What is it that has us gasp in awe when we look across an expansive vista? I believe it is because we are able to find ourselves within a much larger context. We experience our relationship to our surroundings in a different way than when inclosed by trees or buildings. This experience is a challenge to capture in a painting or photography without separating the viewer from the view and leaving them standing outside of a landscape. You will know this from your own, sometimes disappointing, photography efforts when you say to yourself – but that wasn’t what it was like at all! If you have been having conversations with me for a while, you know that I like to have my viewers experience my paintings from inside the landscape or seascape. I believe I may have succeeded in this desire in my latest painting which has us looking down onto the Rhone River at Pont D’ Avignon and across the view to Villeneuve lez Avignon, France. Before I explain further let’s look at the painting and you can experience it for yourself.
Villeneuve lez Avignon France – 24 x 36 inch oil on canvas
If you just want to experience the painting for its own sake I suggest that you read no further. However, if you are curious about what happened in this canvas please feel free to join me by reading the rest of the post.
This is a good-sized painting so let’s look at it again with a bit of context around it.
Even though the painting is harder to see at this second angle in the early morning light, it does give us a feel for its size and how it looks relative to its surroundings. This is the same idea as what viewing a distant vista does for us. In the second photograph I want to move around and maybe get closer for a clearer view. The same thing happens when looking across a valley. How many times have you walked out on a viewpoint and then moved from spot-to-spot to make sure you were viewing it from the best vantage point? I believe this action of searching is what keeps us inside a landscape rather than viewing it as a spectator. So you might ask – how did I attempt to replicate this exercise for just our eyes in the painting above?
First, I stood on the very hillside that the viewer does when looking at this painting. I personally did the act of searching for that “best vantage point” by moving around the top of the hillside. Then I did a painting sketch. It was during the act of doing that painting sketch that I became familiar with the forms and structure of the landscape. We can read more about this in my earlier post “Artists Camille Corot and Terrill Welch Visit Avignon France 171 Years Apart” but for ease of comparison, I will post again the painting sketch
Across the Way Villeneuve lez Avignon France
plein air 25 × 35 cm acrylic painting sketch on 185 lb paper.
In the earlier post I talk about crunching the landscape slightly in my mind’s eye to fit the canvas shape. But now I am not so sure that is the only reason it was adjusted. Let’s have another look at the underpainting with bits of masking tap marking lines of intersection and tension.
If we look at the plein air sketch and the larger canvas these same lines of intersection and tension exist. Whereas in reality, if one was a surveyor and painted to measure this tension is stretched out much further. So what happened? I believe it is the process of walking around the vantage point for the best view. In doing this we gather information about the expanse and reconstruct it in our mind’s eye to provide us with the best view of all aspects. In this case, the elements of interest are brought closer together adjusted in size and clarity exaggerating the tensions and lines of intersection. The diamond shape of Villeneuve les Avignon is our eye’s anchor but we do not look at it closely do we? At least I didn’t. By having these conversations with myself while I painted I began to unravel how we can experience a landscape painting from inside of the view rather than as a spectator. The result is that the view is created as one might do for themselves if they were to be standing on the hillside gathering the experience in their own mind’s eye. We the viewer are therefore inside the painting through the intentional design and execution of the work. To do this I first had to understand the compositional intersections and tensions and then combine three different painting techniques from the realism of the arches on the bridge to the impressionism of the morning light hitting the trees to the abstract expressionism of the buildings on the hillside. This combination of technique is not evident in the plein air sketch however. I developed this deliberate conscious use of brush and paint as I began working up the underpainting.
I started to see the results though about here nearer to the end of the painting.
I knew what I needed to do but I wasn’t sure I could make it work because culturally we have stripped these approaches into separate schools of practice. We have learned to understand paintings as if these are three separate painting languages. But from my recent visits through many European museums I find that artists are often multilingual. They will often find the perfect brush stroke using whatever painting language they have access to through their experience. This separation of painting languages is to some extent the work of art historians generalizing major movements in art and our understanding of painting over time – which is directly influenced by our world experience as it intersects with our internal self. So I made a deliberate attempt to break these separation rules and stretch across as much painting history is covered by the Pont D’ Avignon itself. I wanted the viewer to view the painting as if they were standing on the hillside constructing the view within their own mind’s eye. This was much more important to me than conforming to painting schools of style and technique. I think that the strength of this approach is evident if we revisit the plein air sketch and then final painting. The same life and vitality of a quick sketch was carried over into the larger painting but the visual strength that the larger painting has is missing from the earlier painting sketch. At least that is what I experience. I would love to hear what you experience as well because the risk of mixing several languages of any sort is to be miss-understood.
Can you tell us about a time when you consciously merged separate approaches or languages to achieve a desired result?
Please note that the larger painting will be release at a later date – it is still resting 🙂
© 2014 Terrill Welch, All rights reserved.
Liberal usage granted with written permission. See “About” for details.
Creative Potager – Visit with painter and photographer Terrill Welch
From Mayne Island, British Columbia, Canada
For gallery and purchase information about Terrill’s photographs and paintings go to http://terrillwelchartist.com
8 thoughts on “The Diamond on the hill is Villeneuve lez Avignon France”
Terrill — You did, indeed, succeed in having your viewers experience this painting from the inside, out. Your thoughts on this bring to mind writing. What’s the connection, you ask? You know you’re getting to be a pretty darned good writer when people experience the setting of the story as a character 🙂
I can see that Laurie. I know that feeling well when I read a good book – a person even forgets that they are reading. A good movie does the same thing.
I see the contrast between two “painting languages” (the bridge being more “realistic”, and the valley, more post-impressionistic), but I am not certain about what you mean by “three”. For me, the treatment of the valley as opposed to the bridge makes it seem to move before my eyes (while the bridge stands still).
Maybe it is only clear to me Lena. Yes at least the hard line of the arch renders it realistic. The trees along the river were definitely painted with attention to patterns of colour and shapes of light rather than colours of forms.The reflections on the water were handled with the same approach. The more distant buildings are abstract expressions of colour and shape that are more about a feeling than what it seen. Is this the third approach you could not discern?
Yes — my eye interpreted the difference between the trees and more distant parts of the landscape as motivated by the distance (atmospheric perspective and such). That is, for me, in this context, the more abstract shapes in the distance look not like a different language, but rather like a way to render distance “within” the second language… (as it were). But I now see what you mean.
I suppose Lena to be true to this third approach I would have had to make those patches of colour in the diamond shape larger. Maybe another time I will push on that edge and see what happens but I sensed it may break down what was working in the painting so I left them smaller which technically shifts them more towards post-impressionism. It is Richard Diebenkorn approach to his abstract landscapes I thought about when I was working on this aspect.
I can understand your eye’s interpretation Lena because the hill at the back is definitely painted in colour to give an atmospheric perspective of distance. Anyway, the point was to let go of the separations between painting languages while rendering the work and risk being misunderstood 😉 Maybe, other than my pointing it out here, people will just look at the painting and not question its approach at all. I certainly did enjoy taking up the challenge though!
Pingback: Mary Poppins-esque | Tuesdays with Laurie