One of the recurring themes throughout this book is that landscape painting is an art of interpretation. Our goal is not to reproduce what we see exactly as we see it. Rather, all we observe—every color, shape, and detail—is filtered through an interpretive lens. The painting we produce may resemble a landscape, but is now a painting, a unique interpretation of the world in its own visual language. This process of translation is never more demanding than when trying to interpret the landscape at its most fundamental level: shape.
Nature is terribly complex. It has innumerable shapes, from the minute to the monumental, and in its raw, unedited state, can seem quite overwhelming. The key to translating all this into a painting is not to capture every bit of it but to reduce it into a simpler set of shapes and masses. This is the landscape painter’s first and most important task. Remarkably, this reductionist approach doesn’t detract from the overall impression—it enhances the painting, making it more comprehensible to the viewer.
A REDUCTIONIST APPROACH TO SHAPE
When we observe the natural world, in all its depth and breadth, we are able to apprehend its many values and colors, and all its parts and pieces, with no thought at all. Trying to paint that subject, however, requires us to look through a different visual lens. To convert such an overwhelming amount of information into the language of painting, we must begin to see the subject in simpler terms.
Every painting, even a complicated one, has a foundation that is built upon simplified shapes. Yet, this isn’t necessarily what we see first. We are distracted by a sea of details, colors, and narrative content. To simplify, we have to see through all the layers of complexity and busyness. We have to interpret and extrapolate.
Our goal isn’t to include everything we see, but to know what to leave out. One of the most satisfying “ah-ha!” moments a painter can experience is when they discover that a simplified picture structure captures the essence of a subject more effectively than small parts and details.
THE BENEFITS OF SIMPLIFICATION
If you’ve taken workshops or read other books on landscape painting, you have certainly heard the common refrain: Simplify, simplify, simplify! Why is a reductionist approach to shape so important?
The natural world and our paintings of that world are made up of the same fundamental building blocks—shapes. Yet the shapes that end up in our final painting don’t necessarily correspond to everything we see in the subject. Even the most highly detailed paintings don’t replicate the scene exactly, shape for shape. Our goal is not to transcribe every shape we see. There are too many of them. We must be selective. We combine smaller shapes into larger ones. We decide which shapes are essential to the composition and which ones are superfluous.
We place greater emphasis on some shapes, while downplaying others or even eliminating them altogether, until we can convey the essence of the subject in the most visually concise way possible.
The stages of a painting have a logical flow that moves from the general (basic foundational shapes) to the specific (additional details, values, and colors). Just as a builder first lays the foundation of a house, so does a painter begin with a foundation that establishes the basic structure and composition of a painting. We never begin a painting with details, even if the painting will ultimately include many.
A painting always begins with basic, foundational shapes—which are always simple. Small parts, details, and colors are attached to those basic shapes later.
A poet expresses an idea or emotion in a metered string of carefully chosen words, which is far more eloquent than the same idea expressed in a long, wordy paragraph. Similarly, when the painter converts nature’s “wordy” excesses into more visually concise and meaningful shapes, it is nothing less than visual poetry. Indeed, what makes a painting special—what makes it a painting—is the visual poetry of the shape interpretation.
When simplified shapes become the primary impression, viewers are often touched in a place that is beyond words and thought.
A painting simplified in this way doesn’t tell the whole story. An observer must fill in the gaps in their mind’s eye, which evokes a different kind of response than a painting that tells the viewer everything. Viewer participation is required.
THE ROLE OF VALUE IN SHAPE INTERPRETATION
Every painting workshop and every art book discusses values—and for good reason. The differences between values are largely responsible for our ability to achieve separation between shapes. Wherever there is a difference in value, we are at an edge, at the border between two shapes or planes.
Value is the single most important key to seeing and interpreting shapes.
The range between light and dark values is also responsible for conveying a believable sense of light, depth, volume, and atmosphere.
CONSIDER: Value can exist independent of color (as in a drawing), but color can never exist independent of value because value is one of the three basic attributes of color. Every color is also a particular value.
Defining shapes through value differences is not as easy as it might seem. This is in large part because there are so many values to contend with. There may be as many as 25, 50, or 100 values in any given subject—far too many to effectively discriminate. Painters get around this problem by restricting themselves to working with a much narrower range of values than they actually see, with as few as 5 values.
