One of the things that goes round my brain is how realist versus how painterly and 'patterny' do I want the painting? Even though I am not a novice, I still sometimes wonder if I "can" make the image "real looking ... which would mean photographic, I suppose.
But I don't really want it photographic. I do want things to find their spot in space, but I do want the pattern to crowd out the specific soactial reading. I want to evoke the experience of decoding the world.
I am, however, like an ingenue, still and always in love with the transformative brush stroke that by its gesture describes an edge of some thing in all its freshness and crispness. Of course, often in the course of painting I find that the seductive brush mark, although descriptive of the thing, is in, in fact, the wrong space.
Another thought, when finishing one wants to create a sense of finish, of visual closure, but not lock down the image, must not make it too sharp that it becomes inflexible. Is should be sharp enough but not brittle.
The Taylor rolls out of the cascades and in to the upper middle fork of the Snoqualmie. It's a fun place to fish but difficult to walk around because of the very large rocks.
This painting is 30"x24".
I had put it aside for a long time as just something I would have to think about. I realized a few weeks ago that I needed to change the composition, move away from the source photos and add some diagonals on the right.
I was also never happy with the color, it always seemed too flat. Of course, the photo was taken on a day with very flat light, but I really liked the colors and light in the two other paintings from this time, and so I decided to change this one to be more like the others. No more blue rocks - and a bit more purple.