6 Responses to “The ” Flying Scotsman”, more than just “transport”!”

1. Mike Jeffries Says:
   April 29th, 2010 at 2:14 pm

   Gordon, you did ask ” do you approve” and as one professional to another I’m afraid the answer is no. Your marine art is superb and justifibly highly praised but if what I see here is the finished article I beg you not to let anyone who knows anything about railways see it at the risk of your reputation as a serious artist. I don’t paint the sea or ships because I consider that I don’t know enough about how to paint the sea and even less about ships, I paint what I know and that’s my forte.

   If you are seriously going to enter the minefield of depicting steam locomotives or the railway in general it pays to have some knowledge of the anatomy of the subject and, unfortunately, this canvas betrays a gross lack of that knowledge. Please put this one down to experience and don’t exhibit it for your sake. Stick to what you know and what you do best and if you really do want to paint steam locos then read up and study the real thing more, THEN attempt a canvas.

   I offer you this critique as one artist to another and hope you don’t think it a personal attack on you, but everything about this painting is wrong and to publish it would do you no favours.

   Mike

2. Gordon Frickers Says:
   April 30th, 2010 at 1:24 am

   Mike, if this is not a personal attack, I’d like to hold your coat when you are making a personal attack, it could be quite educational!

   Mike, may I assume you are trying to be helpful?

   Your link to www . artistjeffries / redbubble . com did not work.

   I assume you were looking to place links thatv would help your web sites so I have corrected that for you;

   to http://www.redbubble.com/people/artistjeffries

   Unfortunately you have written a series of generalizations which are not at all helpful.
   If you care to discuss specific issues, that would help.
   Also, some of your comments make unwise assumptions, for example you assume I have not looked long and hard at this subject.

   Of course your work is very different to mine, where yours is architectural with echos of early photography my fine art is aimed in an entirely different direction.
   While I am concerned with detail I am more concerned with as David Shepard put it, “the illusion of detail”; ideas like, radio is better than TV because it leaves more to the imagination.
   You and I are seeking to achieve very different objectives.
   Happily different people like different things so we can see an advantage in that our work looks so different.

   As it happens, this picture was produced to a specific brief and the recipient is thrilled.

   There are issues that bother me hence my comment on the blog:
   To which you have responded so ebulliently!

   Unfortunately I think you have missed the point of this painting.
   I have seen examples of your original works so am not entirely surprised by your comments which did at least start a helpful conversation here.

   I think we have missed an opportunity here, to exchange information and maybe become friends.

   Constructive comments and positive dialogue are always welcome.

3. Mike Jeffries Says:
   April 30th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

   Gordon believe me I am trying to be helpful and my comments were not a personal attack but a honest critique, a brutal critique yes, in answer to your invitation to comment.

   Our work is different of course and shouldn’t be compared, you paint with a certain verve that I lack, but I HAVE to paint with more control with my large oils . If you look at some of the more sketchier work on redbubble you’ll see perhaps a little more emotion in my work which I lose on my more formal work. I try not to deliniate too much [ some railway artists put in every rivet because they can't help themselves] but I’m still evolving and striving towards a more painterly “style”, the painterlyness you already have in your work which, incidentally, I envy.

   What I’m saying is that that a certain knowledge is desirable with most subjects but that a deeper knowledge is required with railway locomotives, or ships, or aircraft, or the sea for that matter. Many railway buffs consider my work not detailed enough and prefer say a Barry Freeman or a Malcolm Root, others luckily, have happily parted with money over the years for my stuff. However what I and my fellow railway artists share is an appreciation of the anatomy of the steam locomotive and the furniture of the railway which we know is a pre-requesit for giving our work credibility.

   We are both professional artists and I’m sure that you just like me are always being told how wonderful our work is, we are this, we are that but of course none of this flattery [ although genuine and well meant from lovely people] does nothing to move our work on. Some of the most useful comments I have had came from a certain gallery owner, a painter himself, who I dealt with for some years who would zoom in on a certain weak aspect of my latest masterpiece and tell me to take it home to recify before he’d even consider selling it. As a result I become my own worst critic but a lot of the time just a word from my wife who by her own addmission “knows nothing about art” will enable me to see where the mistakes are being made———–and believe me SHE takes no prisioners!

   Now to specifics which I’m sure as a true professional that you are you will be able to apply to this particular painting, remember this is what I see and although I may have missed the point I still think may be of use.

   We have to ignore the fact that the Flying Scotsman has never crossed from Cornwall to Devon on Brunel’s bridge and it never will and this might seem unimportant but this alone WILL limit sales, so it’s not too late to change the locomotive to one that IS allowed on the bridge.