When we limit our values, the differences between those values becomes more apparent, which in turn helps distinguish one shape from another.
To better help identify values, painters often refer to a value scale. Scales can have different numbers of steps: usually 5, 7, or 10. Each scale has white on one end and black on the other, with evenly stepped gradations in between. The 5- and 7-step scales are limited value scales. The 10-step scale is not as limited; it offers a wider range of values, but not so many that one can’t discriminate between them.
CONSIDER: A value scale is only a guide, not a hard and fast value-matching system. Ultimately, you have to judge a value in the context of the painting where you can compare it alongside other values.
CONSIDER: Scales can also be divided into segments of light, middle, and dark. This serves as a reminder of the values typically associated with areas of light and shadow. Painters often place a printed version of the scale on their palette so they can better evaluate the values of their color mixtures.
The 7-step scale is a bit more flexible than the 5-step. It has few enough steps to make managing values easier, yet enough to adequately render any subject. In subjects with a full range of values, from white to black, you have all seven values to work with. If the subject has a more compressed value range, and you eliminated the white and black endpoints, you would still have a full five values (2 to 6) to work with.
Earlier in this chapter, we saw how every painting begins with a simplified foundation. (“Simplification Is Our Starting Point”.) Of course, as we develop a painting, we will want to add additional values, colors, and details. How can we do this without losing the basic foundation we established at the start? By working within value zones.
The broad shapes and planes in landscape form value zones. We can maintain the foundational value structure of our painting by making sure that any modulations of value we make within a zone never vary so much as to break with the overall continuity of that zone.
BALANCING SIMPLIFIED SHAPES AND DETAIL WITH THE 80/20 RULE
When first learning to translate nature’s forms into painting, it’s easy to go overboard with detail. It takes a lot of experience before one realizes “simplified shapes capture the essence of a subject more effectively than small parts and details.”
Yet, those small parts and details do matter. They hold information that may be essential to the visual story. They also provide a compelling visual counterpoint to the larger elements within the subject. How do we know how much detail is too much or how much is too little? The answer can be found by considering the balance between the larger foundational shapes and the details. As a general rule of thumb, the main masses should occupy around 80 percent of our visual focus and the details around 20 percent.
The 80/20 rule reminds us that large foundational shapes and details exist within a visual hierarchy. Viewers should identify with the large shapes and masses first and the details second.
If we experience the opposite, if we notice details first, then the viewer will have a different kind of perceptual experience. As important as details may be, they must always remain subordinate to the dominant masses.
REVIEW QUESTIONS: SHAPE INTERPRETATION
Are you beginning the painting with large foundational shapes?
Or are you starting with small shapes and details that distract from the picture’s foundational structure? Regardless of how much detail you will ultimately include, always begin with a foundation of simplified light and dark masses.
Are you squinting to help yourself see basic light and dark patterns?
Details and small value differences evaporate when you squint, revealing the basic light and dark structure of the composition. This basic structure is your starting point.
Are more shapes needed or fewer?
Which shapes are essential to the visual story and which ones are superfluous? Will the picture suffer if you eliminate a particular shape or if you combine several shapes into one?
How are you managing detail?
Detail is an important part of a landscape painting, but too much can be overwhelming to you, who has to paint it all, and to the viewer. Use the 80/20 rule to strike the right balance between foundational shapes and details (here). Use value zones to contain detail (here).
Are the shapes in your subject well-differentiated?
Whether working from life or from a photo, are there passages where it is hard to tell where one shape begins and another ends? The separation of shapes must be emphasized. Value and color differences are the primary means of doing so.
Are you using limited values?
Limited values are a reliable means of differentiating shapes. The more you stick to a limited value plan, the more clearly defined the shapes will be.
Have you targeted the endpoints of your value range?
Not every subject has values that stretch from full light (white) to full dark (black). What is the lightest light and the darkest dark in the painting? Find those on your value scale. These are the endpoints that you will work between.
Are you working with value zones to help maintain control of your values?
Broad shapes and planes in landscape form value zones. You can better control your values by making sure that any shifts of value you make within a zone never vary so much as to break with the overall continuity of that zone.
