Chasing The Moon! Art Show at Christopher Queen Gallery UPDATE: News and Pix!

[Main Loop]

I am happy to announce that the show was a great success for me! 4 out of 6 of the pieces I had at the gallery sold today! In fact, one of the pieces sold and was taken before the show officially started! It's a huge boost of confidence, and I feel like this is a big step forward for my fine art career...

I took pictures of my pieces in the frames, what a difference they make!







I totally forgot to shoot a photo of the one with the pink clouds... oops!

I have to give props to Nancy at the Christopher Queen gallery for putting together a great show, and just for having a great space to exhibit art. Here are pictures of the show, and the space.



Also, some pictures of a few of my favorite pieces from the show.

Paul Kratter:

Rodolfo Rivademar:

Christopher Queen Galleries
#4 John Orr’s Gardens
Duncan Mills, CA 95430



“CHASING THE MOON”

A Stellar Array Of Paintings That Capture
The Mystery & Magic Of The Moon
And It’s Many Faces

Opening Reception
Sunday, October 4th, 2009
1pm – 3pm

Show Continues Through November
RAY CARPENTER TOM RISSACHER
THOMAS CREED RODOLFO RIVADEMAR
CHRISTINE CROZIER DAVE SELLERS
ALLEN FIGONE BART WALKER
PAUL KRATTER WANDA WESTBERG
F. MICHAEL WOOD
&
SELECTED EARLY CALIFORNIA PAINTINGS

Though I’m not listed on this flier, I’ll be participating in this show. I’ll have a few new pieces that I haven’t posted online yet. It’s been one of my goals for a couple of years now to get into this gallery, so I’m absolutely excited to be showing here. It’s a great gallery, looks like a museum. Just about everyone who shows there has mad skills, so it’s worth checking out even if you can’t make it for this show.


Here are some other landscape paintings I've done lately:

[Cain_Pride]

Very nice landscapes )

[lyecdevf]

Nice watercolors. I especially like the light effects in the first one.

[mariusz]

Agree, great landscapes

[Dahami]

Because of the media used I would say these images are not as immersive as they could be. They look too much like paintings, and it's hard to get past the painting to see the landscape being represented. Apart from that they look nice with good attention to lighting, color and shapes.

[Main Loop]

Because of the media used I would say these images are not as immersive as they could be. They look too much like paintings, and it's hard to get past the painting to see the landscape being represented. Apart from that they look nice with good attention to lighting, color and shapes.

I'm not sure what you mean.... They are paintings.......?

[goilo]

Yeah, I'm not sure what Dahami meant either... It sounds like he's saying that because they look like paintings he can't see the landscape details. I'm confused. Anyway, to me they are very good paintings. Would I be right in saying that a few of them are in gauche and not just watercolour?

[Black Snow]

Lovely work! I really like the looseness of your brush strokes. I'm not sure what Dahami was talking about, but the 2nd image down, the one in oils, is a bit hard to make out at first because of the glare. I'd also suggest cropping off the bottom of #489 since you aren't really doing anything with the water there so it messes up the composition, imho.

[Texahol]

hey if you were thefruitloop, i would eat you for breakfast every morning...mMMMMmmMMMm



love your work sergio keep sharing the love!

[Dahami]

Yeah, because they look like paintings I can't see the landscape details. That's approximately correct. I can see the texture of the paper and the brush strokes, and the physics of how the paint interacts with the fibers that make up the paper, but to really focus on the landscape being represented digital is a better medium, or perhaps a smoother surface to paint on and some acrylics. These look too "watercolory," and watercolor is a notoriously difficult medium to do realistic landscapes with. Most watercolors come out looking like blobs of color that only suggest what one is attempting to represent. Digital or acrylics are far superior visually, imho. Oils are pretty good, but they're a bit lumpy.

All that said, there is still some really nice attention to shapes, color, values, lighting and so forth here, it's just that the finished product looks too much like a painting. I'm not saying I want to see a photograph either, as it is too difficult to achieve exactly what you want with a photograph as you are dependent upon nature to go along with you. I'm saying that with your level of knowledge of the things you did right with these, you could achieve better results by choosing a less visually distracting medium.

