"Searsmont Farm" 30"x4o" o/c © Brian Kliewer collection MBNA/Bank of America
I recently got a very nice compliment on the "balance" I achieve in my work. Here are some of the writer's words...
Brian,
I was reading an entry on Painter's Keys that you wrote on being self-taught. This was an inspiration to me as I am also largely self-taught (and continually learning!) I thought your paintings were beautiful and was so glad to see the detail you put into them. Various people I paint with keep telling me to back off too much detail but you seem to achieve such a wonderful balance. Seeing what you do encourages me to learn how to use detail wisely without losing it all together.
I thought I'd post a tip on adding detail. "Searsmont Farm" above looks highly detailed and it is...sort of. The fields were painted very quickly, however. I used a vigorous brushstroke over most of the area. I also added individual blades of grass. But, in places where it seemed too labored with too many blades, I came back in with a larger brush loaded with paint and obliterated them as needed. It still looks detailed but that look was directly created by the agitated masses of larger brushstrokes....along with similar but slightly different colors, painted side by side. Individual blades were left in place where needed, especially in the foreground area. But even there I came in with a larger brush where needed to reduce the "busyness." I will actually go right into a "finished" grassy area and butcher all that "handiwork" with a larger brush until it feels comfortable to my eye. It works. I once heard an artist say that "sometimes you have to kill your babies." At the time I didn't understand what he was getting at. Over the years I learned that falling in love with too much detail was one of "my babies." These days I try to soften that look.
I love Frank McCarthy's (sometimes spelled as MacCarthy) western scenes and I do think he was a master. BUT online, at least, some of his paintings can look too busy to me. Here's one that shows what I mean:
I think "Where Tracks Will Be Lost" is an excellent example of his work. But to my eye, all of that crisp detail is tiring. (If you do a Google search for it you might find images online that show an even busier look than what I have here...used according to the guidelines of FAIR USE.)
Here's a question... Have you ever been at an event with a large audience, like a ballpark or a convention center? While there, have you just watched the crowd from a distance without focusing on anyone specifically? It's a very "organic" experience. All the "pieces" appear to be moving all at the same time. A "textual mosaic" appearance results. There is a visual "buzz" that, while fun to watch, after a few moments gets tiring. That's much the same feeling I get when I look at this McCarthy. But this was his style, and that's fine. It just didn't work for me. To my mind, and eye, detail needs to be softened and not so sharply focused in order to work well in a painting. The painting can still be sharply detailed, but highlighting every area screams "look here! look here!" Before you know it, it becomes much like looking at the text of a book, giving the eye no place to rest.
Another way of adding detail without doing so in a belabored way is to create a very agitated underpainting and allow some of it to show through in the final painting. I often do this with grassy areas. This helps to give a detailed look while not nearly as much detail was actually used. But again, I will always "kill" any area that needs to be subdued with a larger brush.
Comments are welcome.
Aldermere's Pride 18"x24" o/c © Brian Kliewer
