Edges
 

Because of the importance of edges in painting, and as the subject is woven thorough many other topics, Cynthia suggested a separate thread. I thought I would take a stab at starting out a general discussion, so please embellish.

Edges occur wherever shapes meet, whether between hair and background, ear and cheek, collar and throat. The painter's ability to manage edges effectively is, in my view, often a key element that differentiates the amateur from the accomplished painter.

Edges in a painting serve two important functions. First, they punctuate the path a viewer's eye takes as it scans your canvas. Sharp edges, along with elements like strong contrast, and saturated or discordant color, attract the viewer's eye like magnets.

Second, edges support your center of interest, the concept underlying the reason you picked up the brush to begin with. Used with purpose, edges of varying sharpness will force your viewer to see what you want him to see. Keeping your very sharpest edges near your focal point will reinforce it.

Edges can be either hard or soft, or lost, or found.

Hard edges are usually easy to find in places where light and shadow meet crisply, as in a strong cast shadow; where light and dark shapes meet, such as a white cuff against a dark sleeve; or where textures are smooth or metallic, to name a few.

Soft edges can be readily found where an object has a form (as opposed to a cast) shadow; where textures are fuzzy or uneven, like the silhouette or edges of hair, or folds in a fabric like mohair, as compared to pressed linen.

Edges become lost when adjacent shapes are similar in value, especially so when they are similar in both value and hue. They are found again when the value or color of one of the shapes changes.

When you paint from life it is far easier to see edges than when you paint from photos. From life, look at your center of interest, and close your eyes. You will be left with an impression of where the edges are most pronounced. Make judgements about the relative sharpness of other edges, as you are looking at your center of interest.

Find the edge which will be the sharpest in your painting, as well as the edge that is the softest, without becoming completely lost. Then you can compare every other edge you paint to the these two "bookends".

You cannot rely on photographs to help you with edges, because everything in focus will have an equally sharp edge. Paintings without edge differentiation very quickly bore viewers.

NOTE: Of all the discussions I have ever read on edges, none, in my opinion, is more thoughtful nor complete than Richard Schmid's text in "Alla Prima" (pages 91-110). I would also add that it is difficult to find better examples of masterful edge use than shown in his work. You can see his on line gallery at www.richardschmid.com.

As I find other examples, I will edit this post or add a new one.

Chris

Here is an example of how different types of edges contirbute to the overall piece. I have picked out several ..

Chris,

Great post on edges, they are so important! Richard Schmid is one of the featured artists in the January 2002 issue of Southwest Art magazine.

Steve

Chris,

Thank you so very much for the hard work you put into fulfilling my request for a post on edges. It was a subject that has been discussed only briefly here and there in the forum. It kept nagging at me that this very important subject had yet to be given the position it deserved.

Chris,

Good job of covering the question of hard and lost edges. And I agreed with your reference to Schmid's book and the fine examples found within of great edge treatment.

I have attached a water color demo that painted for a figure/portrait class several years ago with the hope of negating the tendency for my near beginner group to outline figures/faces, make all flesh the same hue with light and dark values, and to smooth out each and every brush stroke. Fortunately the likeness was also good and it had some favorable effect on the group. I emphasised that colors, brush strokes, and colors could be exaggerated and even somewhat arbitrary and might make their paintings more interesting without sacrificing likeness.

I know of a few artists; ones that some of you have spoken of favorably herein, that will work to determine which ONE edge will be hard in a painting, especially a small head. One and only one...only one can be the "most-est"!(sic); then all others are to some degree softer. The effect is pretty awesome.

You can also find something about edges here:
http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=3522#post3522

I ran across an art auction at one of our local hotels this weekend. The paintings were wonderful re-creations of many famous paintings. I spent a lot of time examining them up close. Most were quite large and sitting on the floor so I could really see them well. I was really noticing how they handled the edges on these....so soft, and they just melted into the background. I do Ok on edges within the painting, where the halftones meet, etc, but I would like my outer edges to be softer, especially when a dark background is used. I see a lot of talk about making edges soft, but no technique that is devulged to make this happen. When I try to soften edges with thinner, they bleed into the dark background. Right now it is trial and error to get the edges right. Anyone care to elaborate on how they do this? I would really appreciate information on this.

