data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/36071/3607175ae444cc411d6127b805ac1609593f4b14" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/912ee/912ee4cc40daf02fa1b7d8d742885b909dafc2b5" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e0d59/e0d59f70246be87d3de4a79ec7522f755c65e481" alt=""
This painting is based on some photography and jello making I did last summer. I got some large prints made from Walgreens.
I think of this painting as a color theory exercise. My palette was very limited. I used cadmium yellow, cadmium red, phythlo green (blue shade) and white. It reminds of the 2 color palette I have my students do in Art 102.
I also used gloss medium for the glass and matte medium for the background. I want to try and replicate the actual textures of the glass and fabric as much as possible. Since I work so photographically, one of the things I ponder in my studio is why these images need to be a painting. Paint can treat surfaces very different than a photo. The pigment load in my beloved Golden acrylic paint has a saturation level that photography just can't replicate. I don't think every photo should be a painting- in many cases it should not. However, I think if you use paint in a deliberate manner, some photographs warrant a painting.
1 comment:
That's a good point about not every picture warranting a painting but I have to save that I tend to give more respect to people that have paintings on their walls than just photos. Even if it's the same subject and point of view. I guess that's my southern snobbery coming out. I have no professional photos on my wall, but I do have a painting I purchased that was painted from a photo. After seeing the photo, I much preferred the painting.
I think I need to go gallery shopping for a professionally shot photo and see if it sways my thinking.
Post a Comment