What you can and canā€™t change

Thought and practice moves our painting style, but itā€™s incremental, just like the Mary Day docking.

Winch (American Eagle), oil on canvasboard, by Carol L. Douglas, 12X16, $1449 framed.

Windjammers are slippery little devils. I should know that by now. You think you understand the rhythm of their comings and goings and you find one or two likely candidates and commit to painting them. Then you look away for a moment and you find a subject slipping away from her berth, heading out to sea.

That happened to me on Monday, when Iā€™d stopped to paint before my dentist appointment. (ā€˜Quickieā€™ has an entirely different meaning to artists than to the rest of the world.) Iā€™d limned in the ketch Angelique, and the light and shadows were notated, but as I sadly watched her slide out of her berth, I knew she wouldnā€™t be back for days.

ā€œYou didnā€™t take a photo, did you?ā€ asked Ken DeWaard. He knows most of my bad habits, thanks to my friend Terry spilling the beans. I could almost paint Angeliquefrom memory, but that never ends well. I shook my head ruefully, and begged him for a picture. ā€œIā€™m just enabling you,ā€ he muttered, but he sent it to me anyway.

Lobster fleet at Eastport, oil on canvas, 24×30, $3478 framed.

There was still the fine flat transom of the Lewis R. French to paint. She celebrated her 150th birthday this year, and thatā€™s something to celebrate. We both set to again, but not five minutes later, Mary Day hove into view. She was heading for the berth directly in front of us. Normally, that would be a good thing, but it would obliterate the rest of our view.

Mary Day doesnā€™t have an engine; sheā€™s pushed into place by a tender. Itā€™s fascinating to watch 90ā€™ of wood and sails delicately slide into her berth, guided by a tiny gnat of a boat. Since our subjects had vanished into the rhythm of a working harbor, we had no choice but to sit back and enjoy the spectacle. We talked about color and mark-making.

Striping (Heritage), oil on canvasboard, 6X8, $435 framed.

I hold that mark-making is as personal as handwriting. Once youā€™ve taught someone how to form their letters, you have very little control over the finished product. Iā€™m shocked, sometimes, to see how much my handwriting resembles my motherā€™s. Thatā€™s a real mystery, since Iā€™m a lefty and she was right-handed.

As a teacher, I do influence my studentsā€™ marks. ā€œDonā€™t dab!ā€ Iā€™m wont to say, although Iā€™m well aware that Pierre Bonnard dabbed to great effect. Heā€™s the exception that proves the rule. Dabbing, in the hands of beginners, looks amateurish.

Mostly, I ask them to experiment with all the different things a brush can do and then find their own ways of using them. Once theyā€™ve found that place, itā€™s pointless to try to shake it up too much. (This is why I donā€™t encourage palette-knife painting in my classes; it short-circuits this process.)

Pleasure boats, oil on canvasboard, 12X16, $1159 unframed. Even though this is not ‘my style’, it’s still one of my favorite paintings.

ā€œThere are things that are immutable, and itā€™s pointless to try to change them,ā€ I said to Ken as we watched Mary Dayā€™s crew work. ā€œFor example, I canā€™t be 6ā€™5ā€ and you canā€™t have my curly hair.ā€

ā€œBut there are things you can change,ā€ said Ken. Heā€™s right, of course. Our choices of brushes, canvas and pigments all influence our paint application, just as choosing a gel pen makes us write differently than with a pencil. Thought and practice moves our painting style, but itā€™s incremental, just like the Mary Day docking. Rush that by copying someone else, and you risk being a parody.

I donā€™t know a single serious artist who thinks he or she is painting wellā€”even the ones who are highly successful. Weā€™re all on a quest; our vision is constantly changing. But through all that, we have something thatā€™s immutable. For lack of a better term, Iā€™ll call it our styles.

Checking my drawings

Even the most traditional painter can check his drawings against the photo evidence. Itā€™s a great use for Adobe Photoshop.

Mary Day (unfinished) by Carol L. Douglas

 As I mentioned in an earlier post, tracing from a projection is no guarantee youā€™ll get the drawing right. It was cold and wet yesterday. Instead of going to the North End Shipyard to finish my painting of the Mary Day, I stayed in my studio and fixed the bowsprit on my painting of the American Eagle.

That got me wondering whether I could check the accuracy of my field drawing. After all, the tools are crude: a pencil or brush, used as both ruler and protractor. The circumstances in which we draw are often difficult, too. The studio has the great advantage of being physically comfortable.
Mary Day in drydock.
I decided to compare my half-finished painting of the Mary Day to a reference photo I took of it. Since I have Adobe Photoshop, I used its ā€˜poster edgesā€™ filter on the reference photo. I then superimposed it on my painting. (If you donā€™t have Photoshop, you can superimpose photos using the freeware GIMP.)
Clearly, Iā€™ve taken significant license in raising the angle of the bow in my painting.  Within the structure of the hull itself, the volume relationships are pretty accurate. Of course, thatā€™s easy enough to check on site, by comparing the shapes of all the interstices within the cradle.
Superimposing the photo over my painting shows how far off the masts and booms are.
Where I went off the beam was in the rakeof the masts. The forward one is too vertical for the angle of the hull. Furthermore, multiple masts should tend to ‘toe in’ at the top, which mine definitely don’t do. This problem was then compounded in the booms. Since I set them relative to the horizon line, they ended up too high. That won’t do, and fixing them is now a high priority.
Iā€™m also making a note to myself to make sure I do my measurements from the boat, not the background.
Little Giant (North End Ship Yard), 16X12, oil on canvas, Carol L. Douglas
Note the pickup truck pulled in alongside the cradle. It was only there for a few minutes, but thatā€™s a subject for a painting of its own. Pickup trucks go with boats like cheese goes with apple pie, and theyā€™re often pretty close to actually being in the water.
I seldom take photos of things Iā€™ve painted. This isnā€™t a conscious choice; Iā€™m just finished and I move on. But I did find a picture of the Little Giant crane I painted last month. In this case, Iā€™d made a decision to angle the bed of the truck slightly to avoid a strong diagonal pointing toward the corner of my canvas. Iā€™d also raised the hook. But the photo tells me that the space relationships between the crane and the masts of the Heritage are very different in my painting and in the photo.
Superimposing the photo over my painting shows that I exaggerated the distance between the crane and the Heritage.
The camera distorts reality as assuredly as does the human eye, so in no case would I assume that one or the other is objectively more accurate. But, lightly applied, comparing oneā€™s paintings to photographs is a useful exercise.