I like the bright colors and the pinks and greens are a good contrast, but I’m far enough away from having drawn it to have a vague sense of it looking “amateurish.” But what does that word mean? And can I get away with it? I may have been thinking of “naive art,” but there is a fine line between “amateur” and “naive.” The first encourages you to change things, while the second ignited an entire art movement.
Let me first look up “naive art.” … Okay, according to our much beloved Wikipedia, “Naïve art is any form of visual art that is created by a person who lacks the formal education and training that a professional artist undergoes (in anatomy, art history, technique, perspective, ways of seeing).”
Well, I can always say I’m “authentic,” as in I am a bona fide amateur. But how can this be art? …
Back to Wikipedia… “Naïve art is recognized, and often imitated, for its childlike simplicity and frankness. Paintings of this kind typically have a flat rendering style with a rudimentary expression of perspective.”
So… It’s imitated by artists who have had formal training in the arts. Which means… “they know what they’re doing.” Sorry, that’s another one of those phrases that get tossed around. Like being “happily surprised” by the results of one’s work in the context of other work having been criticized for being “contrived.” We praise an artist who discovered something, meaning one does not know what one is doing, and criticize an artist for knowing exactly what one is doing (and letting it show in one’s work) which can look “formulaic.” And when looking for the “it” factor, please don’t say, “You’ll know it when you see it.” That’s not helpful.
… Maybe the only way an artist can know what any of this jargon means is by actual experience with producing and evaluating one’s own art and critically seeing others’ art from an artists’ point of view.
So… back to “Flowers”… I admit… I am not “getting away with” … anything. Even for “naive art,” it’s not done well, because the elements of the work lack follow through, and in the end, it shows signs that I did not know what I was doing.
- There are streaks in the watercolor, which if done intentionally, could’ve been used to create the illusion of volume. Not that I wanted volume; I wanted solid blocks of color, for which gouache would’ve been good. OTOH, having time to think about it, I’ve decided against using gouache, because I like the translucency of the watercolor of the vases and the flowers often overlap with the vases; and I have other plans for the flowers anyway.
- The perspective isn’t only rudimentary. It’s inconsistent. You don’t see a table, but it’s implied the vases are standing on some surface, by virtue of the tops of the vases being visible and elliptical and the vases being somewhat three dimensional. Some of the flowers are also seen at an angle. So it’s not flat and for the perspective which is there, I failed to follow through. On a more positive note, I’m glad I did not add the details of a surface, and instead allowed for it to only be implied, as I would have had to work that into the composition, as something else that interacts in lines, shapes and colors with the vases and flowers, and that would have been too much. It’s enough to only have vases vs flowers.
- Coloring in the flowers freezes the fluidity of the lines. What I liked about the flowers, from the beginning, was there fluidity, and yet (maybe because I was thinking of the flatness of “naive art”), I decided to color them in. The fluidity implies volume, which is three dimensional, while coloring them in makes them flat and two dimensional.. Moreover, once drawn in, some of the flowers lost their sense of being flowers.
Over all, I had the problem of being inconsistent, which can lead to the vague criticism of being “amateurish” or “it lacks confidence” or “it lacks focus” or “it follow through.” If I wanted solid blocks of color, I should’ve found a way to make that happen. OTOH, if I wanted the fluidity of the lines, I should’ve found a way to make that work. Same with the perspective. If I didn’t want perspective to rule over this drawing, I shouldn’t have given each object a given angle. However, having given each object an angle, I should’ve followed through with all of them being seen from varying angles, according to how far away the viewer is away from each.
Here goes attempt #2
I made a carbon copy of the original.
This was in pencil, of course, on which I could then edit the perspective as well as the composition. There seemed to be too many flowers — a case of “less is more” — which made it “cluttered.” Sorry, more jargon. What I mean is… the flowers were overpowering the vases, and taking out a couple of them allows the vases to be the focal point and compete equally with the flowers.*
This was done on drawing paper and saved as a copy of the second version, below.
I then prepared a sheet of watercolor paper by giving it seven washes of tea. (It turns out that I’d been using red tea and not green tea.) It creates a yellowish hue, which I like more than the bright white I began with because it’s more “muted” (or bright white has a greater contrast with the other colors), and doesn’t call as much attention to the negative space… which I have a lot of.*
I’ve also decided to use ink for the flowers, which I intend to fill in with hashes. The translucency of the watercolor is an integral part of how the flowers and vases interact with each other, and using lines not only (1) maintains a sense of translucency, it maintains (2) the fluidity of the original idea for each flower. Now, if I were to only portray the flowers as outlines, as seen below, they may look “unfinished.” Sorry… What I mean is… the flowers have to be substantial enough to compete with the vases. I also cannot forget that the contrast between the pinks and greens was a major element in and of itself and an integral part of the interaction between the flowers and vases. Using red ink (3) will be as good of a contrast as the various shades of pink and (4) filling in details with hashes adds volume helps the flowers compete equally with the vases.*
To be continued…
* The paragraphs which are followed with an asterisk were edited 11/29/18.
The below references are for the quotes from Wikipedia and taken from the Wikipedia page on Naive art.
- Benedetti, Joan M. (19 April 2008). “Folk Art Terminology Revisited: Why It (Still) Matters”. In Roberto, K. R. Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front. McFarland. p. 113. ISBN 978-1-4766-0512-8.
- Walker, John Albert (26 April 1992). Glossary of Art, Architecture, and Design Since 1945. London: Library Association Publishing. p. 433. ISBN 978-0-85365-639-5. OCLC 26202538.
- Matulka, Denise I. (2008). “Anatomy of a Picture Book: Picture, Space, Design, Medium, and Style § Naïve Art”. A Picture Book Primer: Understanding and Using Picture Books. Westport: Libraries Unlimited. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-59158-441-4. OCLC 225846825.