 |
| William Trost Richards, field study 36.4 x 51 cm (14 5/16 x 20 1/8 inches), RISD Museum |
"William Trost Richards’s close studies of nature reveal his belief, based on the writings of critic John Ruskin, that the way to truth was the study of nature in penetrating detail. On display here is Richards’s precision and agility with watercolor and gouache in vertical format—his favorite for such studies. He may have found this meadow on one of his many long walks around his daughter’s farm in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Before it came to the Museum the drawing suffered from sun exposure, leading to the fading of the sky’s blue pigment, some of which is still visible where it pooled."
I'm impressed with how he sets up two planes of focus: the near weeds and the far trees. While he carefully defines all the smaller textures of the flowers and foliage with a playful variation of colors, he does so within a controlled value gamut.
He keeps to his overall statement of light-foreground over dark-middle-ground over light-sky. The whole design is set up to feature the Joe-Pye weed in the center, where the tonal contrasts are most dramatic.
It would have been easy to get bogged down in other details, and a photograph would have presented a very different set of facts.
9 comments:
Do you think this would have been done in one sittIng?
"William Trost Richards’s close studies of nature reveal his belief, based on the writings of critic John Ruskin, that the way to truth was the study of nature in penetrating detail.”...wow that is a potent comment.
For people who have not developed their technical drawing skills, could the way to truth still be in the pursuit of close observation? For example, could the relentless study of nature through photography still lead to truth? Could the relentless study of nature through just spending time without recording an image still lead to truth?
Glenn, yes, I think it's possible, given that it's not dependent on a transient light effect. I imagine it would take two or three hours, though, even though watercolor is pretty efficient.
Susan, those are thoughtful questions. I would say that drawing is a primary means of apprehending the world, distinct from other means, such as scientific analysis, field observation, or photography. Those other avenues can enhance the artist's appreciation and insight, but still drawing is still its own form of knowing—and that's why so many scientists like to draw.
You might ask: in order to do a good drawing, do you need to know for example that the structure flower has co-evolved with the anatomy of the pollinator? Not necessarily, but it helps. If you're interested in that meeting place between scientific and artistic way of seeing, I'd recommend the nature drawing book by John Muir Laws, which I've linked at the end of the post.
I love Susan's questions here, but assuming we are talking about "truth" as it relates to artistic expression, I don't understand her last question, "Could the relentless study of nature through just spending time without recording an image still lead to truth?"
Looking at the painting closely, one can see that his "close studies", and tight drawing are limited to a few details in the foreground. Masterfully done!
Bill
The painting is really astonishing and, in a word, just beautiful.
I too would like to praise John Muir Laws and his books. I haven't bought the "Guide to Nature Drawing" yet, but I have his "Guide to drawing birds", and I do love it so much. Besides being very informative and helpful, it shows some really beautiful art. Not that kind of spectacular bird art you may find somewhere else, but a very sensitive and insightful art.
Possibly "the way to truth" refers to the building of visual information and understanding of a subject through careful observational study that culminates in "penetrating detail". I have found in my own work and that of my workshop students, that the more information (relationships, comparisons, angles, measures, coincidences, colours, etc) we can consciously assess about our subject the truer our drawings or paintings will be.
As a Master Naturalist, I am interested in the fact that the wildflowers are referred to as "weeds".
Kathryn, I like Ella Wheeler Wilcox;s quote: A weed is but an unloved flower,” but as you rightly suggest, we love wildflowers, too, and we've got to respect their resilience. I often use the term "weed" informally to include any naturally growing herbaceous plant, not just familiar and cherished wildflowers, but also invasives, vines, grasses, ferns, and mushrooms.
Post a Comment