Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Loosening up
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
I will begin by saying that in an exhibition, I would walk straight past this with no more than a glance—
Whereas I would feel the desire to study this more carefully—
and also that I’m presenting the tight/loose gradation as if there were a clear boundary between the two.
A very quick count on the gallery when I writted this showed of 70 works on the first three pages, 10 works I would term as loose (to varying degrees) including two abstract works, against 60 that are tight or, it appears to me, the artist is attempting to be tight.
It got me thinking what is looseness in art. So I searched the phrase “looseness in art”. The top result—of course—was the despicable Amazon offering to sell me looseness in art. However, not far down was a watercolourist defining looseness as not how the painting is done but more as a product of careful observation. Which equates with my own view that more than fifty percent of the job in any work is figuring out what not to draw/paint.
Tightness in drawing and painting quite often involves everything being in focus, every edge a crisp, sharp edge. This does not equate with how we see the world; the human eye simply cannot focus on something two feet away and something twenty feet away simultaneously. One of my college drawing tutor’s favourite cliché phrases was “…if you can’t see it, you can’t draw it”. So, if the light or some other aspect of the scene means I can’t see that edge then that edge should not be in my drawing.
Another result was another art forum site and the half-dozen or so posts on the subject I looked at seemed to focus on loosenes as being the way you paint—big brush small paper for example. This does not equate with my view of looseness at all—although it’s true I almost never use a brush smaller than quarter inch. With almost every work I produce I struggle to keep the looseness and freedom and to stop things going tight and stiff and it can be very hard work.
It has always seemed to me that the admiration of for example, a very tight, photo-realistic painting or drawing comes from an admiration of detail, precision, technical ability etc. What I tend to refer to as the how rather than the why. This almost inevitably leads to the question how long…? But these questions fill in such a tiny, tiny part of the story that I push them aside in my eagerness to get to the why.
The inexperienced view of looseness might consider that looseness = poor observation or poor technique. This was a view expressed by someone on the second site, but to be fair to the man, he did confess that he now knows different.
I find that looseness requires—and here words become a little inadequate—a tighter observation, a harder looking at, a more thoughtful looking in order to find the why? and what it is that I can leave out. It also requires a willingness to experiment which in turn requires a willingness to fail.
Whereas I would feel the desire to study this more carefully—
and also that I’m presenting the tight/loose gradation as if there were a clear boundary between the two.
A very quick count on the gallery when I writted this showed of 70 works on the first three pages, 10 works I would term as loose (to varying degrees) including two abstract works, against 60 that are tight or, it appears to me, the artist is attempting to be tight.
It got me thinking what is looseness in art. So I searched the phrase “looseness in art”. The top result—of course—was the despicable Amazon offering to sell me looseness in art. However, not far down was a watercolourist defining looseness as not how the painting is done but more as a product of careful observation. Which equates with my own view that more than fifty percent of the job in any work is figuring out what not to draw/paint.
Tightness in drawing and painting quite often involves everything being in focus, every edge a crisp, sharp edge. This does not equate with how we see the world; the human eye simply cannot focus on something two feet away and something twenty feet away simultaneously. One of my college drawing tutor’s favourite cliché phrases was “…if you can’t see it, you can’t draw it”. So, if the light or some other aspect of the scene means I can’t see that edge then that edge should not be in my drawing.
Another result was another art forum site and the half-dozen or so posts on the subject I looked at seemed to focus on loosenes as being the way you paint—big brush small paper for example. This does not equate with my view of looseness at all—although it’s true I almost never use a brush smaller than quarter inch. With almost every work I produce I struggle to keep the looseness and freedom and to stop things going tight and stiff and it can be very hard work.
It has always seemed to me that the admiration of for example, a very tight, photo-realistic painting or drawing comes from an admiration of detail, precision, technical ability etc. What I tend to refer to as the how rather than the why. This almost inevitably leads to the question how long…? But these questions fill in such a tiny, tiny part of the story that I push them aside in my eagerness to get to the why.
The inexperienced view of looseness might consider that looseness = poor observation or poor technique. This was a view expressed by someone on the second site, but to be fair to the man, he did confess that he now knows different.
I find that looseness requires—and here words become a little inadequate—a tighter observation, a harder looking at, a more thoughtful looking in order to find the why? and what it is that I can leave out. It also requires a willingness to experiment which in turn requires a willingness to fail.
Posted
A fascinating read. Thanks very much. I've often admired paintings and drawings made in a 'loose' style, and think it very difficult to pin down what that means with mere words. I too would have given little attention to your first image...depicting tightness. I would also have been underwhelmed by the second example...depicting looseness. I think it's a mess.
But that's the great charm of art for me, it means different things to different people, and we are moved/interested/inspired by different things. Long may that continue.
