Does every painting need a focal point? Some professionals don't think so, but others consider it an absolute requirement. Some are dogmatic about it. Perhaps that
disagreement is more about the term itself.
Look at Richard Schmid's Blue Cup and Pansies? Where is the focal point?
What about this Claude Monet painting of Water Lilies?
Where is the focal point here?
The Language: Focal Point vs Center of Interest
The term "focal point" can be misleading. We're not sure where that term originated, but we do know
that "center of interest" has been used for a long time to refer to the focus of a painting. The word "point" infers a tiny spot whereas the word "center" connotes an innermost area. In Albert Bierstadt's Valley of the Yosemite (below), we notice first the innermost area of light, and then see that it gradates our attention throughout the
painting--no tiny point.
SO WHERE DOES THIS TAKE US?
Many examples in the history of painting prove that a single focal point is not necessary, but a center of interest is.
That area--sometimes small, sometimes larger--is the conductor that begins the orchestration for the entire painting. Even though seasoned painters have come to interpret the term focal point as the center of interest, perhaps new painters would benefit if we just drop the term altogether.
In both the Schmid and the Monet, if rather than focal point, we're looking for the center of interest, wouldn't it be easier
to find?
Words we use can be misleading. Seasoned users of words--like teachers--can get complacent, failing to perceive that newcomers to
the words might misinterpret them. That's why it's a good idea to take stock now and then to be sure the terms we use really mean what they imply.
P.S. No assignment this week, just this bit of food for thought.
Have yourself a delightful weekend!
You can access the archive of all my newsletters at anytime by going HERE. |
|
|
|