Here is is an illustration borrowed from Ingres to illustrate a "soft" edge"

If you were going to soften the following edges (even more and on a dry surface yet!) this is how you would do it...

Get the outside edge of the leg wet with thick paint (match exactly the color of the paint underneath).

Then get the background right next to the leg wet with thick paint (match exactly the color of the paint underneath).

Blend the two edges. In this case, vertical strokes would probably work the best.

It is even easier to get a soft edge when you paint a la prima, because everything is wet and blends easily.

This is a very important principle in painting: THERE ARE NO HARD EDGES IN NATURE!

While at the bookstore yesterday I saw a North Light book on Edges. The exact title and author escapes me but it looked informative. As you know all North Light books have plenty of demonstrations and explanations for us "less-seasoned" artists. :)

Regarding Edges
 

:? I have a question regarding lost and found edges for the pros out there.

Is a "found" edge the same as a "sharp" edge? I know how to blend and soften my edges, but I'm a little confused about "found edges". Is a found edge somewhere between a hard and a soft edge?

Thanks,
Alicia

Alicia,

An edge can be either sharp or soft. Losing an edge and finding it again is the principle that you're seeking. Let's assume that you are working on a form, any form, and the outer boundary of that form has a noticeable edge. As you follow that edge it enters into an area where the light is striking that form in a strong manner(highlighting it). The edge disappears (losing it) in the highlighted area. When that edge travels out of the strong light, it then becomes apparent again, thus it is found (a found edge). I hope that this helps.

I happened to think of another example... Say that you are viewing a cable that is traveling in front of a shadow in such a manner that it has a strong contrast to the shadow, thereby giving it a hard edge. The cable, then, turns and travels into the shadow in such a manner that it obtains the same value and hue of the shadow and becomes invisible, thereby giving it a lost edge. Then, it turns again and travels out of the shadow. As it comes into the light its edge becomes apparent and is seen as a soft edge. But, then, as it nears and enters into the strong light, it becomes a hard edge. ;)

Thanks, Tom.

I think I get the picture. I paint mostly from pictures and understand that it is difficult to determine edges from photographs. That is what I understood from Chris's essay on edges. It is the amount of light on an edge that determines its character, and also the position of the edge.

Thanks,
Alicia

I paint from photographs too. But I think of them as only a "suggestion" of the reality that I am creating ("artistic license").

Lost and found edges don't always show up where you want them in photographs. You need to make them up when you have a logical opportunity to do so.

Utilizing a lost and found edge gives you a splendid compositional opportunity to integrate foreground, middle ground and/or background in a painting. Check out any of the Old Masters. They lost and found edges all the time.

Here's a "quickie" example from a detail of a painting by Vermeer.

Note how the line of the models back in the foreground gets "lost" in the horizontal bar that is part of the background.

A lost edge is an illusion meant to fool the eye. Because the viewer knows where the line of her back is meant to be, it isn't really necessary to "see" the presence of that edge to understand what is happening.

"Found" edges are easy to spot. They look a little bit like "cut outs" that are pasted on (note the well defined "found" edge on the upper back that is above the "lost" one).

Edges
 

;) Thank you, Karin.

I am beginning to see what is meant by a "lost" edge. It it much easier for me to understand something if I can see it. I guess that goes along with being a painter, as I relate on a visual level rather than conceptually. I will look for lost edges in the masters' paintings.

That would be another lost edge on the left side of the model's face. The eye of the beholder fills in what is known to be there. I will incorporate this into my paintings (or try to) in the hopes that they begin to take on a softer appearance and will not look like "cut outs".

There are lots and lots of "lost edges" in the example I posted...I only mentioned one of them.

Obvious: the book gets "lost" in the sleeve, the sleeve's back edge gets "lost" into the back of the dress.

Not so obvious: her curls and some areas of the leaf's edge (on the left).

Also, notice the way Vermeer connects his shadows into larger patterns that transcend form. They merge so well you cannot tell where one form ends and another begins.

"Edges" don't actually "get lost" in "real life", but the artist grabs the opportunity to make it happen in good painting.

