The Bosley Cloud, Cheshire (revised)

[JJWilliamson]

Oil on canvas 50 x 40 cms. The Cloud is a hill and rock formation that overlooks the Cheshire Plain, NW England. Many walkers ascend to this modest summit simply to enjoy the views. I wonder about the aerial perspective. The linear perspective is working well enough but the atmospheric perspective is bothering me just a touch.

I painted this as a commission for one of our local doctors, and if he doesn't like it I'll put him in A & E. *lol*

They drive a hard bargain those doctors.

Points of critique welcome because I have yet to frame it.

The revision is on top.

The Cloud, final 25 02 2020 002 (700 pix).jpg (171.12 KiB) Viewed 5942 times

The Cloud, 18 02 2020 revised 005 700 pix.jpg (209.01 KiB) Viewed 6010 times

[Macavity]

Lovely yellows JJ. Sorry, I've got to ask the palette question

Could you elaborate on your linear/atmospheric concerns?

I'm getting a blurred, smudge effect on the left side of the rock, but this maybe due to my viewing medium. I presume it represents lichen. I should say Mrs Mac disagreed and the rocks were her fav. bit.

These are my initials thoughts, but will ponder some more.

best

mac

[NotQuiteSure]

.
Hi JJ,
picture of two halves for me.
The foreground and rock work very well (Mrs Mac is right) but the 'top half' seems to have very little to hold ones interest. I'm not keen on the perspective that has the distant 'greens' above that rock. I'd imagine the field are flat-ish but this looks like they rise up as if the were a very gentle slope/hill and the depth/drop in the foreground right seems almost undermined by this effect. It's almost too pleasant to be interesting, there doesn't even seem to be any movement on could attribute to a stiff breeze.
And the signature seems poorly placed as well. (Purely on the picture as it appears on screen. Were the sky/horizon a couple of centimetres lower it might be more engaging.)

Oh yeah, and here's a massive pinch of salt ...

Regards, Not

.

[JJWilliamson]

Thank you very much, mac and Not, for dropping in to comment. I know I keep saying it but it IS much appreciated.

Lovely yellows JJ. Sorry, I've got to ask the palette question ...No prob's. Titanium white, cad yellow, primary yellow, home mixed greens using Paynes grey and yellow with a touch of red, phthalo blue, ultramarine, cerulean blue, burnt umber.

Could you elaborate on your linear/atmospheric concerns? ...Linear perspective is the kind of receding perspective we experience when staring down a long street. The houses become smaller as we follow the road. Aerial perspective achieves a sense of distance by mimicking how the atmosphere dulls colour the further away an object is. So distant hills etc often take on a blue-grey hue. Combining the two helps to create a depth that looks convincing to the eye, like an illusion.

I'm getting a blurred, smudge effect on the left side of the rock, but this maybe due to my viewing medium. I presume it represents lichen. I should say Mrs Mac disagreed and the rocks were her fav. bit. ...Ah, that's interesting. It IS supposed to represent lichen and mossy growth. Delighted Mrs Mac enjoyed that aspect. Thanks for letting me know.

These are my initials thoughts, but will ponder some more.

best

mac

.
Hi JJ,
picture of two halves for me.
The foreground and rock work very well (Mrs Mac is right) but the 'top half' seems to have very little to hold ones interest. I'm not keen on the perspective that has the distant 'greens' above that rock. I'd imagine the field are flat-ish but this looks like they rise up as if the were a very gentle slope/hill and the depth/drop in the foreground right seems almost undermined by this effect. It's almost too pleasant to be interesting, there doesn't even seem to be any movement on could attribute to a stiff breeze. ...The plain does actually roll in places and is by no means flat, even though it looks flat. I'm stuck with my choice of view, what with it being a commission and all. If this was for me I'd hang some deep dark clouds in the sky and paint sunrays creeping through, illuminating some of the fields. I still might paint a couple of figures at the top of the rock to help with the scale of things. I'm resisting the temptation to include birds.
And the signature seems poorly placed as well. (Purely on the picture as it appears on screen. Were the sky/horizon a couple of centimetres lower it might be more engaging.) ...The placing of a signature is always a bother for me. I chose the right side because the left contained the focal point.

