Dusk Meadow 5x7
Hello, and welcome to Tonalist painting by M Francis McCarthy.
Today's painting is 'Dusk Meadow' 5x7.
Our video features the progression of this study from its early underpainting stage on up through the final finishing brushstrokes. Also featured is my usual rambling narration, so please check it out.
As I mentioned in the video, I have been reading a book called American Painters on Technique: 1860 - 1945. This book addresses a lot of the techniques that painters in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were using. While reading this book, I got to thinking quite a lot about Impressionist approaches as they contrast with the Tonalist approach to painting a landscape.
There are a lot of ways to contrast these two different ways of painting. Impressionism tends to favor direct painting in broad daylight, generally outdoors in front of the subject. Impressionist painters also tended not to utilize techniques like glazing and they would often leave their canvases unvarnished or, if they were varnishing they would strive to achieve a matt effect.
In contrast, Tonalist painting is usually done in the studio and will often portray periods of time of the day, like early morning or twilight which are difficult to paint en plein air. Techniques like glazing, scumbling and dry brushing are generally employed to good effect and the paintings are varnished with a semi-gloss or glossy finish.
Contemplating the differences between these contrasting styles got me thinking about synthetic versus realistic approaches to landscape painting. While Impressionism strives to capture the fleeting effects of light upon various objects in the scene in front of the painter, Tonalism attempts to convey a more poetic and synthetic approach.
By the way, the word synthetic, as I'm using it, has a specific meaning in regards to landscape painting that would not necessarily be applied in modern parlance. I define the word synthetic (as I apply it to landscape painting) as creating the landscape painting from disparate elements with imagination and poetic vision being the primary motivating force.
I was watching a very interesting video that was about a painter named Jim McVicker. I have never heard of Jim before but apparently he is a quite well-known American painter who works in an Impressionist mode. His painting is superlative and I really got a lot out of watching the video about him. Watching this video also made me think about how different my approach to painting is than his, and the reasons why. This is another motivation behind writing this blog post about synthetic versus realistic approaches to landscape painting.
While my painting is often classed as realistic, in reality, it is not realistic at all, it is synthetic. All of my paintings are created in the studio and my intention is to express a mood or feeling in my work, more so than trying to impart some realistic light effect from nature.
This is not to denigrate artists that use that approach in any way. In fact, it's always tempting when one sees another artists work to abandon what you have been doing and to embrace an entirely different style because you find the other artists work moving and wish to do something in the same vein. I'm sure that many artists like myself suffer from this affliction.
Some painters move willy-nilly from one style to the next as inspiration strikes them. I think this is a mistake because it makes your body of work much less accessible to the world and to art connoisseurs. I am not a fan of constantly trying to recapture previous painting successes either, but there is something to be said for finding an approach to your work and taking it as far as possible for yourself individually as an artist.
I started painting many years ago in a far more Impressionist manner, though I have always preferred working in the studio to painting outdoors. The main reason for this is that I prefer to have control over my painting environment and working outdoors is very much the opposite of control. The light changes, clouds move overhead, people come around and comment on what you're doing and you have to work with haste to capture the lighting effects that are constantly parading about and changing in front of you.
I feel it is important to contact your main source of inspiration internally and not be moved about to easily by things changing all around you. Impressionists and direct painters in general, thrive on attempting to capture the changing light and I have tons of respect for them for doing so. The downside to this approach is many Impressionist style paintings can have a sort of samey quality. I think this is a byproduct of working expeditiously in bright sunlight to capture a scene. I guess the same could be said of Tonalist painters about sameyness, but to my eye there is far more room in the Tonalist mode for self-expression and a deeper sense of reverie and respect for the spiritual reality present in nature below the fleeting/changing surface of reality.
Cheers,
M Francis McCarthy
Landscapepainter.co.nz
A bit about 'Dusk Meadow' 5x7; this is a study for a larger 18x24 painting that we will be discussing next week. I have in the past, painted this as a study before and also as an 8x10. I was quite pleased with the 8x10 version and decided it would be a good motif to do in a larger size.
I am happy with the overall coloration and feeling in this painting. the composition is also quite strong. The scene is roughly based on a photo that I took of an area not far from me called Hikurangi. It is a very interesting landscape in that there is a lot of volcanic rocks interspersed with trees and hills.
