Plein Air Hype

[Vincent Neave]

Now the last thing I want to do is offend anyone.

Especially members of AFAS, so let me stress that the hype I refer to is the history, mostly myth as far as I can see, of plein air painting.

I blame Monet myself, and living in northern Europe he should have had more sense. Monet was quite happy to exploit and manipulate the press, inviting them to staged plein air painting sessions. Perhaps that's why he was the most financially successful impressionist.
So why did he have studios both on boats and dry land? And, if so much was painted on the spot to capture the 'impression' why are there more scenes of the Thames dated years after he visited London than when he was actually there?

I visited the most wonderful exhibition of Pre-Raphaelite and other Victorian masters at the Royal Academy a few years ago.

It included an brilliant painting by John Everett Millais called 'Chilly October'. It was a view across a Scottish lake, very atmospheric. The description on the wall beside it and the entry in the catalogue said 'painted on the spot'. HOGWASH !! The painting was on a canvas measuring about 5 feet by 7 feet and it depicted a windy autumn day. A canvas that size is a sail! anyone trying to control a canvas that big in that wind would have probably ended up inventing hang gliding! And the weather conditions and cloud cover that he painted would have looked completely different a couple of minutes later. I'm not saying he didn't do some rapid sketching on the spot, but to have painted the finished picture plein air would have been impossible.

I notice that the three ladies who are members of this group all live in the USA so I can only guess that the weather is more consistent there than in northern Europe. But my attempts at plein air have been so frustrated by the British climate that if I relied on painting on the spot I'd have never made a living! Even one time when the weather was settled and I was in La Rochelle in France. I had the whole day to myself and decided to paint a watercolour of the medieval towers that flank the entrance to the harbour.

When I started the drawing, the tide was lapping against the base of the towers, the sun was over my right shoulder casting shadows on the left side of the buildings. Ignoring the fact that the white paper in the bright light meant that my ability to judge tone was instantly impaired, I started drawing. By the time I started the watercolour washes the sun had moved and the shadows had disappeared! Before I had finished they were on the right hand side! When I had worked my way down to sea level the tide had gone out exposing a muddy foreshore and seaweed encrusted foundations, and finally to add insult to injury, as I started to sketch the boats in the harbour behind the towers most of them cast off their moorings and sailed out!

The reason I have written this is that over the years I done many painting demonstrations for art groups and so many people seem to feel that unless they are painting plein air they are somehow not painting properly and in a climate like ours it can be very discouraging for them. So, for any painters who are just getting started, I would just like to say that as long as you enjoy painting it doesn't matter!

Just to finish off my rant, when I was sketching in Rouen I accidentally found the real reason Monet became an impressionist. I started this sketch before I was aware that the architectural style of this area gave rise to the style called 'flamboyant'.

In practical terms this meant "if you can find a blank space, put a carving on it!"
After half an hour I was getting overwhelmed, the more you look the more detail becomes apparent.

I believe that as a young man, Monet tried to sketch it, gave up, invented impressionism and came back a few years later and went daub, daub, daub "One painting", daub, daub, daub "Two paintings"................................. ; )

May the muse be with you.

[Richard Picton]

I've always used photographs but never openly go around telling people this. If I'm cornered I will not lie and say otherwise, but I do feel a little bit ashamed and almost guilty of cheating when I have to reveal this great "secret".
I've read lots of books by present day (mostly railway) artists about their work and none of them mention photographs and yet, like my own stuff, a lot of the scenes depict steam engines that no longer exist, and locations that have changed beyond recognition, so photographic reference must have been used, as I know a lot of the scenes depicted and I can see they are not only artistically good but also depicting technically correct buildings, tracks, locomotives, signals etc.
When writing about the ins and outs of how a particular painting was painted, it is never mentioned that it was painted plein air, and neither is it mentioned that photos are used either. It is almost as if the artist simply hopes that the reader of the script will believe that the painting was done on the spot in an afternoon or so, instead of weeks spent inside a studio, surrounded by various photos of the different technical details that go into the finished painting. Obviously, I've no proof of this, it is simply my own opinion. I'm just talking about what happens with myself, but I can't see how artists can create the type of paintings I've described any other way.

Richard.

[Vincent Neave]

In reply to Richard,
I didn't even mention my main work which, like his, requires reference of things that no longer exist. Sometimes all I have to work with is a set of plans and my imagination, another minor difficulty is that to paint many of my paintings on the spot would require me being in the middle of the Atlantic or some other ocean, and the invention of the time machine!

I never feel guilty about using my own photographs but I rarely use just one, as the photograph cannot record an image as the eye sees it, except sometimes in flat light, and it drastically distorts the tonal balance of a scene . So I usually take one photo exposed for the sky. Another for the shadows and several more for anything else that cameras aren't very good at! If I have to use existing photos I always change the viewpoint and angle of the ship and only use the photograph for details of the ship.

