This thread is dedicated to preliminary work(studies) and first oil on canvas attempts after Vermeer's masterpiece, Girl with a Pearl Earring,the Hague,the Netherlands.
Here is my CP version,
Click to view attachment
oil pastel version
Click to view attachment
Vermeer a la maniere de Picasso original work
Click to view attachment
collages
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
For a better understanding of the painting I added some illusions with Microsoft Picture it editor to my oil pastels version;and from about 200 effects I chose the most helpful in studying the options i have before I start painting.Some are feasable to do in different media.
Here they are:
cement Click to view attachment
chalk chunky Click to view attachment
chalk fine on black Click to view attachment
charcoal sketch Click to view attachment
crisscross faded Click to view attachment
cutout Click to view attachment
foil red Click to view attachment
mosaic dark splotches Click to view attachment
note paper Click to view attachment
pointillist blocks Click to view attachment
sepia Click to view attachment
stained glass Click to view attachment
vegas Click to view attachment
And here it is my drawing of the version Vegas in Crayola crayons on Canvaskin pad 9x13in.What I retained was the realist shape of the pearls earring.
Click to view attachment
This digitally enhanced images are very tempting to try and want to ask your opinion on which are the candidates.
The Vegas version and the collages also help me understand how to work with blocks of color instead of lines in modeling my painting.
Full Version: my take on Vermeer's GWPE
Preparing the Canvas.
Following Dave's advice I mixed Titanium White and pinch of Burnt Umber and gave a coat to my canvas panel and one to a canvaskin pad.Now they rest in a sunny place during daytime.
Following Dave's advice I mixed Titanium White and pinch of Burnt Umber and gave a coat to my canvas panel and one to a canvaskin pad.Now they rest in a sunny place during daytime.
"2. Underpainting - first stage - instead of doing a drawing in charcoal, just go straight in with burnt umber paint - add sufficient turps to make it fluid, draw lines with it, use it to indicate the darks/shadow areas. It is possible to spread it with a brush, to wipe it out with a rag, with a dry brush, or with a brush just barely dampened with solvent.
Its possible to push the paint around on the surface, reinforce areas you want darker, lift out areas you want lighter. If you're doing anything using solvent, give the solvent a few mins to evaporate off the surface, then push the paint around.
Think of it as roughing-out, establishing your basic forms - it doesn't have to be very detailed - in fact, best to keep it all a bit soft-focus. Work as areas of light and dark, rather than as lines (you should be familiar with this from your charcoal work recently).
Give it a couple of days to dry (umber's a very fast dryer)." Dave(dcorc)
So today I found dry enough to proceed withthe first stage of the underpainting.
...the first try is on canvaskin of my Picasso-ish approach to Vermeer.
Click to view attachment
the second is on canvas panel 9x12in.
Click to view attachment
Comments and critique welcome and needed.
Its possible to push the paint around on the surface, reinforce areas you want darker, lift out areas you want lighter. If you're doing anything using solvent, give the solvent a few mins to evaporate off the surface, then push the paint around.
Think of it as roughing-out, establishing your basic forms - it doesn't have to be very detailed - in fact, best to keep it all a bit soft-focus. Work as areas of light and dark, rather than as lines (you should be familiar with this from your charcoal work recently).
Give it a couple of days to dry (umber's a very fast dryer)." Dave(dcorc)
So today I found dry enough to proceed withthe first stage of the underpainting.
...the first try is on canvaskin of my Picasso-ish approach to Vermeer.
Click to view attachment
the second is on canvas panel 9x12in.
Click to view attachment
Comments and critique welcome and needed.
"3. Underpainting - second stage Do another pass - reinforce darks (add a bit of ultramarine to the umber for your darkest darks)
If you need to state lights, you can go in with a paler mix of white and umber, or pure white - you can do this as part of the same painting session, or after giving it another couple of days drying time.
........
The idea of this is that after two or three sessions, you end up with an underpainting in shades of brown and beige, which has worked out your drawing and values." Dave
This time I guess i added too much ultramarine, I have the feeling that it should look differently from what i got. Here they are.
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
After these attempts to follow the steps I need feedback and the next step.
If you need to state lights, you can go in with a paler mix of white and umber, or pure white - you can do this as part of the same painting session, or after giving it another couple of days drying time.
........