To see more of my work, visit my site here
 |
| Dusk Meadow by M Francis McCarthy, 5x7 Oil Painting on Wood Panel |
Our video features the progression of this study from its early underpainting stage on up through the final finishing brushstrokes. Also featured is my usual rambling narration, so please check it out.
As I mentioned in the video, I have been reading a book called American Painters on Technique: 1860 - 1945. This book addresses a lot of the techniques that painters in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were using. While reading this book, I got to thinking quite a lot about Impressionist approaches as they contrast with the Tonalist approach to painting a landscape.
There are a lot of ways to contrast these two different ways of painting. Impressionism tends to favor direct painting in broad daylight, generally outdoors in front of the subject. Impressionist painters also tended not to utilize techniques like glazing and they would often leave their canvases unvarnished or, if they were varnishing they would strive to achieve a matt effect.
In contrast, Tonalist painting is usually done in the studio and will often portray periods of time of the day, like early morning or twilight which are difficult to paint en plein air. Techniques like glazing, scumbling and dry brushing are generally employed to good effect and the paintings are varnished with a semi-gloss or glossy finish.
Contemplating the differences between these contrasting styles got me thinking about synthetic versus realistic approaches to landscape painting. While Impressionism strives to capture the fleeting effects of light upon various objects in the scene in front of the painter, Tonalism attempts to convey a more poetic and synthetic approach.
By the way, the word synthetic, as I'm using it, has a specific meaning in regards to landscape painting that would not necessarily be applied in modern parlance. I define the word synthetic (as I apply it to landscape painting) as creating the landscape painting from disparate elements with imagination and poetic vision being the primary motivating force.
I was watching a very interesting video that was about a painter named Jim McVicker. I have never heard of Jim before but apparently he is a quite well-known American painter who works in an Impressionist mode. His painting is superlative and I really got a lot out of watching the video about him. Watching this video also made me think about how different my approach to painting is than his, and the reasons why. This is another motivation behind writing this blog post about synthetic versus realistic approaches to landscape painting.
While my painting is often classed as realistic, in reality, it is not realistic at all, it is synthetic. All of my paintings are created in the studio and my intention is to express a mood or feeling in my work, more so than trying to impart some realistic light effect from nature.
This is not to denigrate artists that use that approach in any way. In fact, it's always tempting when one sees another artists work to abandon what you have been doing and to embrace an entirely different style because you find the other artists work moving and wish to do something in the same vein. I'm sure that many artists like myself suffer from this affliction.
Some painters move willy-nilly from one style to the next as inspiration strikes them. I think this is a mistake because it makes your body of work much less accessible to the world and to art connoisseurs. I am not a fan of constantly trying to recapture previous painting successes either, but there is something to be said for finding an approach to your work and taking it as far as possible for yourself individually as an artist.
I started painting many years ago in a far more Impressionist manner, though I have always preferred working in the studio to painting outdoors. The main reason for this is that I prefer to have control over my painting environment and working outdoors is very much the opposite of control. The light changes, clouds move overhead, people come around and comment on what you're doing and you have to work with haste to capture the lighting effects that are constantly parading about and changing in front of you.
I feel it is important to contact your main source of inspiration internally and not be moved about to easily by things changing all around you. Impressionists and direct painters in general, thrive on attempting to capture the changing light and I have tons of respect for them for doing so. The downside to this approach is many Impressionist style paintings can have a sort of samey quality. I think this is a byproduct of working expeditiously in bright sunlight to capture a scene. I guess the same could be said of Tonalist painters about sameyness, but to my eye there is far more room in the Tonalist mode for self-expression and a deeper sense of reverie and respect for the spiritual reality present in nature below the fleeting/changing surface of reality.
Cheers,
M Francis McCarthy
Landscapepainter.co.nz
A bit about 'Dusk Meadow' 5x7; this is a study for a larger 18x24 painting that we will be discussing next week. I have in the past, painted this as a study before and also as an 8x10. I was quite pleased with the 8x10 version and decided it would be a good motif to do in a larger size.
I am happy with the overall coloration and feeling in this painting. the composition is also quite strong. The scene is roughly based on a photo that I took of an area not far from me called Hikurangi. It is a very interesting landscape in that there is a lot of volcanic rocks interspersed with trees and hills.
To see more of my work, visit my site here
 |
| Dusk Meadow 5x7 (Detail) |
 |
| Dusk Meadow 5x7 (Detail 2) |