I take your points about 'looseness' requiring tight observation, hard looks etc. I believe that to be true. But these things seem the opposite of the practice of applying paint to a surface. I suppose I'm imagining these loose marks applied with a spirit of free untrammeled inspiration. This may be why I can't do it.
One other small point...your art tutor's comment...'if you can't see it, you can't draw it.' Wrong. That's the death of imagination.
For me, art isn't about styles, or method; it's about pictures. They strike a chord or they don't. So I will continue to be interested and inspired by pictures painted loosely, or with every detail depicted, and all stages in between. I'll especially be interested by art painted in an odd-ball, idiosyncratic way (another inadequate description). Very often I'm attracted to work, simply because it's painted in a way that I can't manage.
Total agreement with your last sentence.
Posted
Now there’s an interesting observation CJ ,you observe the second painting as “abstract”. I see it as a rather beautiful landscape. Personal opinion ,the first one is a nit picking ,photo realistic non entity...and I would have skittered straight past it dragging John with me. Luckily we are all different or the world would be a poorer place.
John queries what is looseness ? . How to achieve looseness ?isn't it a continuation of Impressionism? . I don’t want to paint my world like a precise camera snap though I do often admire the skill of those who do.
Paintings aren’t about just an accurate recording but of emotion and feeling. Look at it, think about it ,see it in your head, then put brush , pencil ,pen to work . Plus I don’t think looseness is just achieved by big brush work as in Johns illustration , pencil drawings ,pen and ink can all achieve looseness.
Posted
It may be an over simplification but I always think of a set of scales with abstract in one pan and photorealism in the other. Looseness is achieved in different degrees depending on the weighting in the pans. (Hope that makes sense.) There is, to my mind and without decrying either, a distinct difference between creative and technical skills.
One of my monostich poems:
Creativity is the domain of artists but not all artists create.
Posted
Another interesting subject John. I would also walk past the first, not necessarily because of its tightness but because of the (to me) gaudy colour. I saved the painting and edited the colour to something more acceptable and found it actually quite a pleasing composition and skilful work. The second is much more my cup of tea.
Most of the classes I’ve attended, and tutors I’ve listened to, go for a loosening up process partly achieved by standing up to paint, (and stepping back frequently) and not sitting with your nose inches from your painting! I admire the skill involved in very realistic (not necessarily photorealistic) work and think it can help your skills to try that, but have no desire to just do that. We all have to develop our own style and individuality in my opinion. I suppose also looseness is encouraged by how we start a painting, whether drawing or plunging straight in with the paint. Thank goodness we’re all different!
Posted
Something's moving in,
I hear the weather in the wind,
sense the tension of a sheep-field
and the pilgrimage of fins.
Something’s not the same,
I taste the sap and feel the grain,
hear the rolling of the rowan
ringing, singing in a change.
Something’s set to start,
there’s meadow-music in the dark
and the clouds that shroud the mountain
slowly, softly start to part.
January’s painting challenge posted above , should prove a challenge re execution. It almost lends itself to looseness ,it’s a bit ethereal and nebulous .
Though I’m sure others are already thinking in an entirely different way. Twill be interesting.
Posted
Personally I agree with Lewis. I think keeping an open mind and eye are very important to me. I react to paintings - abstract, detailed or otherwise, on an emotional "I like it/don't like it" and judge everything accordingly. I no more like loose style over detailed work or vice versa. I think there's also a lot of snobbery in art appreciation. For what it's worth over the 2 paintings shown, the loose style wins hands down for me but only because the detailed painting is, like Tessa says, too gaudy and, in it's own way, unrealistic!
Posted
A very interesting debate. I too much prefer the second landscape to the Bob Ross' type landscape. The second one illustrates perfectly how I perceive 'looseness' to be and is something to admire. However, I do feel that 'poor observation and poor technique' all too often masquerades as looseness.
Posted
My reaction to the two paintings were the first I like the composition, but don’t like the bright colours, and the second I preferred but a bit too loose for me in that I would not paint that loose. This does not stop me from liking what others have painted. There is a quite famous American artist ( I cannot recall his name) who is very popular in the USA, whose work is very detailed, I like the detail but he uses for me over bright colours, all personal preference. Merry Christmas to all on POL, a Happy and creative New Year,
Posted
I'm with the "skip the first painting" team, Turner rather than Constable I suppose. I constantly try for looseness and simplicity and am ever hopeful that viewers will know that the results are deliberate rather than unskilled. I just believe in showing the bad as well as the good. I can do detail, just don't really desire it right now, but one thing I do quite a bit is drawing with a brush rather than a pencil or pen occasionally. I feel it helps achieve looseness even if the results aren't always staggering. Art is a never ending learning curve for me. That's what's so fascinating about it.