I'm not interested in seeing painted paper. I want to see landscapes here.

So, good skills, but my eyes are picky.

[nicolas]

Yeah, because they look like paintings I can't see the landscape details. That's approximately correct. I can see the texture of the paper and the brush strokes, and the physics of how the paint interacts with the fibers that make up the paper, but to really focus on the landscape being represented digital is a better medium, or perhaps a smoother surface to paint on and some acrylics. These look too "watercolory," and watercolor is a notoriously difficult medium to do realistic landscapes with. Most watercolors come out looking like blobs of color that only suggest what one is attempting to represent. Digital or acrylics are far superior visually, imho. Oils are pretty good, but they're a bit lumpy.

Fine Art appreciation fail.

This might help you out:
-The look like watercolors, because they are. On rough watercolor paper.
-The look like oils, because they are, they look textile "lumpy" because it is real paint....
-If you can't see beyond the paint on the canvas/paper, you should think about what your seeing habits have done to your sense of perception. Sergio handles these Mediums extremely well, and these are after all plein air paintings not something he noodled over in PS with a size 2 brush for a month.

just you know, my 2 cents.

[Kan Muftić]

Fantastic brushwork Sergio but..
IT LOOKS LIKE A PAINTING, MAN!

[Clochette]

Hehehe! All i know is that they look beautiful Sergio! Keep on the great work

[Farvus]

Fantastic landscapes. I can't really decide which one I like the most. All are equally great.

As for painterly look. My one life drawing teacher once said "Drawing/painting is not about stocktaking" . Avoiding detail and still getting the realistic overall feel is really difficult task. I find it much more impressive than rendering every leaf and blade of grass.

[strych9ine]

Sergio, is there any way you can bring these paintings into photoshop and overlay a photo of the scenery you were painting over it? If you could, then my simple mind could actually process these images. I mean, these look like paintings and I'm simply far too stupid to appreciate an artistic representation of reality.

[Main Loop]

Absolutely! Or I could just skip all that and just post up the crappy photos I use as reference, because they are far superior to my artistic interpretation of the scene!

Yeah, because they look like paintings I can't see the landscape details. That's approximately correct. I can see the texture of the paper and the brush strokes, and the physics of how the paint interacts with the fibers that make up the paper, but to really focus on the landscape being represented digital is a better medium, or perhaps a smoother surface to paint on and some acrylics. These look too "watercolory," and watercolor is a notoriously difficult medium to do realistic landscapes with. Most watercolors come out looking like blobs of color that only suggest what one is attempting to represent. Digital or acrylics are far superior visually, imho. Oils are pretty good, but they're a bit lumpy.

Well then you miss the point of alla prima landscape painting. I'm trying to describe what I see in a very short amount of time using what's unique to the medium(the paper, the washes, the paint, brushwork etc). It looks "watercolory" because I want it to look like a watercolor. As far as digital or acrylics being far superior visually, how do you figure? Both of those mediums have been around for much less than watercolors.

All that said, there is still some really nice attention to shapes, color, values, lighting and so forth here, it's just that the finished product looks too much like a painting. I'm not saying I want to see a photograph either, as it is too difficult to achieve exactly what you want with a photograph as you are dependent upon nature to go along with you. I'm saying that with your level of knowledge of the things you did right with these, you could achieve better results by choosing a less visually distracting medium.

Thanks for the compliments, but I am trying purposely to keep it looking like a painting. What you consider "distractions" I consider advantages... and I think you're in the minority.

I'm not interested in seeing painted paper. I want to see landscapes here.

I'm interested in painting landscapes on paper. Check out my website if you want to see what else I can do.

[bluefooted]

Fabulous landscapes! You know I love your stuff The cliff painting with the wheeling seagulls makes my brain think I should be squinting into the sun, the lighting is so good. Seriously, my pupils actually contract when I look at it.

