreds of tiny petals forming a tight dome, so they don't have much in the way of centers or shapes to help explain things. Without any context, such an image could be a flower, a magic wand or a green handled lollipop. While a wide range of different flowers can all be a part of a well designed composition, having an awareness of their different visual characteristics can be used to an advantage throughout the painting process. In a sense, flower centers can be a focal point within the center of interest, while flowers without an obvious or visible center are often more natural candidates to serve as supporting players. I think of centers as the 'face' of the flower and as such, they carry a lot of importance in determining how compelling the center of attention will be.

   Here are a few ways I make sure I'm making the most out of the subject I'm working with:

1) Picking out flowers for my center of attention that have distinct centers. A definite change in color or value can usually be really helpful in capturing the essence of a particular type of flower. Often the center of a flower will also serve as one of the best opportunities to describe depth.

2) The default setting for our brains is to assume that centers are always in the exact center when more commonly that is not where they are located in a 2-dimensional image, due to angles and foreshortening. Taking note of even a slightly off-center placement can help avoid creating a symmetrical bullseye effect where all of the petals are the exact same distance from the center all the way around. This is one of those areas where I know from experience that slowing down, measuring, and making some careful observations can save me a lot of grief. If a center or 2 is precisely in the middle and still fits well within the composition, then so be it, but I avoid determining the placement while on auto-pilot.

3)Even flowers without a clearly defined center (carnations, some dahlias, chrysanthemums, etc.) will have contrast, color changes or sometimes more distinct petals toward the center that will indicate to the viewer there is something different going on in that area. Those are the sort of things I'm on the lookout for in the planning stages of a painting. In these situations I may push the color and/or value and edges slightly to make sure I hang onto the distinction between the center and the outer petals. 

      There isn't a strict formula for what decisions I might make in advance but rather it depends on the circumstance, taking into consideration what that painting needs and what I'm trying to accomplish. 

                                .           

In the image of the orchid above, in order to recreate the look of the yellow petals on the 'face', I simplified and pushed the color a bit to help distinguish them from the white outer petals and also to enhance the illusion of them being closer and coming toward the viewer. For the trumpet lily, I went in the opposite direction for the center. If I focused my eyes on just the middle part of the trumpet, the color appeared somewhat more greenish, but stronger color in that area would have flattened out and worked against some of the 3-dimensional effect I was trying to capture in the flower overall. Staying with the same approximate value but going for a more neutral and transparent note, I sacrificed some of the chroma in order to achieve a greater feeling of depth. 

      I don't point out these principles as a way of suggesting limitations on the subject matter anyone chooses, but rather as a way of creating awareness for how visual information may be processed by viewers who won't have the benefit of seeing the subject in real life. Sometimes it's fun to arrange areas of a painting in a way that the puzzle pieces don't explain themselves right away, and more is left to discover. On the other hand, not grabbing a viewer's attention quickly can have it's consequences too, as anyone who has observed people buzzing through a museum or gallery can attest. As first impressions go, I'm always hoping to get more of a "Wow!" than a "What IS that?" reaction. In summary, I suppose it's fair to say that flower centers are something I'm hyperaware about. Nerdy... obsessed -- the adjectives kind of start slipping downhill from there. Actually, connoisseur has a more sophisticated ring to it so I think I'll go with that. Really what it comes down to is being aware of the best tools and techniques available for communicating what you are hoping to say. Taking visual principles into consideration and making an honest assessment of the subject matter can strengthen the painting as well as making the painting process more rewarding.

"To make a painting representing things as they are found in nature....I put a great deal of thought into the arrangement, but with the idea of making it look like a natural arrangement of random objects. This is an idea that I have been mulling over a great deal: giving the appearance of a total lack of artistry." --- Henri Fantin-Latour

In last month's post I talked about small simple compositions --- various still life objects, with or without flowers. This blog will be a continuation of that same conversation, but focused more specifically on simple floral arrangements that are basically a vignette of just flowers. While there are many formulaic techniques out there for painting flowers (and everything else) the guidelines here are geared more for people who are going for the same thing I'm after, which is capturing the light and depth. Keep in mind that as it is with traditional still life compositions, even a small amount of planning can up your chances of success rather dramatically.

Directly below you'll find some examples I created as suggestions for my online course.