EXERCISE: SIMPLIFY AND DIFFERENTIATE WITH LIMITED VALUES
OVERVIEW: In this exercise, you will do a painting in black and white, using just five values. This is the most powerful of all the shape exercises because it exposes you to three essential keys of shape interpretation. First, you’ll learn to control value mixtures by mixing five evenly stepped values. Second, working with limited values will force you to differentiate shapes and to simplify. And finally, the exercise reinforces your awareness of value zones because each discrete shape in the painting corresponds to a zone.
MEDIA: This exercise can be done in any medium, but it works best with acrylics, even if you’re not an acrylic painter. It’s easier to alter shapes and values with acrylics because they dry fast and lend themselves to quick revisions.
MATERIALS: Photo reference | Acrylic paint | Brushes | Paper palette (white) | Palette knife | Painting surface (paper, canvas, or panel)
STEP 1: PHOTO SELECTION
Select a photo and print it out in both black and white and color. Make sure it has well-differentiated shapes and clear patterns of light and shadow.
STEP 2: MIX VALUES
The white and black values can be used straight from the tube. But you will have to mix the three intermediary values (2, 3, and 4). If you haven’t mixed values like this before, you’ll find that it’s not as easy as it looks. It takes fine control to get all five values evenly stepped without any two being too close to each other. If, say, values 4 and 5 are too close, you effectively lose one of your values. Even steps assures that each value is well-differentiated from the other.
STEP 3: DRAWING
Work small, around 8 × 10 inches (20.5 × 25.5 cm). Begin by blocking in the main shapes—those that are foundational to the composition. This step is a challenge in itself, as the temptation will be to delineate minor shapes like branches, fenceposts, or leaves. Use a small brush or a pencil.
STEP 4: INITIAL BLOCK-IN
Begin blocking in the value zones. Squinting will help you see these zones. Because the photo has so many values, and you’re limited to just five, you won’t have every value you need. You’ll be forced to make choices, which is part of the exercise. Keep the shapes and value zones as distinct as possible. This will encourage differentiation. Avoid a lot of blending. The acrylics will help with this because they dry so quickly.
STEP 5: DEVELOPMENT AND FINISH
In order to achieve the necessary differentiation, you may have to make certain elements a different value than they appear in the photo. Here, the sky in the photo is value 2. If it were 2 in the painting, however, it wouldn’t separate enough from the adjacent hills, so it becomes a 1 and the lightest value the painting. In the photo, the sunny foreground is nearly white, but as a 1 in the painting, it would have appeared too bright and competed with the sky, so it becomes a 2.
When you’re done, ask yourself: If there is one additional value I could add that is not 1 to 5, which value would that be? Here, I would make the sun-struck foreground a little lighter, closer to a 1.5 than a 2.
EXERCISE: SIMPLIFIED SHAPE PAINTING
OVERVIEW: One of the best ways to get a feel for shape interpretation is to work in a style of painting that simplifies in the extreme and defines shapes with distinct edges. Whether or not this is your preferred style, emulating it can be very instructive. You can experience how much can be conveyed through a small number of well-chosen shapes. For many, this must be experienced to be believed. In Part 1, you will do a master copy. In Part 2, you will try applying the same type of simplification and rigorous shape definition to your own painting.
Do a copy of one or more of the paintings shown here by Sue Charles, Tony Allain, or Frank Hobbs. You can find additional examples of Charles’ and Allain’s work on this page and here, respectively, or online. Also look at the work of Fairfield Porter, a representational painter of the 20th century who worked in a similar shape-oriented way.
Work small, approximately 8 × 10 inches (20.5 × 25.5 cm). You may wish to capture the color, although color accuracy in this exercise is less important than experiencing what it is like to think in reductionist terms.
CONSIDER: The three examples shown here are in different media: oil, gouache, and pastel. But you can copy any painting regardless of your medium.
OVERVIEW: In the master copy you did in Part 1 of this exercise, the shapes were already simplified and differentiated for you. Now, you will try interpreting the shapes in the same way on your own. Although this style of painting appears very graphic and simple, it is demanding. You are not performing a direct translation of every shape you see in the source. You are leaving out some shapes and perhaps combining several smaller shapes into one. Think of this study as a visual puzzle. What are the fewest number of shapes and strokes you can use to express the essence of the subject?
CONSIDER: Although you can do this exercise from life or a photo, you may want to do it from a photo first. This will give you extra time to consider your choices and perhaps revise the painting over the course of a few days.