I painted this one last week, but had to stare at it awhile to figure out why I wasn't completely happy with it. I finally decided that the shadow in the foreground was too dark, the roof of the tall house was too light and the sky was too blue. I changed all those things, and now I like it a lot better. I realize that the shadow to the left of the tall house makes no sense, as it should come off the corner of the house. Maybe I'll change that too. If I do, I'll replace this post. With these "made-up" landscapes I feel free to make lots of outlandish choices for the sake of shape and color, but I think that the "natural laws" should be followed if it's this close to being realistic. What do my fellow artists think about that?
Honestly Layne, my first reaction to this painting was an emotional one of "I really like the abstract quality of this". I think the shape in front of the house is more interesting BECAUSE the shadow on the left is set back echoing the shape and color of the red roof. So to answer your question, this painting reads as interesting to me even if not completely accurate in a realistic sense. You took artistic license!
ReplyDeleteLayne, it works really well as an abstract and the broad brushstrokes are another added wonderful dimension. You may be interesting in checking at this artist from Rockland, ME, Tollef Runquist. He paints in very much this style. I love his paintings.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dowlingwalsh.com/artists/tollef-runquist
I love the color and brushwork on this one! And the spot red roofs are fab.
ReplyDelete