Oh yeah, and here's a massive pinch of salt ... All thoughts gratefully received.

Regards, Not

.

Best to both

JJ

[NotQuiteSure]

.
Hi JJ.

I'm resisting the temptation to include birds.
I did look ... a lot!

I still might paint a couple of figures at the top of the rock to help with the scale of things
I'd argue against that. I don't think you need any more points of interest in that quarter.
(And I thought that upright plant was supposed to do that job).

If this was for me I'd hang some deep dark clouds in the sky and paint sunrays creeping through,
illuminating some of the fields.
Yes, that would help. Or a contrail or something in the top right to add interest. Commissioner say nay?
I suppose all this angst must represent the problems of painting on commission. Seems to be something
in the vicinity of 'first world problem'. I'll just go look for that tiny violin.

Regards, Not.

ps. It looks better today, for some reason (though the top third ...)



.

[JJWilliamson]

Thanks again, Not, for looking in again. Appreciated.

I've taken a few approaches with the revision, bearing your (and mac's) comments in mind. I firstly softened the horizon hills, then added a blue glaze to the background plain to push it back further and to enhance the foreground rock formation. Secondly, I added more yellow to the shrubbery in the foreground, then fiddled about with the grasses and gorse at the top of the rock. Finally, I intensified the tone and hue on the lower fields (nearest to the hill) in an attempt to further increase the impression of distance. See what you think.

JJ

[NotQuiteSure]

.

Hi JJ

I like the 'horizon hills' and the sky in the revision (the 'greyer' clouds) and what I'm assuming is the effect of the 'blue glaze' (the blurring of the 'field's end and horizon hills beginning'). Overall the problematic 'top third' is definitely improved. There's still the empty space problem, but maybe, given the constraints of the commission, that's not something you can resolve.

(Going to get my terms wrong here, I'm sure, but) the other changes make the piece look 'over-saturated', where the original had a 'healthy/natural' pallette/tone the revision ... not so much. (Less summery more inappropriately autumnal). That said, somehow you've got a breeze blowing through the foreground, which I like (possibly it's the plants - bottom middle - now leaning to the left?)
The detail on the rock(s) doesn't seem as precise/characterful in the revision.
Whatever changes you made to the lower fields, I think their effect gets cancelled out by the other alterations. I can see how making them 'darker' would work (makes the vertical dimension more pronounced, I imagine, but I'm not getting the 'impression of distance' you mention).

Hope that helps.
(More salt is available, if needed).

Regards, Not.


.

[JJWilliamson]

Thanks for getting back to me, Not, with your thoughts and assessments. Appreciated.

.

Hi JJ

I like the 'horizon hills' and the sky in the revision (the 'greyer' clouds) and what I'm assuming is the effect of the 'blue glaze' (the blurring of the 'field's end and horizon hills beginning'). Overall the problematic 'top third' is definitely improved. There's still the empty space problem, but maybe, given the constraints of the commission, that's not something you can resolve. ...Not much I can do with the empty space apart from play with colour and climate. One to consider for the future, though. It's helped to talk about this weakness AND to wait before responding, mainly because distance always helps to focus the mind and eye.

(Going to get my terms wrong here, I'm sure, but) the other changes make the piece look 'over-saturated', where the original had a 'healthy/natural' pallette/tone the revision ... not so much. ...That's interesting. The original palette reflected an overcast sky and this one's clear (ish) so I referred to a bright photo for the colour changes. I think the tone is incorrect, although the saturation seems ok. I'll change the tone and possibly hue to correct the balance. I agree with you where the lower fields are concerned.

(Less summery more inappropriately autumnal). That said, somehow you've got a breeze blowing through the foreground, which I like (possibly it's the plants - bottom middle - now leaning to the left?)
The detail on the rock(s) doesn't seem as precise/characterful in the revision. ...The rock is untouched, and only the rock flora has been altered. It could be the photo because the light was definitely different.
Whatever changes you made to the lower fields, I think their effect gets cancelled out by the other alterations. I can see how making them 'darker' would work (makes the vertical dimension more pronounced, I imagine, but I'm not getting the 'impression of distance' you mention).

Hope that helps.
(More salt is available, if needed). ...All grist to the mill.

Regards, Not.


.

All the best

JJ