<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New painting&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/</link>
	<description>Musings on the Nature of Art from An Artist in Nature</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Julie Chapman</title>
		<link>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>Julie Chapman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 14:07:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-255</guid>
		<description>Joe - wow, thanks for the compliments!! and I suspect that you are correct about the use of projected photos/reference material. I can't test out whether projecting my sketches would help (it might) because I don't have a projector. Never been high on the priority list - I'd rather buy more computer or camera gear, being the gearhead I am...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe - wow, thanks for the compliments!! and I suspect that you are correct about the use of projected photos/reference material. I can&#8217;t test out whether projecting my sketches would help (it might) because I don&#8217;t have a projector. Never been high on the priority list - I&#8217;d rather buy more computer or camera gear, being the gearhead I am&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-251</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-251</guid>
		<description>That painting is killer! Ultra sculptural. Bottom line it doesn't matter how you get your drawing on the canvas if you really know how to draw, but when people project photos and trace them its not always just to save time but because they cannot draw well enough. I've seen quite a bit of projecting with figure painting and when they are done it looks like a distorted photo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That painting is killer! Ultra sculptural. Bottom line it doesn&#8217;t matter how you get your drawing on the canvas if you really know how to draw, but when people project photos and trace them its not always just to save time but because they cannot draw well enough. I&#8217;ve seen quite a bit of projecting with figure painting and when they are done it looks like a distorted photo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: larry jewett</title>
		<link>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-242</link>
		<dc:creator>larry jewett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 05:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-242</guid>
		<description>I studied optics in college and learned all about the distortions caused by imaging.

you are probably aware of the fact that with a projection, there is a double distortion involved because the original image was distorted and then there is a separate distortion involved with the projection itself.  So there will be distortion involved even if you just project your sketch though there are undoubtedly things you could do to minimize it.

of course, "projection painting' (camera obscura) was essentially the forerunner to photography and it's actually somewhat amusing that some artists are going back to that.

Personally, I kind of feel what's the point? the drawing is my favorite part of the painting process and tracing over a projected image just would not excite me.

But i also take the attitude that if someone wants to do this, who am i to criticize?

In one regard it makes absolutely no difference: if you paint a masterpiece and use projection to do it, 100 years from now, no one is going to care (or even know for that matter).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I studied optics in college and learned all about the distortions caused by imaging.</p>
<p>you are probably aware of the fact that with a projection, there is a double distortion involved because the original image was distorted and then there is a separate distortion involved with the projection itself.  So there will be distortion involved even if you just project your sketch though there are undoubtedly things you could do to minimize it.</p>
<p>of course, &#8220;projection painting&#8217; (camera obscura) was essentially the forerunner to photography and it&#8217;s actually somewhat amusing that some artists are going back to that.</p>
<p>Personally, I kind of feel what&#8217;s the point? the drawing is my favorite part of the painting process and tracing over a projected image just would not excite me.</p>
<p>But i also take the attitude that if someone wants to do this, who am i to criticize?</p>
<p>In one regard it makes absolutely no difference: if you paint a masterpiece and use projection to do it, 100 years from now, no one is going to care (or even know for that matter).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julie Chapman</title>
		<link>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-235</link>
		<dc:creator>Julie Chapman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 22:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-235</guid>
		<description>No doubt about it - it does take loads more time to draw my composition on the canvas when it's large. Struggled with that earlier this week. Smaller is definitely easier!

Maybe projecting my compositional sketch wouldn't be such a bad idea...but what I was referring to was projection of my reference photo(s), which I had no idea artists did until some of you in one of my workshops explained it all to me.

I recall a Bob Kuhn anecdote in which he tried one time to project his reference material onto his canvas, thinking "what the hell, maybe it'll save time"...and he gave up after he realized that the reference (like many photos) had distortions in it that he couldn't get out unless he redrew the composition freehand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No doubt about it - it does take loads more time to draw my composition on the canvas when it&#8217;s large. Struggled with that earlier this week. Smaller is definitely easier!</p>
<p>Maybe projecting my compositional sketch wouldn&#8217;t be such a bad idea&#8230;but what I was referring to was projection of my reference photo(s), which I had no idea artists did until some of you in one of my workshops explained it all to me.</p>
<p>I recall a Bob Kuhn anecdote in which he tried one time to project his reference material onto his canvas, thinking &#8220;what the hell, maybe it&#8217;ll save time&#8221;&#8230;and he gave up after he realized that the reference (like many photos) had distortions in it that he couldn&#8217;t get out unless he redrew the composition freehand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Jewett</title>
		<link>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-231</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Jewett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 17:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/05/13/new-painting/#comment-231</guid>
		<description>"I do not project anything to transfer my idea to the canvas!"

Not even your mind?

I browsed through a wildlife art book a while back by Edward Aldrich and he apparently first does a small sketch and then uses projection to transfer/enlarge his images to the canvas. After looking at his sketches (also in the same book) i have little doubt that he could do it without projection so my guess is he does it mainly to save time.

I say "to each his own", but i would comment that "scaling an image up" from a small photo is one of the most challenging parts of the entire painting process (at least for me) -- and also probably the most enjoyable. I find it a lot easier to do a small drawing and keep the proportions right than it is to do a big one.  but i find the bigger ones more fun.

The artists who really blow me away are the ones who do the huge murals "free hand"  (like Michelangelo!) because up close, it's nearly impossible (for mere mortals like myself) to get a sense of proportion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I do not project anything to transfer my idea to the canvas!&#8221;</p>
<p>Not even your mind?</p>
<p>I browsed through a wildlife art book a while back by Edward Aldrich and he apparently first does a small sketch and then uses projection to transfer/enlarge his images to the canvas. After looking at his sketches (also in the same book) i have little doubt that he could do it without projection so my guess is he does it mainly to save time.</p>
<p>I say &#8220;to each his own&#8221;, but i would comment that &#8220;scaling an image up&#8221; from a small photo is one of the most challenging parts of the entire painting process (at least for me) &#8212; and also probably the most enjoyable. I find it a lot easier to do a small drawing and keep the proportions right than it is to do a big one.  but i find the bigger ones more fun.</p>
<p>The artists who really blow me away are the ones who do the huge murals &#8220;free hand&#8221;  (like Michelangelo!) because up close, it&#8217;s nearly impossible (for mere mortals like myself) to get a sense of proportion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