I don't think Richard should ever feel guilty about using photographs as it is obvious from his work that he doesn't just slavishly copy them. His paintings depict scenes as the eye sees them not the camera!

Vincent

[Durinda Cheek]

Yes, Vincent, I do paint outdoors in the US most of the time and complete paintings, both in watercolor and oil. I paint in France and Italy every summer. The light is wonderful there. The trick is- NEVER do something so complicated as the Rouen Cathedral unless you can paint in the same spot for days! Wow- you are really into detail! But, come one, the British tradition of watercolor painting the landscape predates the Impressionists.
I either work relatiively small- 12 x 16 or smaller, or if I work larger, I use larger brushes and forgo the detail until the end. Part of painting on site is learning what not to paint! You must focus on masses and shapes of lights and darks and then paint fairly quickly. I have been to Monet's studio and painted in the gardens. There are photos of him painting and of his stepdaughter hauling his canvases for him in a wheelbarrow. Most of the Impressionists' works are on the small side. I agree Monet was a showman and a businessman. He had a large family to support.
And, I totally agree that some artists try to pass off works as being painted plein air and they really are not. My opinion is paint your best, what interests you, and no one will care if it is plein air or not. I believe the experiences you have painting on site even sketching will strenghten your studio work. I will always have the feeling of returning to a place I painted when I work from my sketches and oil studies.

[Vincent Neave]

Hi Durinda and Well Met!

I have to agree with you working on site is very good practice for anyone.

My comments were not really intended to be taken too seriously, more the jaded ramblings of a cynical old man who on various plein air painting expeditions has, more often than not, been defeated by the British weather. Apart from the instances in France, on one occasion my companion was forced to drink his used painting water and ended up with sunstroke anyway (not what I'd expect in England) and less than a week later a freak storm washed off a watercolour that I had spent the last two hours painting (exactly what I'd expect in England)!

Apart from my concern budding artists being trapped by dogma. I've often felt that the public's expectation of a painter is to always to have worked on the spot. Maybe you don't suffer from this in the USA, but from Richard Picton's reply above, I know I'm not the only UK painter to have experienced this. Maybe it's fueled by Hollywood's portrayal of artists.

In a similar vein I have found that the public often seem be more enamoured by what the impressionist's paintings represent than the paintings themselves. Maybe it is Paris of the late 19th century and the bohemian lifestyle that they have seen at the movies that accounts for the popularity of the impressionists more than the paintings themselves.

Or perhaps I'm just jealous! I have always felt that the most valuable thing about working on the spot is simply that observing the subject matter for so long gives a deeper understanding of it. So, I do still sketch on the spot when I can, but always with great trepidation and one eye over my shoulder.

Vincent


Apart from

[Walter Thomas Scott Jr.]

Hi Vincent , I'm stuck between what to paint next and waiting for gesso to dry and saw your note about 'Plein Aire "painting . Couldn't agree more with your statement of most folks thinking all pieces are done on location . And some of the things that happen when in the field are fun as well . My mother in law gave me my french easel as a birthday present some years ago . I was still a fulltime fisherman and one summer day as it was very hot and hazy the weather conditions kept me at the dock till the wind picked up . I decided to try my new french easel right there at the dock and not wanting the other guys poking fun at me I went along the shore to a small park nearby . There was an old beat up dingy in the sea grass along the shore and I figured it would be a great subject for an 8"x10" . Set everything up and started my painting with only a few cat calls from my fellow fisherman and in no time at all it seemed I had a nice scene going . Well some guy from the town showed up with a riding mower and parked it right next to the easel , lite his cigar and fired the lawnmower up . I had grass , dirt and a few shocked ants sprinkeld thru out my painting . Next thing I know there are pine cones bouncing off the guys head and he's yelling at someone behind me . It seems there were three woman sitting on a bench watching me do the painting and they were pissed at him something awful for wrecking the painting . I packed up and left with them shouting at one another , though I did thank the ladies for interceding . That little painting was excepted by a gallery here in Newport , RI and sold within ten minutes of my putting it on consignment , ants and all . Hope this story gives a smile ,later .
Walter

[Janine Flynn ASGFA]

I saw a Picasso exhibition in Brisbane last October. One of the paintings was a representational portrait of an impressionist master (I forget which), alongside this large canvas was a small photograph; the pose was identical.

I use photos that I've taken. I grit my teeth whenever anyone says dismissively that it's obviously from a photograph; I feel that it is intended as a derogatory remark. My drawings are available as prints. The prints are produced from digital files taken by a camera. If my drawings looked like photographs then a photograph of them would look like a photograph. Do they look like photogaphs?

It's got nothing to do with where the source material comes from, whether that's 'life', sketches or photo's; it's what you do with it, how you translate that image onto a support.

