Observations on the edge

dencal

Folks

This is a posting from ten years ago and is eternally relevant.

…….

In my nefarious travels through virtual space I have been summarizing what other artists are saying about the use and benefits of edges in paintings.

Here is a distillation:

One of the keys to good edges is variety.
Edges clarify and unify a composition and affect how the painting is read.
Edges have a role in defining shapes at their boundaries.
Too many distinct edges can stiffen and isolate/disconnect the subject from the background.
A few sharp edges focuses the viewer on the subject and anchors the center of interest. Our eyes are comfortable with this normal view.
Edges can be soft or blended with a smooth transition, lending depth and harmony.
Edges can be lost (+shape is the same value as the –shape).
Edges can be broken, with an abrupt path. 
Edges can be inquiring, acknowledging and emphasizing small variations on the perimeter. 
Edges can have a close value (perhaps a warm and cool version of the same hue), for example, showing distance effects on two parts of a same colored wall. 
Shadow or soft edges can ground objects and avoid a floating appearance.

Any additions to these guidelines?

Denis

NotACat

It's always fascinating when you find a painter who throws your understanding of a concept for a loop. When it comes to the concept of edges, Uglow's work is really something else and if he were tasked with adding something to this list, what would he add, I wonder.

dencal

Folks

I would like to add a few points to the edge analysis above.

The best edge is no edge. 

Edges are where one value stops and the other begins.
The more an edge is defined by a line the more it appears like a cartoon.
The turning human form is edge defined by an increasing shadow as the form turns from the light.
The turning human form is edge defined by an increasing value as the form turns toward the light.
No edges in nature are seen with an outline. Outlines are convenient conventions by artists.
Clean to edge nuanced values charge the image with grace and flow.

Denis

A_Time_To_Paint

Thanks Denis for your analysis of edges, something I personally struggle with.  Seems every single thing I paint needs help with edges.  I have saved this information and will no doubt go back and review it many, many times.

Abstraction

The best edge is no edge. 

I like your list but don't understand this line.  'Best'? Hard edges are often a focal point and important for the painting. Soft edges are also important. I do like lost edges, but aren't the best edges whatever is needed? Everything else is great - just the sort of guides to both follow because they are helpful and sometimes ignore because you know why. 

Some thoughts drawn from David Leffel:

* Edges help the painter convey the illusion of a three-dimensional form on a flat canvas.

* All objects have inside and outside edges. Inside edges of an object is wherever the plane or form changes direction. Outside edge is where form begins or ends. It faces the source of the light.

* The eye will automatically focus on the cleanest, sharpest thing it sees.

* A hard edge where an object meets a background will be a strong place of focus - yet the focal point is away from the edge, that is, inside the material. So you have to get rid of that hard edge as a place of focus and give the eye a new focal point on the three dimensional object. You can soften the edge by dragging two layers of wet paint together (eg, light & shadow), blending the edges.

* A soft edge shows continuity. The softer the edge, the duller the look. A hard edge shows ending. The harder the edge, the more riveting your painting is in that area.

dencal

Abstraction

Yes, ‘the best edge is no edge’ was a bold statement to set the stage for a discussion about using lines instead of values for an edge.

I have been attending life drawing classes for some years and noticed how ‘locked in’ artists with pencils become. When I give them some charcoal or chalk the first complaint is that they can’t get the lines fine enough.

example; Ryder and Huston, both masters in life drawing, sometimes spoil a beautiful piece of work with dark lines:

Lines all down the right hand side

Ryder has more flagrant examples in that book of heavy lined edges.

Denis

Suez

I had never heard of David  Leffel until now so I looked up his paintings. I saw hardly any really hard edges and the one’s I did, didn’t seem to be utilized as he says except on the edge of an Anasazi platter in a painting. It worked but, imo, made the edge look burnt out by the light and a little gimmicky.

