Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Travelling with Art Materials
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
In response to an article in the February 'Artist' magazine supplement 'Art Courses and Holidays', where the reader was prompted to make any valuable contributions to the theme of travelling with art materials, I would like to give an account of my own working practice. As a landscape painter I predominately work outdoors, and therefore it is important for me to be able to transport my materials in a practical manner. I use a trolley that caters for storing the materials and the drying artwork in progress, and this also provides a surface upon which I can place tools and paints. Please see the attached photograph that shows the working procedure in operation.
Additionally, when painting in watercolour, I use my easel horizontally to support the work while painting. The easel also holds my pallete.
It was suggested that readers should contribute to the forum with their own ideas for space saving devices.
Posted
The Meltemi tree works perfectly in its context - which is the point, really: I paint trees quite often, because ... well, because I like trees! Sometimes I paint the bare branches and add the foliage; quite often I'll reverse the process; more usually I'll combine the two methods: it just depends on what you think the picture needs - you can appreciate Ted Wesson AND Phil Kendall; and I do.
Posted
Usually trees and foliage are the least detailed and most impressionistic element of my works. Juicy washes and nothing fiddly. Since I tend to paint scenes which are recognisable and with which the intended viewer has associations I keep the architecture fairly close to the original. Having said that I do take liberties with it but try to adhere to the actual structural outlines etc.
When it comes to foliage I do like the viewer to interpret it - It's surely a matter of technical skill verses artistic skill and I know which I prefer.
Posted
It's because I too like trees that I prefer giving them the form they deserve. The
Impressionists never forgot that they were painting trees and they were not in a
sense the same very shorthand trees that artists like Wesson etc. thought
Adequate.incidentally Wessons foreground trees are very good realistic trees and
totally different from the distant ones.has anyone given thought on this oddity?..
Posted
I like his two recent paintings, the level of detail of the trees complements the rest of the mid ground perfectly and his trees look best when they are placed in the mid ground. But, (and coming from a person who doubts they could do even a fraction as well) , I'm not so sure that this works so well on the few occasions that he puts foliage in the foreground (a difficult task - for me at any rate).