I most especially love Vermeer. You can learn all you'll ever need to know about painting just from studying his work. His lessons are simple, clean and clear. He is a painter with both weight and substance.

Can you tell that Vermeer is my verrrrry favorite painter? Honestly, everything I know so far, I think that I learned from copying his work.

:thumbsup:
Karin,

Well, you've finally convinced me that I have to copy the paintings I love, to find out what I love about them. I too love Vermeer (what's not to love?) Did you read the novel "Girl with a Pearl Earring"? Were you able to see his works at the Met last year? I have a large coffee table book from this showing that two dear friends brought back to me. They were lucky enough to be in New York at this time and I told them not to miss it. The chance of a lifetime.

I will make time to paint from the Masters. Actually painting them should be fun, as it is not a commission and I can relax when I do it. I only need to please myself right? Tongue placed in cheek (I am my worst critic) as are most of us here on the forum.

Thanks for helping me to see.

Before you begin:

Everything I have read would indicate that Vermeer painted in the direct manner. In other words, he did not do a grisaille with glazing. He did a detailed drawing (cartoon), underpainted in tin yellow, and began immediately to paint the correct color and value. He would use some glazing in the final process as indicated, and would also do some impasto for emphasis. Titian, Velasquez, Hals, Rembrandt, as well as Sargent and the Bostonian painters also painted in the direct manner. I have seen the tendency to assume that the masters all painted in grisaille with glazing. Not necessarily. Then as now, the artist would pick the painting method that suited his/her temperament.

Peggy

Peggy Baumgaertner wrote: Peggy, is that to be interpreted as all in one session? Or would there be some drying time in between?

More has been written about his methods than is known. But I disagree in that I feel he used an underpainting rather than a direct method.

In any event, it is the principles of painting that count, not the methods.

Vermeer's work can be copied and his lessons can be learned no matter which painting method is used.

Tom,

I do not mean alla prima, all at once. I mean directly, with several drying layers between applications. (I myself paint directly with at least four layers of paint applied to each painting. I do no tonal underpainting. I like the richness and patina of the layering of paint, but love the passion and spontaneity of painting directly.)

Peggy

Hi Peggy,

In Harold Speed's "Oil Painting Techniques and Materials", http://www.portraitartist.com/bookstore/oil.htm on page 117 there is a reference to Vermeer.

Speed writes, "A movement of colour in the tones, such as the impressionists developed to such an extent, is necessary in all vital colouring; and has always existed even from the days of the tempera painters. They painted one colour thinly over another repeatedly, thereby getting a play of two colours. Their flesh was usually painted in terra verte in the first instance, the pinks and ochres being thinly painted upon it afterwoads. There is evidence that Vermeer of Delft used this method. In "The Lady at the Virginal" already referred to, the terra verte underpainting shows through in the head of the girl very strongly. The flesh tones that had been thinly painted over this, have been rubbed off, I imagine, in the process of cleaning the picture at some time."

If you know of another good source on Vermeer would you please share it with me?

Broken color
 

As with underpainting, I think much too much is often attributed to those "small little pieces of red and green next to each other". I've heard this said of Rembrandt, Fechin, Bouguereau, Vermeer, Sargent and about anyone else written about at length by non-painters. I don't see much of it. If it's there and it's not visible (to the naked eye) does it count? Furthermore with the green underpainting (the effect so often referred to) only works if done with careful transparent glazing. Truly opaque colors put on top will be just that, opaque. The truth that few ever talk about is that underpainting was often just slow careful drawing and design put on lean (with turps and no oil-thinnly) and colorless with full expectation of being obliterated with later color.

Peggy, thanks for this: I always wondered where my painting technique evolved from. Plus the over layer addition of just paint with a little medium and oil-rich, pigment-poor glazes.

Tim, thanks for this: I am looking at some Titian layers and the above makes sense of what I am watching.

There is a site up for the book - Vermeer's Camera
by Steadman, I believe. Makes for interesting reading.

Administrator's note: Find "Vermeer's Camera" as well as other books on Vermeer at the bookstore at: http://www.portraitartist.com/bookstore/vermeer.htm