Seems, to me, blending the edges to soften them can be ok but changing the values incrementally at the edge to be softened is a more convincing method. But why bother? Just leave out hard edges unless they are absolutely necessary - if at all.That’s what I intend to do. Highlights - second to last. If that’s not quite enough, if I haven’t planned well enough to do without, etc., I’ll sharpen the right edge in the right place in the right way, to say “the end”. Painting finished. 

NotACat

dencal, do you also look at Michelangelo or Fechin and think they are ‘locked in’?

tassieguy

Edges are difficult.  I guess, if we follow Mark's teaching,  we Just paint the edges as we see them. If it doesn't look right then we've made the edges to hard, too soft, or they shouldn't be there. I think David Leffel is right about edges.  They define the form.  But as @dencal said, edges should never be lines. Lines might be useful in drawing but they are the worst way to render edges in painting realism. We can do a fine line drawing, and colour it in, being careful to not go over our lines, but what do we end up with? A coloured-in drawing. Rather than lines, edges are best rendered by a change (hard or soft)  in value or colour. We don't see lines when we look at a face or a still life or a landscape. We see change in value or colour.

Even though I know this is so,  I still struggle with avoiding those damned lines. My instinct is to draw a line between forms. But that is not what is there. 

A_Time_To_Paint

Seems there are no hard and fast rules especially if we "paint what we see."  Seems I've heard an oil painting artist say the same thing that "no edge is the best edge" but cannot for the life remember who it was.  One of the Mark Carder's "What is Wrong with My Painting" videos talks a lot about edges and it seems the particular artist he is critiquing uses hard edges, which is probably just her style of painting.  She does some really great paintings:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgRjxvZyxU8&t=17s

NotACat

Never say never. Many masters have lines in their work (Van dyck et al)

They are usually hatching lines to bring up the chroma & add texture without overkill.
Or they are used to simulate movement.
Or a dark line along one edge of a big shape in order to push back that shape without having to make the whole shape too dark.

dencal

NotACat

dencal, do you also look at Michelangelo or Fechin and think they are ‘locked in’?

No!

Denis

Abstraction

Helpful context, Denis. Agree with the statement in that context.

Growing up, I always drew. And I saw things as lines. Then my painting teacher blew that out of the water. He taught me to see differently. He taught me to paint without any drawing - starting with painting big masses of values. Value, shape, colour, edge (hard, soft, lost). It's not lines at all. When I do 'sketch' now, it's usually wipe back method which quickly gives me the entire painting in monochrome - not as lines, but as values, shapes, edges.

This one is in my first few weeks of learning - nearly 30 years ago - he asked me to copy the painting in monochrome. This is wipe back from raw umber (I think, or burnt). It's much quicker and better for me than pencil sketching. I went a few steps further in details because they were there. I can see I stuck the end of my brush handle into the cloth to scratch back some sharp lines. It's a bit worn away being in a pile of canvas boards in the garage. In all my paintings still I always kill the white, cover the entire canvas, find the value statements and then the rest is down hill. I can imagine painting the lush colours over this!

dencal

Abstraction

Love these wipe off monochromes. Done a few. I found this method to be simple, freeing and allowing a lot of creative freedom in composition and value creation.

The overall context to this examination of edges is to push a tonalist approach and to abandon a linear basis for drawing and painting. Tone not line and draw/paint from the shoulder.

Denis

dencal

Folks

Key Takeaways

• We see edges whenever there is a change in object, plane or color.
• We describe edges using terms like hard, soft and lost. But, be aware that these terms are limited in describing all the intricacies of edges.
• The environment, among other factors, can have a powerful influence on the edges we see. Edges on a subject will seem much harder under the clear, midday sun than on a foggy morning.
• Comparison is an effective tool for ranking edges in terms of hardness.
• Edges provide an incredible amount of information about the subject, so make sure you are providing the right information.
• Blending is the most common way of painting edges, but you could also use broken color, palette knives or intermediate colors.
• In most cases, you should place your hardest edges around the focal point.

https://drawpaintacademy.com/edges/

Denis

tassieguy

That is a beautiful monochrome, @Abstraction. 