The idea of this is that after two or three sessions, you end up with an underpainting in shades of brown and beige, which has worked out your drawing and values." Dave
This time I guess i added too much ultramarine, I have the feeling that it should look differently from what i got. Here they are.
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
After these attempts to follow the steps I need feedback and the next step.
Hi Elena - sorry I haven't been around (very busy 
)
Looking at your pics, it looks like you're using your umber like watercolour? I'd guess it's far too dilute with solvent (though I might be wrong, it can be hard to tell from a photo).
I'll talk about trying to do a reasonably "straight" copy _ I've got no objection in principle to doing the "picasso-esque" one (its a fun idea), but all the core technical oil-painting ideas are better demonstrated, I think, on the straight copy.
I tend to think of lines as only being for initial placement - for example, at the edge of the face against the dark background - one might initially put a line there, but really, its not a line, but an edge between an area which is light, and an area which is dark.
My approach here would be to spend around maybe 30-60 mins just putting in rough edges as thin lines (I find it useful initially to mark lines as straight line-segments - try to think of edges as runs of "straight-line followed by bend", rather than as continuous arcing curves - it makes identifying changes of direction and inflections, easier.
In the same session, while my paint's still wet (so it can be easily removed, or adjusted), I'd then modify this, blocking-in areas of light and dark, and trying to get initial shapes of areas roughly correct. one needs to identify those edges which are sharp, from those which transition more softly.
Its also important to essentially paint what you can actually see, rather than what you think ought to be there - for example, in your various copies, you've painted the ear quite light and readily seen, whereas in the original, its so much in shadow that its scarcely visible.
Its important to try to get the values right, work out how light or dark different areas of the image are.
Look at this greyscale version, for example:
We can see where areas are, between black, and white.
As a painter, we generally start, at least, by simplifying (detail mostly comes at the end of the painting process).
One way of simplifying is to squint, to try to blur out detail, try to look at the scene as large masses:
Another thing we can do is to arbitrarily try to assess the scene in terms of stepped values:
Note that the picture here is simply irregularly shaped patches (though the hard edges to the patches are arbitrary, determined here by whether they fall above or below certain thresholds. This might seem a rather mechanical way of thinking about things.) But we're not thinking about things in terms of "features" but only of abstract shapes. Get the abstract shapes right, and the "features" draw themselves!
A more "painterly" way is to go back to our slightly blurred version, and look at the planes that make up the face (and scene). What I mean here by "planes" is the idea that the surface can be approximated by a series of flat surfaces turned at different angles to the light. If we can try to identify these planes, and where the plane-breaks occur, and how they vary in value, this can help us depict the form.
I'd like to strongly emphasise that, while I'm demonstrating these ideas using photoshop here, I'm not necessarily advocating this sort of "high-tech dissection" of the image by computer - but rather, I'm pointing out the sort of conceptual processes that realist painters do in their head, when looking at a scene.
I'll follow up with an actual demo of first stages, if you give me some time to get it together across the weekend.
Dave
)Looking at your pics, it looks like you're using your umber like watercolour? I'd guess it's far too dilute with solvent (though I might be wrong, it can be hard to tell from a photo).
I'll talk about trying to do a reasonably "straight" copy _ I've got no objection in principle to doing the "picasso-esque" one (its a fun idea), but all the core technical oil-painting ideas are better demonstrated, I think, on the straight copy.
I tend to think of lines as only being for initial placement - for example, at the edge of the face against the dark background - one might initially put a line there, but really, its not a line, but an edge between an area which is light, and an area which is dark.
My approach here would be to spend around maybe 30-60 mins just putting in rough edges as thin lines (I find it useful initially to mark lines as straight line-segments - try to think of edges as runs of "straight-line followed by bend", rather than as continuous arcing curves - it makes identifying changes of direction and inflections, easier.
In the same session, while my paint's still wet (so it can be easily removed, or adjusted), I'd then modify this, blocking-in areas of light and dark, and trying to get initial shapes of areas roughly correct. one needs to identify those edges which are sharp, from those which transition more softly.
Its also important to essentially paint what you can actually see, rather than what you think ought to be there - for example, in your various copies, you've painted the ear quite light and readily seen, whereas in the original, its so much in shadow that its scarcely visible.
Its important to try to get the values right, work out how light or dark different areas of the image are.
Look at this greyscale version, for example:
We can see where areas are, between black, and white.
As a painter, we generally start, at least, by simplifying (detail mostly comes at the end of the painting process).
One way of simplifying is to squint, to try to blur out detail, try to look at the scene as large masses:
Another thing we can do is to arbitrarily try to assess the scene in terms of stepped values:
Note that the picture here is simply irregularly shaped patches (though the hard edges to the patches are arbitrary, determined here by whether they fall above or below certain thresholds. This might seem a rather mechanical way of thinking about things.) But we're not thinking about things in terms of "features" but only of abstract shapes. Get the abstract shapes right, and the "features" draw themselves!
A more "painterly" way is to go back to our slightly blurred version, and look at the planes that make up the face (and scene). What I mean here by "planes" is the idea that the surface can be approximated by a series of flat surfaces turned at different angles to the light. If we can try to identify these planes, and where the plane-breaks occur, and how they vary in value, this can help us depict the form.
I'd like to strongly emphasise that, while I'm demonstrating these ideas using photoshop here, I'm not necessarily advocating this sort of "high-tech dissection" of the image by computer - but rather, I'm pointing out the sort of conceptual processes that realist painters do in their head, when looking at a scene.
I'll follow up with an actual demo of first stages, if you give me some time to get it together across the weekend.
Dave
Dave, you're right I added too much turpenoid since it was rather fluid.
I also want to emphasize that my purpose is to use the original Vermeer as a guideline for MY girl with pearl earring, which means that I will not copy or attempt to get the depth of shade in the original.The ear area will be darker but not that dark. You can demonstrate your way. I will understand the point you make.
Take you time.THis will be an interesting and useful thread for many of us.Thank you for your help.
I also want to emphasize that my purpose is to use the original Vermeer as a guideline for MY girl with pearl earring, which means that I will not copy or attempt to get the depth of shade in the original.The ear area will be darker but not that dark. You can demonstrate your way. I will understand the point you make.
Take you time.THis will be an interesting and useful thread for many of us.Thank you for your help.
Elena, why, for once, don't you just go along with what's being offered? Instead of always rebelling? I'm doing this for free, but I could be charging serious money for what I'm showing you here.
The fact that the side of the face goes to dark is crucial to the design of this painting, ignoring that is to miss the biggest lesson about using the play of light to render form that the painting has to teach. (If you want to study a diffusely-lit face, then perhaps you should pick a Bouguereau - turning form under those conditions is even more subtle, calling for some advanced approaches to tight colour control)
The far side of the face is most strongly lit, planes facing towards the left of the painting are most strongly illuminated. The light is to our left, on a level with her or a little behind her, and just a little above her (suggested by the diagonal line of the shadow on the neck, and the greater lighting of the top of the hat) - and also by the position of the "catchlights" in the eyes.
The closer cheek is sufficiently turned in angle to drop in value just a little as is the central plane on the hat; The side of the nose drops in value a little more, as does the curve of the cheek approaching the plane-break; and the plane-break along the forehead, lateral side of the eye, and down across the cheek, turns to dark shadow with very little light bounced back from the environment to the right. There is a little bounce light so that we see the hues of the side of the face and the side of the hat, and also some detailing of the coat behind the shoulder. The lower part of the cheek and along the jawline is illuminated from light bounced from the white collar and from the ochre coat.
The pearl is not spherical but a rather fat teardrop shape, as is evidenced by the shapes of the reflected window and collar seen in it - also, note the lack of reflections from the right, in it.
The fact that the side of the face goes to dark is crucial to the design of this painting, ignoring that is to miss the biggest lesson about using the play of light to render form that the painting has to teach. (If you want to study a diffusely-lit face, then perhaps you should pick a Bouguereau - turning form under those conditions is even more subtle, calling for some advanced approaches to tight colour control)
The far side of the face is most strongly lit, planes facing towards the left of the painting are most strongly illuminated. The light is to our left, on a level with her or a little behind her, and just a little above her (suggested by the diagonal line of the shadow on the neck, and the greater lighting of the top of the hat) - and also by the position of the "catchlights" in the eyes.
The closer cheek is sufficiently turned in angle to drop in value just a little as is the central plane on the hat; The side of the nose drops in value a little more, as does the curve of the cheek approaching the plane-break; and the plane-break along the forehead, lateral side of the eye, and down across the cheek, turns to dark shadow with very little light bounced back from the environment to the right. There is a little bounce light so that we see the hues of the side of the face and the side of the hat, and also some detailing of the coat behind the shoulder. The lower part of the cheek and along the jawline is illuminated from light bounced from the white collar and from the ochre coat.
The pearl is not spherical but a rather fat teardrop shape, as is evidenced by the shapes of the reflected window and collar seen in it - also, note the lack of reflections from the right, in it.
I believe that ElenaM – like many people I have known – tend to get frustrated and defensive when things don’t work out.
I think ElenaM needs to go back and refresh her understanding of values by keeping to the greys. At the moment the paintings look flat and Tudor -like with the harsh colours.
I would follow dcorc’s valuable guidance, because if this element is ignored and dismissed there will be no real point continuing with your work.
I think ElenaM needs to go back and refresh her understanding of values by keeping to the greys. At the moment the paintings look flat and Tudor -like with the harsh colours.
I would follow dcorc’s valuable guidance, because if this element is ignored and dismissed there will be no real point continuing with your work.
QUOTE (Lance500 @ May 3 2009, 11:39 AM) 
I believe that ElenaM – like many people I have known – tend to get frustrated and defensive when things don’t work out.
I think ElenaM needs to go back and refresh her understanding of values by keeping to the greys. At the moment the paintings look flat and Tudor -like with the harsh colours.
I would follow dcorc’s valuable guidance, because if this element is ignored and dismissed there will be no real point continuing with your work.
I think ElenaM needs to go back and refresh her understanding of values by keeping to the greys. At the moment the paintings look flat and Tudor -like with the harsh colours.
I would follow dcorc’s valuable guidance, because if this element is ignored and dismissed there will be no real point continuing with your work.
Fully agree with you.
Thanks, Lance, and Cees.
I'd like to briefly pick up on a few points:
I think this is something almost all of us do. But it's important to realise that patience is important, and also that where one is accepting guidance from someone more experienced, its important to go along with them, as often concepts build one upon another, and in teaching, by getting someone to do something a specific way, one is laying the correct foundation for other issues which one intends to cover subsequently (and which can't easily be introduced at the outset - sometimes one needs to take things on trust that "this is the correct way to do it").
I wanted to return to this, because it deserves further comment. Beginners draw what they think ought to be there - and since their visual observation skills leave something to be desired (which is a major component of why they are beginners), its important to move people away from "symbolic" drawing, and towards observational drawing (This is basically the main issue that Betty Edwards "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" tackles). Its important to realise in representational painting we are really drawing/painting the play of light across the surfaces of objects - in a sense, its the light we are painting, not the object. This contrasts with "symbolic drawing" which tries to represent the object diagramatically, using lines to represent boundaries - its actually more an analogy for touch than it is a representation of visual appearance. There's generally an insistence on marking, indeed delineating, the boundaries of an object (because the aim is to draw a distinction between "object" and "not-object") rather than accepting that visual appearances may at times not allow that distinction to be confidently made.
The mind will, in any case, tend to try to give "closure" and will tend to try to "read" a compatible edge, for example, even where one is not actually visible. The smart painter, being aware of this phenomenon will exploit it in his/her paintings, and let the viewer do some of the work - indeed, all the painter needs to do, a lot of the time, is to avoid making marks that are actively incompatible with the intended "reading" - and then allowing the mind of the viewer to do the rest.
Now, having said one should paint what one sees, it should also be emphasised that one needs to try to also understand what one sees - you should ask why a value or edge is where it is.
Dave
I'd like to briefly pick up on a few points:
QUOTE
many people I have known – tend to get frustrated and defensive when things don’t work out.
I think this is something almost all of us do. But it's important to realise that patience is important, and also that where one is accepting guidance from someone more experienced, its important to go along with them, as often concepts build one upon another, and in teaching, by getting someone to do something a specific way, one is laying the correct foundation for other issues which one intends to cover subsequently (and which can't easily be introduced at the outset - sometimes one needs to take things on trust that "this is the correct way to do it").
QUOTE (dcorc)
Its also important to essentially paint what you can actually see, rather than what you think ought to be there
I wanted to return to this, because it deserves further comment. Beginners draw what they think ought to be there - and since their visual observation skills leave something to be desired (which is a major component of why they are beginners), its important to move people away from "symbolic" drawing, and towards observational drawing (This is basically the main issue that Betty Edwards "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" tackles). Its important to realise in representational painting we are really drawing/painting the play of light across the surfaces of objects - in a sense, its the light we are painting, not the object. This contrasts with "symbolic drawing" which tries to represent the object diagramatically, using lines to represent boundaries - its actually more an analogy for touch than it is a representation of visual appearance. There's generally an insistence on marking, indeed delineating, the boundaries of an object (because the aim is to draw a distinction between "object" and "not-object") rather than accepting that visual appearances may at times not allow that distinction to be confidently made.
The mind will, in any case, tend to try to give "closure" and will tend to try to "read" a compatible edge, for example, even where one is not actually visible. The smart painter, being aware of this phenomenon will exploit it in his/her paintings, and let the viewer do some of the work - indeed, all the painter needs to do, a lot of the time, is to avoid making marks that are actively incompatible with the intended "reading" - and then allowing the mind of the viewer to do the rest.
Now, having said one should paint what one sees, it should also be emphasised that one needs to try to also understand what one sees - you should ask why a value or edge is where it is.
Dave
I can see that we are getting personal here, Lance and Cees and there is only one explanation: my title of this thread was not fully understood. This is an attempt to paint a girl with a pearl earring that reminds you of Vermeer. It was not meant from the start to be approached as a reproduction. A reproduction or copy would have to deal with the original masterpiece in all aspects of painting. Dave is approaching the work in its depth of technique that Vermeer used.The whole demonstration of the painting process is done by understanding Vermeer and since Dave does this as such I have nothing to object to it. But my intention is to paint a beautiful girl with a pearl earring or a picasso style take on Vermeer. So all the edited image in my first post were done on my interpretation, departing from the original and ending up with something different.
I am not saying that the reaserch into Vermeer art is not important or I dismiss Dave's step by step analysis. I guess it's very valuable when one is guided to "read" a master.
THere are two lines of thought here that don't conflict. One is to look into the depth of Vermeer's art, the very demo that Dave does; the other is to depart from Vermeer and just draw, paint a girl with a pearl earring keeping a few elements that remind of the master like the pearl or the headdress.
This thread is about my interpretation and the painting I am attempting based on my drawings not on the original Vermeer.
I am not saying that Dave should base his demo on my drawings and i appreciate discussion of the original masterpiece. What I am saying is that learning the stages of oil painting and a technique is one thing and expecting I should do a reproduction is another and is not my intention.
Put it simply the help was about how to paint in oil and Dave took it a step further like how to paint like Vermeer or how to paint A Vermeer. It's fine with me as i don't know how to paint. But i will take from the lesson the spirit. Even better knowing or understanding how vermeer painted his Mona lisa I can adapt and rethink my version better.
Let's remember that Picasso had a long period in which he interpreted the masters.There are 45 versions of Velasquez' "Las meninas" which Picasso did, rethinking the masterpiece.
So I am ready to receive and welcome Dave's input on Vermeer the way he understands it.
There should be no hard feelings if my attempt will alter here and there the original work.
I am not saying that the reaserch into Vermeer art is not important or I dismiss Dave's step by step analysis. I guess it's very valuable when one is guided to "read" a master.
THere are two lines of thought here that don't conflict. One is to look into the depth of Vermeer's art, the very demo that Dave does; the other is to depart from Vermeer and just draw, paint a girl with a pearl earring keeping a few elements that remind of the master like the pearl or the headdress.
This thread is about my interpretation and the painting I am attempting based on my drawings not on the original Vermeer.
I am not saying that Dave should base his demo on my drawings and i appreciate discussion of the original masterpiece. What I am saying is that learning the stages of oil painting and a technique is one thing and expecting I should do a reproduction is another and is not my intention.
Put it simply the help was about how to paint in oil and Dave took it a step further like how to paint like Vermeer or how to paint A Vermeer. It's fine with me as i don't know how to paint. But i will take from the lesson the spirit. Even better knowing or understanding how vermeer painted his Mona lisa I can adapt and rethink my version better.
Let's remember that Picasso had a long period in which he interpreted the masters.There are 45 versions of Velasquez' "Las meninas" which Picasso did, rethinking the masterpiece.
So I am ready to receive and welcome Dave's input on Vermeer the way he understands it.
There should be no hard feelings if my attempt will alter here and there the original work.
Sorry, folks, I'm bowing out of this.
Dave
Dave
QUOTE (dcorc @ May 3 2009, 06:59 PM)
Sorry, folks, I'm bowing out of this.
Dave
Dave
Don't blame you!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.