Citizen Sketcher

So, let’s see if I can describe what worked for me in this dome. (Bonsecour Market, in the old port area).

Normally, I would paint the dome first thing, as it is the center of interest. But – as it’s a silver, reflective object, I wanted it to integrate with the sky.

So:

A: I painted the sky first this time. My first mark was to cut around the bright, right-hand side of the dome, starting to draw the shape negatively, with dry, white paper.

B: I let the sky bleed into the shadowed left-hand side of the dome, and below, in the barrel, where the windows would later be drawn.

C: I *did not* cut around the little cupola on the top of the dome. Because I knew I would put that dark shape on top of the sky later. (Using bloodstone genuine, (an opaque-ish pigment), after waiting for the blue sky to dry). In general, you shouldn’t cut around such a tiny shape. You’ll never get a smooth sky behind it. This has to be done in one go.

So – in all cases – the shadowed left side, the bright right side, and the tiny gaps in the cupola – I made the right decisions, multiple moves in advance.

Pats self on back.

It’s the little victories that keep you motivated!

Ok! So. I went back and re-did my city hall painting – working from a photo back home.

This is pretty much the scene I failed to get on the spot – except – it’s about 50 yards further downhill. Got to remember the mantra: Get further away from the subject!

With the buildings smaller in the distance, it’s easier to treat them as simple forms with minimal detail. Just big shapes! I was previously getting lost on the details of the tower, the statue of Jaques Cartier on the plinth – there’s a clock on the front of the building, there’s decorative moulding and pillars on a balcony. Too much information!

All this stuff can be ignored when you pull back and paint the *entire* town square – not one individual building.

I still find this particular piece to be tentative. A bit of a shy statement. Dry and scratchy in some areas. But! I’m enjoying the brush-work calligraphy in the street vendors, and in all the windows and restaurant awnings on the far side.

Ah, overconfidence. Thy name is watercolorist.

Or something.

I mean, if we weren’t unreasonably optimistic, would we even be trying Direct Watercolor?

I had three false starts today! Which made me quite annoyed, as I was trying to paint our city hall – which I’ve painted many times before, and thought would be a piece of cake. But just couldn’t get it this time.

This is Fail #2. I won’t show you Fail #1.

I suppose this isn’t the worst thing ever made – but it’s cluttered, monochromatic, poorly proportioned, and far too pale! This is what happens when you try to draw nitpicky details – almost like a line drawing with the brush – instead of seeing shapes.

This is Fail #3. At this point, I just gave up. This initial shape was monochrome and way way too watery. It’s like a ghost! Someone suggested ice cream and I promptly gave up.

Out of desperation, we relocated behind the Gare Viger. Our old train station, which is now – I think, a convention center? – and shops.

There’s a pedestrian overpass that gives you a great view of the back side of the building. We’re looking over the parking lot in the unfinished foreground. It’s amazing that this old building is just as detailed on the back as the front. No budget-cutting in those days.

This view works for me, as it’s straight-on. No perspective problems! Much easier for my pea-brain.

My second rule of solving perspective. Move! Til you don’t see any :)

And, when I talk about false starts here – honestly – refusing to do a line-drawing before painting – insisting on going directly in with a brush – this is only being obstinate.

Some subjects really should have a bit of a drawing. These buildings are fantastically complicated.

I think, back when I was doing finished drawings underneath everything, these subjects attracted me, because of the complexity. All the cupolas and towers and clocks – something to sink your teeth into. Now that I’m doing Direct Watercolor – I’m getting more interested in painting the wider view. The city skyline, instead of a portrait of a fancy building.

But – struggling with the lack of drawing aside. When I *do* finally get one of these – there’s something about this spontaneous, calligraphic brushwork that I really love! It makes the torn up paintings (on expensive paper today! <oh, the pain!) just the price of achieving success.

At the end of the day, I know I could get better and better at tinting drawings. I probably should have stuck with that. I still might go back! But doing this stuff is taking one step back from draftsmanship in order to take two steps forward toward painting.

Driving up Dr. Penfield, behind the McTavish Reservoir. I love the fact that a water tank in Montreal comes with a chateau. Isn’t this the best city for an urban sketcher?

I suppose the elegant roof-line makes this not quite a Nothing View. It’s halfway toward my old-fashioned architectural portrait. But you could call it a kind of action-shot of a building?

You really can see St. Joseph’s from everywhere on the island.

See it in the distance there? There’s supposedly a city by-law that no structure can be taller than the top of the mountain – just to keep this view intact.

Confession: this was painted, once again, from a drive-by-photo. In fact, I did it yesterday, right after the water tower. That’s how we’re getting 30 paintings in 30 days! By using every free moment! Even if it means doing three in one night to get ahead :)

What went right?

I’m super happy with the adaptation – the simplification, and stylization of negative space, turning what is otherwise a Nothing View, into a painting. I’m slowly realizing what has been working for me with these.

If the view is about nothing – you’re free to change anything.

When you’re painting an architectural portrait of a well-known landmark – maybe you feel, you have to get it right? But with this kind of casual snapshot, I can do whatever I want! Haha!

What went wrong?

You know – right now, I’m ready to say – nothing!

At this stage, after so many false starts this week, I’m pretty much in love with this painting.

It’s not perfect, but it’s in the spirit of what Direct Watercolor is for me.