Suez

@dencal, What a great find! That article, and it’s examples, will help many people understand the power and importance of edges better.

Desertsky

@Dencal - thanks for your distillation on edges. For people just starting out in drawing or painting, I think edges help them figure out the objects. Later, as we learn more and have more confidence, that is when all your points about edges really come into action.

Since many here on DMP are self-taught, the idea of not using a hard edge to define the object can be intimidating. 

If an object has a shiny, hard surface, the reflected light will have clearly defined edges in real life; meaning that the two adjacent areas have noticeably different colors or values, How we choose to paint these edges can be different. 

Constable's beautiful landscapes have lots and lots of well-defined edges. I have spent many hours staring at Wivenhoe Park in the US NGA. 

dencal

Desertsky

Wivenhoe Park has well defined edges by values not lines.

By way of balance let me say I love Martina Shapiro and Roy Lichtenstein, both use steroid boosted black lines as edges. I have painted studies of their work because I love the graphic abstract power that those images possess.

Edges can be in many varieties, hard, soft, lost, broken etc chosen to best represent the object’s form under the prevailing conditions. Just so long as it is not a dark outline.

Denis

Suez

I just keep being drawn back to the article’s example of Fechin’s painting. That remarkably precise knife work which defines and illuminates the model’s face silhouette so seemingly effortlessly is sheer magic. 

The skill required to accomplish such effects is worth studying, practicing for, and working towards. Imagine the painting without that edge. How less astonishing the painting would be. 

This drives home why in the great master’s shops of yore, once the master worked out the painting’s “blueprint” most of the paint work could be painted by well trained competent workshop help with the final touches and signature masterly strokes being applied by the master. 

Even today hundreds, if not thousands, of professional painters can make really close approximations to modern and old time masterworks but they fall well short of the magic of the original master’s accomplishments regardless of how many people can’t tell the differences very well. 

It’s worth the investment of time for painters to learn to see artworks at least as well as connoisseurs do. The ability to discriminate at a much higher level than the common “above average” take is what allows for the opportunity to excel in practice if that is the direction one aspires to. 



 

Desertsky

It seems to me, based on looking at various how to art books, that before the 1990s, most were written by illustrators. I think that they were predisposed to use hard edges and lines. Lots of lines. 

Suez

I imagine there were good technical reasons for commercial art schools to train students to use a lot of hard edges and lines. 

Making it easier to keep colors in register for printing to meet deadlines efficiently comes to mind. The commercial art world can be very fast paced and deadlines must be met. It’s a different world than the fine art world. It’s rush, rush, rush most of the time.

dencal

folks

I know you are all on edge waiting for the low down on painting edges. Here ‘tis…

https://youtu.be/scbXlIL6Faw

Jensen carves out a cow from a black canvas with large brushes using a mass drawing technique and no linework. 

Loose. Creative. Free. Expressive —————> ARTISTIC

Denis

MichaelD

That was an interesting video @dencal,

For me the end result was like I was seeing a cow through a rain soaked window pane.

CBG

MichaelD said:

That was an interesting video @dencal,

For me the end result was like I was seeing a cow through a rain soaked window pane.

You've made a breakthrough of your own MichaelD!

The centuries old mystery/conundrum of how not to make edges solved: 

Place a rain soaked pane of glass between you and your reference/still life. 


Brilliant!

   

Suez

Breakthroughs in sleigh-of-hand hack work enhanced by equally awful filming technique at very low resolution quality.

tassieguy

That was interesting, @dencal.  I like the painterly looseness and expressive quality of the brushwork. I like the edges.  I think it takes a bit of courage to approach painting realism like he does - you need big brushes and you need to be prepared to make mistakes - but where it works, it looks great. Thanks for the video.