Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Whole or sum of the parts?
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
There was a recently a demo in The Artist by a painter who starts in the top left hand corner and progresses to the bottom right hand corner, with admirable results. I also admire Anthk's paintings, where he goes for selected areas and eventually covers the canvas.
However I have heard other artists advocating working the whole picture at once.
What do you think?
Posted
I believe Stanley Spencer sometimes worked like that. He'd draw a large sketch in detail, draw a grid on it, and transfer the drawing using a grid on the canvas. He'd then paint from top left to bottom right.
In general I think it's better working in a broader way - drawing the main shapes, painting some of the basic tones. Then gradually improve the whole of the painting, without concentrating on just one part and finishing it before the rest.
Posted
We're back to there being no correct way to paint, no right or wrong, just the way that works for you. I used to know a hyper-realist painter...he tended to copy photographs (exactly). He too started at the top left and worked his way down, painting everything fully as he went. He said the ideal is to get to the bottom right and be finished. He admitted he occasionally went back and tidied up, but not much of that. He used oils. I thought his paintings were stunning.
Blocking in, or working the whole painting, makes the most sense...for me, it's also the quickest way to lose interest in a picture. I prefer to block in some background, then work most things almost to a finish, and then go back and titivate. Arguably a really naff way to paint, but the only way that works for me.
Posted
This may sound odd, but as I like to paint on a white canvas, I like to get some colour over the whole surface. I've never used a 'tonal wash', or whatever it might be called over the whole canvas, perhaps I should, but I like the base colour to be related to the final e.g. blue under the sky (except when I use red!), green under grass. I then try to remember to establish the darkest dark (which I never seem to get dark enough) and the lightest light. It then gets a bit haphazard after that, partly because as I build up one area, the adjacent part fo the canvas no longer looks right. I stop when I consider I am doing more harm than good.
Posted
I'm only a beginner, so my opinion doesn't have that much weight yet. However I seem to be most comfortable by working from back to front. So starting with the background, then work my way forward in the composition.
With animals, I start with the background, then eyes and nose, then the rest in layers.
But that might all change again as I get more experienced. Lol
Posted
I tend to start with the lighter colours (watercolour) but do find adding some of the darker shadow areas help me to build the painting up. When painting animals I find I always start with the eyes, particularly owls as for me it brings the initial drawing to life and I feel that I am bring it to life. Bit sad when I read it back but that’s how it goes. Be interesting to find out how others start animal paintings.
Dixie