Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
composition - shapes, or one large connected shape?
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
When discussing painting 'shapes' (to prevent your brain from forcing you to paint what you 'think' is there), I recently heard an artist say .....your goal should be one large, connected shape.
So my question is, does anyone agree to that thought...
and if so, how tenuous can the connections be and still be successful?
Anyone take this approach?
Posted
Yeah, that’s an interesting thought for sure! I do agree that it’s important to view shapes within a painting as one big shape, but how tenuous those connections are can depend on the overall goal of the painting. However, if you’re after a more abstract painting, then you can probably get away with having looser connections between shapes. It’s definitely something people experiment with, so give it a go and see how it turns out!
Posted
I think your approach should be what you perceive it to be and not what someone believes how you should perceive your approach to be. Yes, balance it very important, even in abstract, I think. Saying that, if the statement achieved something for me, I would take what I can from it. I don't have any conventional training so I'm pretty much use to doing things my own way and learning through error, experimentation and practice. When I get stuck or lost, I ask for help and advice and welcome that advice as it helps me move on but I like to try and find my own way first.
Posted
Thanks Vernon and Denise.
It was a comment I hadn't really heard before (or at least not as succinct) so wondered if there was any merit/experience on this forum of anyone having used that approach.
I don't think it's going to influence me that much, if I'm honest. I'm conscious of shapes withing my paintings, but tend to consider them in compositional and balancing ways rather than metaphorically joining them.
Posted
To be honest - I don't know what this artist meant: yes, we need to be aware of shapes over detail - but one shape? Does he mean interlocking shapes? Or that there should be unity throughout the picture? Gawd knows - theories, concepts, do any of us really take any notice of them when we get down to painting? Well - probably, when we're starting out.... a bit.... but they become instinctive; it'd be tedious in the extreme to have to plan out every painting according to a theory; or of course; perhaps that's where I'm going wrong......
Posted
I echo Robert’s view, and I haven’t a clue about what the thread was about!
We can be in danger of overthinking things, painting is about far more than shapes, although obviously we create shapes as we progress into a painting.
Best to concentrate on your tonal values, selective colour combinations and a good focal point! That’s the key to a successful piece of art!
Keep it simple is my motto…
Posted
This is advice which is given on a ‘learn to paint watercolour’ website where it’s listed as one of the common problems of composition, i.e. “a collection of shapes - your goal should be one large, connected shape”. It’s rather an odd concept, as most paintings consist of various shapes; surely the aim of good composition should be to balance the shapes and, as Alan says, focus on tone and colour.
Edited
by Jenny Harris
Posted
Sandra, the Panda's name is Percy. He has been with my wife and I for about 14 years now. He doesn't say much but when spoken to usually answers quite intelligently. Only watches sensible TV and is never rude to visitors. I have included him in several paintings, but he is a little shy and wouldn't like me showing them. He says to thank you for enquiring.