Other examples? Vetriano. Hirst is using photos too. They are both pretty successful.

Another myth? It's commonly heard that the whole area of a painting 'should' be worked up together. Absolute nonsense; tell that to Michelangelo - I can just picture him looking up at the the chapel ceiling or even at the altar wall and thinking to himself 'need to balance there with a bit of pink'. Come off it, fresco was/is considered the highest form of pictorial representation. The method in primo fresco is to apply the amount of plaster you will work in one sitting, the pigment is applied whilst the plaster is still wet so that it is absorbed into the plaster. It is done one piece at a time and it works because the composition was planned before being painted. The painting part is almost merely a technical process.

The main thing is to have a fairly clear idea of how you want your picture to look when it's finished, not disimilar to fresco painting. Recognise what it is about the subject that is attracting you to making a piece of art about it, then work out what elements of the subject support and emphasize that, those are the ones you'll probably want to bring out. Also work out the elements that pull attention away from your main attraction because those are the elements you'll want to play down. You don't have to make a meal of all this. Then even if you work from only one photo, your end result will not look photographic.

Your painting of the steam engine 3610, that's something like I'm trying to explain - the strong light and shadows emphasize and support the 'steaminess' in your painting without over powering it and drawing attention away from it - it's very effective.

kind regards,
Janine



Richard Picton said:

I've always used photographs but never openly go around telling people this. If I'm cornered I will not lie and say otherwise, but I do feel a little bit ashamed and almost guilty of cheating when I have to reveal this great "secret".
[...] Richard.

[david eubank]

Hi Vincent, Well I never paint outside. Don't know why I just don't. I do use photographs I take as reference and I don't know what all the hype about working from photographs are about. But I am also a photographer too. I used to create sculptural installations on site, outdoors and I liked that. You can react to the landscape directly. But here in Montana working outside is often just impossible. As for big canvases or sails yeah real difficult. I think many artists of the past did work on site because they did not have other tools as we do today available to them. Many used used the camera obscura or camera Lucinda like Holbein. David Hockney did a series of investigations into the historical use of instruments throughout the history of painting. I think a lot of people like to hold on to the past techniques because they enjoy working with them. I say one is no better or worse than another and if a person likes one over another then its all good. I recently came to the conclusion that having fun and enjoying the process of art making is very important. Being to rigid takes away the pleasure and if making art does not result in pleasure then why bother. I recently tried a new thing. Acrylics, I wanted to try them because of health concerns. So I painted the fish in my fish pond, they just wouldn't stay still and the paint washed off. Just kidding, I spent a lot of time looking at the fish and then back to the canvas. I don't know if I got anything exactly right but my painting looks like my fish sort of. I did notice a lot of detail in the fish vs. the drawings I was trying to work from. Also my fish jump around a lot as well as stir up the water when they play. So that made its way into the painting too. So I guess it is still a studio painting because my fish pond is inside my studio. But it was fun and now I have requests for more fish paintings. I am keeping the one did. I do have a little easel and may try outdoors painting just for fun this year when I am away at work. No TV available and it may provide some entertainment and learning opportunities. I will have to figure out the bug problem, mosquitoes and yellow flies, they may just become painting medium.

David

[Vincent Neave]

Hi Janine

Sorry I haven't responded sooner, the past few weeks have been very busy finalising paintings for two exhibitions that are now, at last, hung.

Thanks for your comments, I loved your pencil work, I'm never happier than when I have a pencil or piece of charcoal in my hand, unlike paint they rarely fight back!

What part of Norfolk do live? my great, great grandfather moved to Hampshire from North Pickenham near Swaffham in 1860 and my wife and I have stayed in his father's pub.

Regards

Vincent

Regard
Janine Flynn ASGFA said:

I saw a Picasso exhibition in Brisbane last October. One of the paintings was a representational portrait of an impressionist master (I forget which), alongside this large canvas was a small photograph; the pose was identical.

I use photos that I've taken. I grit my teeth whenever anyone says dismissively that it's obviously from a photograph; I feel that it is intended as a derogatory remark. My drawings are available as prints. The prints are produced from digital files taken by a camera. If my drawings looked like photographs then a photograph of them would look like a photograph. Do they look like photogaphs?

It's got nothing to do with where the source material comes from, whether that's 'life', sketches or photo's; it's what you do with it, how you translate that image onto a support.

Other examples? Vetriano. Hirst is using photos too. They are both pretty successful.

Another myth? It's commonly heard that the whole area of a painting 'should' be worked up together. Absolute nonsense; tell that to Michelangelo - I can just picture him looking up at the the chapel ceiling or even at the altar wall and thinking to himself 'need to balance there with a bit of pink'. Come off it, fresco was/is considered the highest form of pictorial representation. The method in primo fresco is to apply the amount of plaster you will work in one sitting, the pigment is applied whilst the plaster is still wet so that it is absorbed into the plaster. It is done one piece at a time and it works because the composition was planned before being painted. The painting part is almost merely a technical process.