[Main Loop]

Fabulous landscapes! You know I love your stuff The cliff painting with the wheeling seagulls makes my brain think I should be squinting into the sun, the lighting is so good. Seriously, my pupils actually contract when I look at it.

Really? Awww thank you! That's something I strive for... I appreciate it.

[Dahami]

nicolas, I'm proud to fail at fine art appreciation because the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps only a minority of art enthusiasts (and I suppose I do consider myself an art enthusiast) can see that.

I just never got why people would want something to look like a watercolor, rather than actually wanting it to look like the scene that they are representing. (Again, though, a photograph is too literal and too reliant on the cooperation of nature. Check out some of Linda Hartough's oil paintings of golf courses to see a landscape painting that I believe achieves a good balance between looking painted and looking like a photograph. Hmmm... I wonder if they'd look better if she used acrylics.) Watercolor has been around a long time, and like many old inventions, it's not as good as more recent inventions. That's progress. The "old masters" weren't nearly as masterful as more recent artists like Chesley Bonestell, Ralph McQuarrie and Frank Frazetta. It seems that art does actually get better with time, like many other human creations.

Sergio, there's some great stuff at your website. I don't doubt your skill at all. I think I will always disagree with you on this whole issue of watercolors, though.

[Vulgar`]

Nothing but praise, Sergio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrDkg2ZNCVg

[Clochette]

nicolas, I'm proud to fail at fine art appreciation because the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps only a minority of art enthusiasts (and I suppose I do consider myself an art enthusiast) can see that.
I just never got why people would want something to look like a watercolor, rather than actually wanting it to look like the scene that they are representing. (Again, though, a photograph is too literal and too reliant on the cooperation of nature. Check out some of Linda Hartough's oil paintings of golf courses to see a landscape painting that I believe achieves a good balance between looking painted and looking like a photograph. Hmmm... I wonder if they'd look better if she used acrylics.) Watercolor has been around a long time, and like many old inventions, it's not as good as more recent inventions. That's progress. The "old masters" weren't nearly as masterful as more recent artists like Chesley Bonestell, Ralph McQuarrie and Frank Frazetta. It seems that art does actually get better with time, like many other human creations.

Sergio, there's some great stuff at your website. I don't doubt your skill at all. I think I will always disagree with you on this whole issue of watercolors, though.

Your arguments make no sense. You have to make a difference between personnal preference for a media or style, and real bugs in the piece you're looking at.

What you're saying is the same as if you were talking to someone who likes horse riding and tell him "hey man, your technique of horse riding is not bad, tho it would be even better if you were using a car instead of a horse, i mean, horse riding has been around a long time, and like many old inventions, it's not as good as more recent inventions. That's progress. The "old mounts" weren't nearly as good as more recent stuff like Ford, Ferrari and Citroen."

You fail to understand that some people just like horse riding. You're not pointing a flaw or something to improve in the way the guy IS riding horse. You just talk about something different.

I can find many other exemples if you prefer :
"Hey, nice square you drew, but it would be better if it was a circle."

This is not a constructive critique. This is just dumb. And there is nothing special in that, like to belong to a "minority of art enthusiasts" or something. You just missed the point, it happens. It doesnt make you special.

[FranciscoShreds]

These are awesome. I actually remember seeing some of your gouache plein air paintings on Gorilla Artfare and being inspired enough to pick up the medium and go out and try it for myself... Though, I'm not nearly as good as you.

Anyways, thanks for putting these up.

[hurricane]

yo Main Loop, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish but Linda Hartough's oil paintings of golf courses are the best of all time, OF ALL TIME.

[Cam Sykes]

These are great man! I plan to do alot of traditional painting from life in my 2 week break, so this is great inspiration.
Not sure if I see it here but have you tried that technique where you put down a base with acrylics and make some texture then paint over with watercolours? It's something I'm trying to figure out.

Thanks Hurri that made me chuckle.

[Black Snow]

Rofl, Hurricane! That was perfect!

Sergio, what are you putting on top of the watercolor? It looks like oil pastels or acrylic to me, but I don't have a lot of experience with traditional paints, so I'm probably wrong.