   The composition itself can’t be faulted with its sweep of the line disappearing into the far distance which is captured so well, a gift to any painter. But to increase this illusion the gaps between the sleepers can be gradually diminished as they would appear in real life and not more or less equal as in the painting ie the sleepers and the chairs that support and locate the rails are usually equally spaced and this fact again is a gift to the artist in representing distance to lead us into the main subject.

   Much as we all wish there is no shortcut to representing rails, many have tried, many have failed even the great Cuneo never quite managed to NOT paint in this important detail and get away with it, rails are made of steel and have a profile, are highly polished on the running face and brown and rusty elsewhere so a longer and harder look, I think, is needed here. You can leave some things to the imagination but neglect rails at your peril if you are painting railway subjects. That is why I don’t paint the sea any more, I don’t know enough about waves or how to represent them, my sea looks more like blue-black school ink or lumps of porridge and so not having the time to study it I leave it to the experts like yourself.

   The front bogie of the loco is set too far back, the wheels too small and it looks as though it’s going off sideways because the elipse of the wheels is wrong, I know detail isn’t all but the “Flying Scotsman” has a characteristic form and because this bogie is in the wrong place it loses this form, it has become front heavy with an exaggerated overhang, I am forever half closing my eyes to seek out the overall immpression rather than detail of a particular loco so as far as this front bogie is concerned it HAS to be in the right place to tell us that this is the “Flying Scotsman, forget detail, all the detail in the world will not convince if the overall shape, form, call it what you will, is wrong.

   The faces of the buffers are too large and the stocks are barely indicated at all, I know you may say it’s detail but again the buffers are nearer to us than the buffer beam, I’ve found the best way to represent this is by the use of strong shadow, I know it’s a misty day but this locomotive is HEAVY, it’s made of steel not wool, you need more weight even if you don’t want to get bogged down in detail.

   Which brings me to the boiler, I have to say a longer and MUCH harder look will pay dividends. If you leave it as it is you will not do yourself any favours as an artist so and at the risk of losing someone who perhaps I could have had a friendship with you need to address it and TAKE that harder look at the form of this machine to make this painting, which is fine in most other respects, a credit to the fine artist you are. The boiler of an A3 is round BUT has a taper towards the crown of the firebox and then a sort of slight tumblehome to where it meets the cab front at the top and even though this is slight leaving this wooly and not clear is not telling us this is an A3. Again this boiler is ROUND, you need to tell us that by exploiting and not understating the form so I’d suggest you can do this with the use of strong shadows and highlights by increasing the contrast which helps the weight.

   The cab-side would appear narrower from this angle and the tender longer but the Pullmans are as near perfect as makes no difference and this tells me that you KNOW the shape of those carriages better than you know the shape and form of the locomotive and tender, an aspect of the painting that can’t be hidden unless you take ,once again, that longer and harder look. Also by adding another set of wheels to the tender the illusion of its overhang is destroyed, the tender has eight wheels not ten and the overhang on the entire machine needs at least some indication, wheels looking in plan are 4ft 8in apart, the vehicles, that is loco,tender, carriages are about 9ft wide so there is quite a bit of overhang.

   Overall because such a myriad of shapes and form exist in steam locomotives it pays to exploit these aspects rather than underplay them.

   Please feel free to tear my efforts apart if you find the time, God knows you’re entitled to after my assault on your work, but it is only on this paticular work and perhaps I should have kept out of it but I’d hate you to be remembered for this and not for your best work.

   Mike

4. Gordon Frickers Says:
   May 11th, 2010 at 8:52 am

   Mike, your comments on my painting of the Flying Scotsman have resulted in a re appraisal of the painting and some re working, specific replies to points raised listed in my latest blog entry.
   They have also underlined a serious problem I have here at Itzac; the studio space is tooooo small for paintings over 16” x 20”.
   I need a larger studio ASAP but where, anyone want an artist in residence?

   The Flying Scotsman, other larger paintings and Itzac:
   In this instance as a direct result of Mike Jeffries entries on this blog.
   I have addressed and refined some of the issues of this painting of the Flying Scotsman and am still reviewing others.

5. Mike Jeffries Says:
   May 25th, 2010 at 9:59 pm

   Gordon, being [I hope] an artist myself I know what it has took for you to return to your Flying Scotsman and re-appraise it following my blunt comments which you graciously accepted as a gentleman.

   Our work IS us and attacks on a work we have put our heart and soul into is almost a personal attack on our very existence, so again I’ll repeat that it has taken a lot for you to take this on board and I’d like to tell you of my admiration for you as a man and especially as an artist.

   Best regards

   Mike

6. mcallen florist Says:
   October 1st, 2011 at 3:02 am

   Is it ok if I quote your article on my Information Blog? I would think this article suits my topic perfectly. Uhmmm, thanks for posting this.

Leave a Reply