Painting by instinct, making silhouettes, and letting the pigment move freely inside shapes.

Quick tip: These last few days with rainy skies – I’ve been doing these by pre-wetting the sky shape with clear water, then charging into the damp paper with a milky mix of grey-of-grey, indigo, and touches of turquoise. While I’m painting the sky, it’s the only wet shape. The blue hill for instance, is dry. So the water can go crazy in the wet sky, and won’t enter the dry land.

~m

Another Nothing View!

I’m having too much fun with these. They are so against-type for me. It’s almost a joke among my friends – any Gothic church or over-the-top opera house is a ‘Marc Sketch’. I would never paint something like this water tower! But here it is, and it was fun to do :)

This is a slice of Highway15 Sud that we end up crawling past due to our eternal bridge construction. It’s painted from another drive-by photo – another example of Bad Photos make Good Paintings. We’ll see if, by the end of 30×30, that can become an official rule around here.

I was going to take progress shots, but I got distracted and only have the one. Anyway, here’s how I started – right into the water tower. It’s such a prominent figure in this painting, I guess I couldn’t start anywhere else.

Post Script: Here’s a couple false starts, trying to get in a quick one of this scooter. For some reason, I’m obsessed with failing at drawing motorcycles!

I wasn’t going to show these, but I was feeling guilty. I mean, there was some big talk at the beginning about showing everything, success or failure :) I dunno, about these. They’re a bit rushed. I might try again later.

What went wrong?

Nothing!

This is my favorite so far!

I had one false start this AM, but I quit before wasting too much time and relocated to this spot – which has been on my mental ‘to sketch’ list for a while now.

Well OK, one cheat here. I chose to leave out the cars on the freeway.

I might have been braver and tried to get them in? Even though they’re moving fast, they do just keep coming. I could draw them ‘En-Passant‘, the same way I draw moving people on a busy street.

So maybe I get to try another of these with the cars as the focus.

What went right?

Everything!

It’s another take on a Nothing View. A painting that’s not about anything. No statue of an angel, no Siberian tiger, no cute farmhouse. Just a freeway. But this time the perspective is good, the complexity of the street is well simplified, and the details are nice and sharp. Most people probably don’t want a painting of a freeway – but I’m very happy with this sketch.

Post Script: Here’s today’s false start. Before I remembered this freeway bridge, I tried this cute house over on Ponsard. I think the drawing here – the brush drawing that is – just isn’t up to snuff. For whatever reason it’s disorganized, and a bit blobby. Doesn’t make the cut!

What went wrong?

I’m trying something here, which I’m tentatively calling: Nothing Views.

That is – you should be able to make a painting of any street. Even if there’s no obvious subject. This is from the intersection of Queen Mary and Côte-des-Neiges.

My working theory is: any view, no matter how ‘boring’ – a painter should be able to make something of it.

Why is this an issue for me? I’m wondering if it’s a kind of cheating, or mental laziness if every painting you make has to have an idyllic view.

It’s a kind of burgeoning problem for me.

If I’m ONLY a travel sketcher, galivanting around the world painting ancient ruins or epic landscapes – what am I supposed to do with myself at home? What’s a sustainable kind of image you can engage with on an everyday basis? <This is an open question].

What went right?

The upper right-hand corner.

What went wrong?

Rushed out in the morning for a sketch – choose another view (not this one) based on shelter from the rain. I thought I had something workable, but two terrible attempts on location and I was out of time.

So – took a snapshot from the car, and used that for a sketch in the studio.

I’m developing a theory of painting from reference which is: Bad Photos make Good Paintings.

This is obviously me being Mary-Mary-Quite-Contrary. But my point is, a great photo has too much information. You end up being dominated by the image, slavishly painting what the photographer gave you.

A terrible photo doesn’t own you like that.

Incidentally, even back home in the studio, it’s not always easier. Here are two examples of a false start.

If I don’t come out of the blocks right, I might as well give up. I feel like the sooner you can sense the need to bail-out, the better. Save your energy for the re-do! If there’s a fundamental flaw – like too much chroma in the base color – the painting is doomed. (At least in watercolor).  As well, there’s no saving bad proportions or improper placement on the page.

This is something I see far too often with students or beginners. Trying to beat a dead horse, instead of giving up and just starting again.

If the placement on the page is poor – spending time finishing that is not going to help! You’re just going to feel worse having used your whole time on that painting! Once you produce that dud, it’s as if we don’t have the energy to do it again. Or – more likely – we’re feeling a (false) sense of failure.

Think of every re-do as a victory over a bad painting! Not a failure – a necessary sacrifice.

So – what went right? 

I’m remembering how to draw with the brush. What precision feels like. And remembering to pre-visualize the shape I want to draw – then draw it completely. All in one go. One shape at a time, not jumping around.

Keep edges sharp, and avoid holes in the silhouette, or any false hard-edges inside what should be a clean, simplified shape.

Also, I’m getting a good base value finally.

When a value is perfect the moment you place it – it will dry TOO LIGHT.

It has to look too dark initially so it will dry upwards to a proper value.

Watercolor generally shifts up in value – the wetter the wash, the more the shift as it dries.

Also, I feel like on day three, I’m judging paint consistency more accurately. It’s Tea in the stone walls, but Milk in the clouds, and juicy Honey in the dark trees.

Ok, that’s day three! See you tomorrow!

~m