A foreground dilemma!

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DUMB DESIGN IDEAS

A foreground dilemma!

Above is one of a pair of recently discovered paintings from the trove found quite by accident in the Nevelson wing of a large and important American museum. This sorry painting by a deservedly forgotten tyro from the seventeenth century, is a fine example of an artist placing the "footlights" too close to their viewing position. He believed by dint of hard work, soft edges and careful arrangement he could paint all that stuff around his ankles. But, up close, nature was teeming with legions of little assertive details that jostled for his attention. Somehow the whole foreground became its very own picture, with a cast of thousands!

If we only had our eyes set one above the other in our heads, we could see the picture at a glance. But since our eyes are paired side by side we must "lift" our eyes to travel from the foreground to the middle and background assembly area. This unpleasant 'lifting" of our eyes bothers our attention spans, and in that brief unconnected synaptic instant in which we are transferring our vision upward to the middle ground and beyond, our whole concentration is lost!

Below is a second painting, identical to the first, except on his second attempt the artist left out the first fifty feet in front of himself! Simply did not place it on the canvas at all. He didn't try to ameliorate its edges or rearrange it's twining complexity, he just frickin left it out!

What a better solution then, to the problem of bristling irrelevant detail ALWAYS splotching the bottom third of a painting? What if I want em looking elsewhere, perhaps at the little boats or the passing river? Why should my subject have to compete with, or indeed, wait behind a thicket of beckoning thorns and vines, and some little rocks. and that clump of grass over there, and the bush, there's the bush! ..............and its shadow.

Turn again to your pamphlets, and look at the broad history of landscape painting to see how able artists working with measured thought produced a better yesterday.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DUMB DESIGN IDEAS The Three Striper!

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DUMB DESIGN IDEAS

The Three Striper!

The discovery of a group of Dutch painting hidden behind a large Louise Nevelson assemblage that was removed for fumigation by a major American museum, has provided an opportunity for me to point out some errors of judgment by a little known painter. The example above is a triple striper design.

The tyro artist was invited to the lakeside cottage of a friend or compliance officer. He was told repeatedly what a lovely view of Chancrebristle Lake it had, and that a great painting might be made there with ease!. And indeed, it did have a fine view, any officer would be proud to have his family there on Holiday! However when our tyro artist completed this painting it contained a grievous fault! Yes, it did indeed.

You see, all of the elements in this painting run from one side of the canvas to the other! Like stripes on a mattress. What could be more static! Our tyro knew he had copied the scene in front of him with the utmost fidelity, yet the painting was not attractive, or valuable. That's because;

He was looking for nouns (in this case, the lake) rather than an arrangement of attractive and valuable shapes that set one another off!

It seems there are many lovely places that may present the tyro artist with unwelcome challenges. How much better if he had eschewed the expected lake view and found a more dynamic arrangement. Perhaps he could have pulled his easel back and obtained a more varied and pleasing foreground, or looked along the receding line of the lakeshore and at the small copse of tender withies arrayed there.

Where are the footlights?

FIELD OF VISION

In the comments after my last post, I was asked;

"I think I know what you mean by, "So don't stand trees, little guys, houses or whatever, on the frame." But would you explain a little more what you mean by:
"Throw those footlights, the beginning of the picture, out far enough that you don't have this problem. Foregrounds are tricky and the further from your feet yours begins, the easier it will be to make a convincing job of it."

Here are some recently discovered paintings of a Dutch artist buried up to his nose in a landscape. I will use those to explain what I mean.

Here is the tyro's field of vision, he intends to paint everything in his purview from the tips of his mottled brogans to the azure zenith! The lower line of his vision reaches the ground at his feet, this point is the footlights. Imagine if you and I were sitting in a theater perhaps twenty rows back from the stage. The stage represents for us the picture plane, that imaginary sheet of limpid glass between ourselves and the world, where world leaves off, and representation begins. Our tyro will fill his foreground with lots of stuff, often carefully observed and real close in.

This can be OK, and there are good paintings that do it, particularly studio paintings and Hudson River school work, often done from drawings made on location rather than painted on the location.

The problem arises when the viewer feels as if they must move their head on its stalk in order to apprehend your picture. That tends to make em uncomfortable, and also gives you the problem of representing the whole bottom third of your canvas with baroque little twisty twineys and whatnot. How much better then, to

THROW YOUR VISION FORWARD, OUTWARD INTO THE FIELD BEFORE YOU!

The footlights are further from the half buried artist's eyes!
Now you are able to represent a world that appears larger and is more believably on the canvas. Your detail in the bottom third of the painting now has spacing between the elements and they are fewer. Of course we must pick and choose from natures offerings, the takings are better at this range.

Please now, turn to your pamphlets and see for yourselves the thousands of wonderful landscapes where this principle of establishing our FOOTLIGHTS somewhat further forward (than his been our natural inclination for so long,) has provided great landscape paintings. Surely, with so much, really too much, world before us to represent, we can spare the closest parts if it gains us a commensurate space for the larger view.

Encyclopedia of dumb design ideas

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DUMB DESIGN IDEAS

Here is a dumb design idea. Placing something so that it stands right on the frame, like this tree, is a dumb design idea. The reason why it doesn't work is that it connects the frame and the painting together in an unnatural relationship. The two are merged, rather than the frame sitting separately and marking the picture off from the rest of the world, like an unprincipled journalist, the frame has made itself part of the story.

Tangents, or meeting points of lines that draw undo attention to themselves are a known problem, I guess I should do a post on those, but a tangent with the edge of the canvas is an unspeakable horror.

So don't stand trees, little guys, houses or whatever, on the frame. Throw those footlights, the beginning of the picture, out far enough that you don't have this problem. Foregrounds are tricky and the further from your feet yours begins, the easier it will be to make a convincing job of it.

I was going to write on Manet tonight, but folks in the comments urged me to read The Judgement of Paris, about Manet and Meissioner, so I ordered it from Amazon and bought the rush shipping. It is the new book and all of my references are old, so I will get back to you on that soonly.