Here are the objectives I was going for as I set these up;

1) Good lighting. This doesn't have to mean any special type of light but rather lighting that helps show off the structure of the flower. In a school- type situation with many students and a lot of spotlights right on top of the arrangements, this can present a challenge, but good lighting should be easier to achieve in a home studio if you know what to look for. The most problematic thing about composing with flowers is that many petals are translucent and light easily travels though them, so arranging the lighting in a such way that will translate well into paint can be sort of tricky. My attempt in creating these arrangements was to stick with form lighting that highlights the front of the bouquet but is also off to one side so there are some distinct shadows. In each of these arrangements there are one or more flowers positioned in such a way that they are directly in the path of the light and the big basic light and shadow patterns are hanging together.  The high key values of some of the flowers in each arrangement help make the light and shadow patterns easier to observe. In these situations the light coming through the petals is relatively subdued, so the translucency can be handled in the same way as a reflected light on a solid object and remain as a part the shadow. 

2) Solid, evenly colored flowers will give better opportunities to observe the planes and larger value patterns. Many different types of flowers will have a gradual change of color toward the center, and those are fine, but the more abrupt and dramatic patterns found on a lot of lilies in particular can be difficult to look past, so they make it challenging to distinguish the more subtle value transitions that help things read well in terms of depth.  Rubrum Lilies are just one example where you can see very dramatic changes of color within every petal. Yes, they are pretty...but I would suggest mastering the light and shade on a plain lily before trying to paint ones with a slash of Permanent Rose or Magenta down the middle of each petal. 

3) As I mentioned in last month's post, experience has taught me that it will be easier to achieve some measure of harmony if I don't include every color in the rainbow in a composition. Rarely do I set up a arrangement where a strong color isn't balanced or represented  in other areas of the picture plane. 

4) Overlapping similar flowers helps create more interesting edges and a flow throughout the composition. I avoid having a flower as the center of interest where it's totally surrounded by starkly contrasting values, since that can create a situation where that blossom will look cut out and isolated from everything around it. While strong contrast along part of the silhouette will help convey depth and promote a strong center of interest, at the same time I want to convey some mystery and a sense of every flower being a part of the same bouquet. 

This photo of a bouquet with orange day lilies shows the arrangement I was working with for one of the demonstration videos in my online course. I hurriedly gathered these from my backyard garden right before filming and only years later noticed that on the main flower, one of it's petals must have fallen off. Day Lilies typically have 6 petals, but... oh well...more character! If anyone else ever noticed they never said anything to me. A few step-by-step photos of the painting as it progressed are posted below.

To my mind, working with a simple bouquet of flowers is relatively forgiving as compared to the drawing issues with something like a bottle or glass that is symmetrical and needs to appear sitting upright, grounded to the table. However, the time I've spent trying to teach a thoughtful approach to painting flowers has convinced me that a lot of people are intimidated by being face to face with all of those petals. Their brain tells them it will take a lot of strokes so the overwhelming temptation is to jump right in and do just that -- put down a lot of brushstrokes really fast, willy-nilly, and hope for the best. A more solid approach is to look past the petals to the basic structure. Picturing  the flower and it's fundamental shape as a cup, bowl, plate or cone can be enormously helpful in observing and simplifying the patterns of light and shade. If you can get the big notes of light and shadow on your canvas correctly and then approximate the silhouette, much of what you need  to convey the illusion of that flower is already there and your biggest challenge is not messing that up. What I'm aiming for in my work is more of a Sargent-like portrait of a flower, where those basic elements are carrying the story and in the interest of preserving the strength of the light, many of the details such as individual petals are suggested rather than clearly defined. Rather than getting caught up in small forms and insignificant value changes I try to stay with the planes that help describe the form and pay close attention to the interruptions in the silhouette unique to that particular blossom that reveal it's character. Clearly defining every petal might be the goal for a botanical illustrator, so I'm not suggesting there's a one-size-fits-all approach to painting flowers, but this is an area where having a clear mental image of what you're going for can make all the difference. 

"Work for simplicity more. Keep the lights together, the darks together. Separate lights and shadows enough to make them solid. Don't get too many things in the light --- avoid too many branches, too many windows, too many spots. Only the owner of a house counts the windows." 

-- Charles Hawthorne    Hawthorne on Painting