[D@niel]

Seriously awesome paintings man!!!

[Dahami]

Clochette, I see what your saying. What I'm saying is that the medium matters. If you want to do a landscape in which the viewer can really immerse themselves, without being distracted by the texture of the paper or the look of the paint, there are better media than watercolor. On the other hand, if you want to just show how skilled you are with watercolor, then go ahead and do a watercolor. It depends on what you're creating the painting for... To emphasize the content (when it's concept art it's all about attracting the viewer's attention to the idea or content of the image, not the medium), or to demonstrate your skill.

Think of looking at a painting as being like playing a computer game. If you're playing a computer game you've never played before, and your keyboard sticks and the mouse has dirty optics, it's not going to be as immersive an experience as playing a game where you know the interface by heart, including all the keyboard shortcuts, and you have a really responsive mouse and keyboard. When I'm "in the zone" when playing a familiar game, its like the interface and everything else in the world disappears, and the only thing in my awareness is what's happening on the screen and the gameplay experience.

I prefer to look at a painting done in a medium that is "transparent" in the sense that I just immerse myself in the scene, like being there, and don't really notice things like the brush strokes or what kind of paper the image is done on. It's like that.

[archipelago]

Dahami, you neglect the fact that painting and art is a tradition that we enjoy, it isnt something that follows strict rules. It varies in taste from person to person and culture to culture.

If you would have shown any of the old masters a Frank Frazetta painting and tell them that in the future this guy is the shit, they would laugh at you. But in the context of our own culture it makes complete sense that Frazetta is admired.

you cant go around giving "critiques" according to your own personal tastes if they clearly do not correspond with the other persons view of what art is and expect them to react in a nice way. it is a rude and deconstructive thing to do. You aren't helping them at all, you are just telling them what to do, and I dont think there are many people who like that.

For example, the remark you made about Marko Djurdjevic's art is just completely ridiculous and you come off as a sleazy and disrespectful person. Do you honestly believe that the comment you made is going to do any good at all? I dont mind someone telling someone else that they dont like their artwork, but dont tell them what they should be doing instead to please your own appetite.
comments like that are a complete waste of time for everyone involved.

I think you are trying to project your own artistic goals onto other people, and it is just not going to work. Try and reach those yourself.

[Zord]

Medium doesn't matter. Sergio picked the media he used because he enjoys working with that particular medium, whether it be gouache, oils, or whatever. And he's doing so in a manner that's pleasing to the eye.

[Main Loop]

It seems to me you're relying on your own taste to guide your criticism... We all do it to some extent, but here's what I think:

I just never got why people would want something to look like a watercolor, rather than actually wanting it to look like the scene that they are representing.

These aren't mutually exclusive. I really like looking at the way a painting is put together just as much as looking at the subject represented. To me it adds a whole layer of interest to the piece.

Check out some of Linda Hartough's oil paintings of golf courses to see a landscape painting that I believe achieves a good balance between looking painted and looking like a photograph. Hmmm... I wonder if they'd look better if she used acrylics.)

See this is where you're relying on your own personal taste to guide your whole argument. Although Linda's paintings are very good technically, personally I find the end result stiff and labored. But that's my OPINION. And why would they look any better if she used acrylics? Have you ever compared an oil painting to an acrylic painting in person? Oils are far superior... (See what I'm doing?)

Watercolor has been around a long time, and like many old inventions, it's not as good as more recent inventions. That's progress. The "old masters" weren't nearly as masterful as more recent artists like Chesley Bonestell, Ralph McQuarrie and Frank Frazetta. It seems that art does actually get better with time, like many other human creations.

Werent nearly as masterful?? Are you kidding? Even though I am a big fan of all those artists, I can rattle off a giant list of 19th century artists who I believe are better painters than any of them. And Frazetta's watercolors are some of his best works...

Sergio, there's some great stuff at your website. I don't doubt your skill at all. I think I will always disagree with you on this whole issue of watercolors, though.

Thanks. I guess we will disagree about watercolor, and I will disagree about acrylics being the most superior medium....