Here is a still life that I started over a year ago. It was originally not so good, but I made some changes and now I like it a lot. What do you think, did I improve it?
For me the lesson is that paintings that seem to not work so well may be a few strokes away from something good.
Clearer. So much more clarity and detail. Definitely a great change. I loved the pitted marks on the surface of the pear.
It speaks of health, fruit salads, great mornings and the good life to me. The cracked vase still brings me back to reality.
Hanneke,
Your still lifes leave me breathless. I am reminded of the ancient Greek story about a painting contest in which the winner is determined when the runner-up tries to draw the curtain — that the other painted has painted on stone.
But beyond the living quality of the work is the loving quality of it. Thank you.
My, what a great lesson on the power of texture.
As always, you amaze.
Hanneke,
What is your trick for ripening pears in a bowl?
A year ago, the four pears looked blue-green and tough. Now they have ripened into a yellow-green color. Looking softer, they promise to be very juicy.
It’s hard to tell in detail about the pears, but the photography of the painting is certainly much better. The pears are certainly fabulous now, but I preferred the earlier lighting on table and bowl, which are, at least on my monitor, barely detectable. I’m left with the somewhat disconcerting feel of a flatter bowl floating in space.
Ah, at last, I can disagree with Steve.
I like the slightly floating sensation — or rather, what I think of as the chiaroscuro mystery of that black black space. I don’t see the bowl as flat (I’ll have to go back and check the earlier post to see if it “flatter.”
Isn’t it possible that adding a table under the bowl would lessen rather than add to the painting? I mean, of course, it’s possible (duh, june said the obvious) , but might it not lessen rather than add to?
Ah, discord at last!
The bowl doesn’t seem actually flat, of course, but it does seem less three-dimensional than the previous version.
As for the table, that is a matter of personal preference. But Hanneke’s work seems to me very grounded in reality, and her bowl should, in my humble opinion, be grounded on a table. Setting it out to float does create an interesting, slightly surrealistic atmosphere, but it doesn’t seem to fit with other aspects of her style. I would be interested to know how she thought of it.
hi ,thanks for your comments!
the bowl doesn’t float , there is a table under and a very dark piece of velvet in the picture here it is barely to see,but in real it is a bit better.
today I worked on another pear picture and did a good job on the cloth since Steve pointed this out to me .
Oh, good, Hanneke, with another painting with the cloth being more obvious, we can do further comparisons. I’m surprised Steve didn’t photoshop a ground into the web image…..
Hanneke,
I wrote this to June and she suggested I post it here:
I love those pears! But for me the composition is just a little too static, too square. I wish the top pear angled a bit to the right or something. Is that offensive? I’m not sure. But I want to own that bowl and eat those pears and also sit and just contemplate them. I also can see the table and find them anchored in a reality that they make irrelevant. They seem to me to be very real in a way that surpasses the quotidian and take one straight to another dimension. And I can’t think of one piece of fiber art that measures up (as a still life).