The main thing is to have a fairly clear idea of how you want your picture to look when it's finished, not disimilar to fresco painting. Recognise what it is about the subject that is attracting you to making a piece of art about it, then work out what elements of the subject support and emphasize that, those are the ones you'll probably want to bring out. Also work out the elements that pull attention away from your main attraction because those are the elements you'll want to play down. You don't have to make a meal of all this. Then even if you work from only one photo, your end result will not look photographic.

Your painting of the steam engine 3610, that's something like I'm trying to explain - the strong light and shadows emphasize and support the 'steaminess' in your painting without over powering it and drawing attention away from it - it's very effective.

kind regards,
Janine



Richard Picton said:

I've always used photographs but never openly go around telling people this. If I'm cornered I will not lie and say otherwise, but I do feel a little bit ashamed and almost guilty of cheating when I have to reveal this great "secret".
[...] Richard.

[Vincent Neave]

Hi David,
Great to hear from you.

I've been manically busy as two exhibitions that usually follow each other are, this year, running at the same time and opened last weekend.

I'm hoping to get time to catch up on your last blog as soon as mine is sorted and then I've got some new work, ten paintings since January, to post on my page.

Take care

Vincent

david eubank said:

Hi Vincent, Well I never paint outside. Don't know why I just don't. I do use photographs I take as reference and I don't know what all the hype about working from photographs are about. But I am also a photographer too. I used to create sculptural installations on site, outdoors and I liked that. You can react to the landscape directly. But here in Montana working outside is often just impossible. As for big canvases or sails yeah real difficult. I think many artists of the past did work on site because they did not have other tools as we do today available to them. Many used used the camera obscura or camera Lucinda like Holbein. David Hockney did a series of investigations into the historical use of instruments throughout the history of painting. I think a lot of people like to hold on to the past techniques because they enjoy working with them. I say one is no better or worse than another and if a person likes one over another then its all good. I recently came to the conclusion that having fun and enjoying the process of art making is very important. Being to rigid takes away the pleasure and if making art does not result in pleasure then why bother. I recently tried a new thing. Acrylics, I wanted to try them because of health concerns. So I painted the fish in my fish pond, they just wouldn't stay still and the paint washed off. Just kidding, I spent a lot of time looking at the fish and then back to the canvas. I don't know if I got anything exactly right but my painting looks like my fish sort of. I did notice a lot of detail in the fish vs. the drawings I was trying to work from. Also my fish jump around a lot as well as stir up the water when they play. So that made its way into the painting too. So I guess it is still a studio painting because my fish pond is inside my studio. But it was fun and now I have requests for more fish paintings. I am keeping the one did. I do have a little easel and may try outdoors painting just for fun this year when I am away at work. No TV available and it may provide some entertainment and learning opportunities. I will have to figure out the bug problem, mosquitoes and yellow flies, they may just become painting medium.

David

[Janine Flynn ASGFA]

Hi Vincent,

Congratulations and best wishes for your forthcoming exhibition; I hope we'll get to see something of it on here :)

Thank you for your compliments about my drawings. I live in Broadland so the boats in my pieces tend to be river cruisers and day boats. Don't think I've ever been to Swaffham and I know I've never been to Bristol

Bringing this back on topic though, I used to go out watercolour sketching, years ago. I found that the sketches had a freshness and sponteneity that I was unable to recapture in anything more substantial.

And your 'Daub, daub, daub' remark above reminded me of Ruskin's remark about 'flinging a pot of paint' refering to Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold The Falling Rocket. Amazing remark by Ruskin when you consider the later Turner's are every bit a impressionistic as Whistler.

kind regards,
Janine



Vincent Neave said:

Hi Janine

Sorry I haven't responded sooner, the past few weeks have been very busy finalising paintings for two exhibitions that are now, at last, hung.

Thanks for your comments, I loved your pencil work, I'm never happier than when I have a pencil or piece of charcoal in my hand, unlike paint they rarely fight back!

What part of Norfolk do live? my great, great grandfather moved to Hampshire from North Pickenham near Swaffham in 1860 and my wife and I have stayed in his father's pub.

Regards

Vincent

Regard
Janine Flynn ASGFA said:

I saw a Picasso exhibition in Brisbane last October. One of the paintings was a representational portrait of an impressionist master (I forget which), alongside this large canvas was a small photograph; the pose was identical.


kind regards,
Janine



Richard Picton said:

I've always used photographs but never openly go around telling people this. If I'm cornered I will not lie and say otherwise, but I do feel a little bit ashamed and almost guilty of cheating when I have to reveal this great "secret".
[...] Richard.