Results 1 to 13 of 252
Thread: Advanced Composition Discussion
January 28th, 2008 #1
Advanced Composition Discussion
I’ve started this thread in order to continue a discussion that myself and Kev Ferrara were having over on the ALCHEMY still life thread in the ‘It’s finally finished’ section.
It concerns the idea of what takes place in our imagination when we describe space into the flat surface of the picture plane. The activity can be thought of as a ‘modelling’ of forms whereby things are built up out of a formless matter that is ‘put there’ into the empty space of the picture plane, gradually filling it up. This I refer to as ‘Modelling conception’.
However there is another imaginative fantasy involving the way the business of making an image is practiced in the mind of the artist. This is where the forms are felt to be ‘uncovered’ or ‘carved’ as if they were forms waiting to be released from the cube of white in a way analogous to the carver wresting the forms hidden in the block of stone. This I refer to as a ‘Carving conception’.
Below is the discussion so far between myself and Kev. I hope others will join in as it is a little understood principle since most analysis of pictures is thought of from a ‘modelling’ viewpoint which is inadequate to explain what is happening in works that have been produced with a ‘carving’ proclivity.
I think what everyone has been saying here is essentially right. But something else occurred to me:
When looking at composition we can think of it as falling into what can be imagined as 'modelling conception' on one hand and 'carving conception' in the other. Modelling conception is an additive, building up of forms. Carving conception is an 'uncovering', a taking away to reveal the forms.
Problems arrive when a modelling conception is used to try and produce a composition that would be the natural outcome of carving.
Below are some extremely 'static' compositions but are alive and 'hum' with presence because they are conceived by a carving state of mind.
Kev Farrara replies:
Chris... I'm not quite sure what you mean be carving versus adding...
but rather than looking at anything too specifically, I think the graphics and vectors in two of these compositions do all the required explaining about what is causing their compositional dynamism.
Chris Bennett replies:
Kev, there are carving and modeling elements in all paintings but it is a question of degree. For instance Piero Della Francesca, Bruegel, Morandi, Cezanne and Picasso were mainly 'carvers'. Van Eyck, Rubens, Rembrandt, Constable, Matisse were more 'modelers'. Of the 'illustrators' Frazetta and Rockwell are modelers, John Jude Palencar and Mark English are carvers with Jeff Jones being somewhere in the middle of the two.
The vector analysis you made of the Morandi and the Cardin explains what is happening with the modeling component in these works, but in my view this is not their main method of realisation. They are essentially 'carving' paintings. To take a musical analogy; what you are pointing out is the melody (which is there, but not the thing that is taking the real strain of what these paintings are about) whereas these are 'harmonic' paintings - they are read 'all at once' more than experienced as a series of movements around the surface. The forms are rather to be explained as a series of pressures both of colour, tone and volume that steady each other, scratch each other's back if you will. The eye is invited to take in everything together and enjoy a stable solution of balance, involving a measured scanning movement, whereas in the modeling conception the eye is encouraged to move about and derive satisfaction from an eventful journey.
Colour can be though of in the same way: Modeling colour is a tug of war whereas carving colour stresses their ultimate union in white.
Kev Ferrara replies:
Chris... we may be hijacking the thread but this is a very interesting topic to me so...
I guess I have trouble grasping what you mean by "carving". I think I would say the distinction you are drawing is between "shapes and area" (eastern) versus "form and vector" (western).
But, from my perspective shapes often have a vector components, and have edges that are vectors, or arms that are vectors... and shapes also comprise forms, so to me, an artist such as Jones or N.C. Wyeth is simply falling in the very middle of the circle with its compass points at vector, area, shape, and form.
There are many Frazetta and Rockwell pieces that also fall in the middle (usually the best ones), though almost no Ruebens, who was a true "modeller". Meanwhile Diebekorn is all shape and area.
The still life with water glass and kettle can also be analyzed in terms of shape and area.... as all good compositions should be able to. That is, a good composition should work as shapes and areas, but also as vectors and forms, simultaneously. In this case, though, the simplicity of the shape/area analysis seemed so calm, whereas the vector analysis was so obviously dynamic, that I thought I could better judge the cause of its dynamism by way of vectors.
Does my understanding dovetail with what you mean?
Last edited by Chris Bennett; February 1st, 2008 at 10:43 AM.
January 28th, 2008 #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
So, from what I gather from this conversation, the carving technique has more to do with negative space drawing (something I could never do correctly unless I'm having an "artistic" day).
And the modeling technique is the opposite...that is building forms by "feeling them out"
Is that right?
January 29th, 2008 #3
If you are thinking of maintaining the sense of the surface when painting or drawing, then any 'holes' appearing will be anathema to you. The holes in the space created by a modelling conception are to do with an almost exclusive regard for the form one is making and leaving the other areas as a 'non event'. If you are trying to maintain the integrity of the surface then you will have automatic regard for all the surface and the 'negative shapes' will not be experienced as such at all. Everything will have equal favour even though there will be a hierarchy of forms.
The Following User Says Thank You to Chris Bennett For This Useful Post:
February 29th, 2008 #4
This thread interests me, though I haven't been able o read through it properly yet (lot's of pages, lot's of knowledge, lot's of text...)
I have to interrupt for a second and ask who the author of this painting is. Any idea? Posted on the first page, and just beatiful
February 29th, 2008 #5
Prepare to be amazed and bent in half by what you will see here - it may fuck you up for a couple of months before you finish assimilating what he has done......
Last edited by Chris Bennett; March 5th, 2008 at 08:15 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Chris Bennett For This Useful Post:
January 30th, 2008 #6
love your analitical eyes man,thank you...how about these....
January 30th, 2008 #7
kev in regards to your analysis of the Uglow image you questioned the purpose of the component field's design, and stated that there was no real directionality to it. however seeing your vector shape breakdown (post 10) of the figure it seems hard for me personally to remove the vectors from the planning of the component field (post 11).
such breakdowns shouldnt be analyzed independant of each other. to paraphrase gestalt's theory of unified design which i'm sure is old news to all of us "the sum of a composition is greater than any individual part"
it almost seems to me that there is a directionality to the rhythmic structure of the component field. if the viewers eyes gets thrown off the windmill, so to speak it will likely be into the more vast area of the painting which the viewer has not yet 'explored'. the vertical tree serves to prevent the eye from roaming off of the picture plane. it is when the viewer reaches this point that i feel the underlying shapes of the background help to drive the viewer back to the complexity of the figure.
so basically i'm proposing that the component field is a horizontal segway to transit the attention where the artist intends. it has a directionality in a pervese sublte way of trying to be unnoticed.
anyway i hope that wasn't read with eyes rolling and saying "yes grief thanks for pointing out the bluntly obvious, go shut up". chris and kev good conversation, its given me a few new methods to approach the interest of pictoral 'flatness' that i've been seeking.
January 30th, 2008 #8
Chris-I still don't understand what you mean by the "carving conception" in the context of composition. Can you try another way of explaining it? I'm getting stuck on the words so far.
I can understand what carving would mean in the context of building up form (clay vs. marble), but not in the context of composition.
January 30th, 2008 #9
January 30th, 2008 #10
January 31st, 2008 #11
January 31st, 2008 #12
To my untrained eye, those last few look a lot like the examples in Loomis of what he calls "informal subdivision"
Or do I just need sleep/education?
btw I see the fib spiral Craig D alludes to.
Good reading either way, do carry on and I'll read it in the morning with some strong coffee.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flake For This Useful Post:
February 1st, 2008 #13
The Following User Says Thank You to Craig D For This Useful Post: