Thoughts I've thunk while sippin' at a cup of tea and reading something provoking, often get dropped here for the benefit of humanity and my own hubris.
Except where otherwise noted, all original content is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
See details.
I did this watercolor many years ago during my defined by shadow phase, and have been meaning to display ever since I found it in a drawer.
I was intrigued by the concept that an image could be defined solely by it’s shadow, and the the first few that I did used a lot of blues and grays. This one was the first one I did that used warmer colors, and I liked the fire-like energy of both the color and the pose of the figure.
Normally, a figure is defined by the interplay and contrast between light and dark, where the “light part” is defined in various colors and the shadows are often not defined internally, but defined as only a border. In this case, they’ve shifted roles, and the “light part” is there, but not defined internally.
How much are we defined by unrecognized shadow?
© 2004-2005, Howard Abrams • Except where otherwise noted, all original content is licensed under a Creative Commons License (see details).
what a beautiful, passionate painting! thanks for sharing it- so many wonderful artists with weblogs inspire me to get back to my artwork and just BE creative :):) thanks! beautiful piece :):)
Comment posted on Wednesday, 7 April 2004I completely agree with Nicole - beautiful, passionate and thanks!
Comment posted on Sunday, 11 April 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|