If you want a portion of french fries here in the Ruhr-area you need to utter the easy to remember term: “Eimma Pommes Schranke, bittä!” Yes, as easy as that! But it might get a bit more complicated as explained in the following paragraph:
You might get asked the following in return: “Pilsken beie Schranke?” which translates, roughly, as “Do you want a nice cold Pilsener with the fries?”. The accepted answer is either a short: “Jupp!” (“Yes, please!”) or a more elaborated: “Dachtesse ich würch die Fritten trocken runter, oder watt?!” (“I really appreciate your offer, even if slightly redundant, and accept it with great joy and pleasure!”). You might reject it with: “Nä, lass ma, muß noch faahn.” (“No, thank you but I might risk my drivers licence if I get caught again.”) or something of a similar kind of a distinctly lame excuse.
Needed to re-conquer some storage space and discovered some older (2002 says one signature) works. The tribute to Oscar Reutersvärd above was one of several tries with gouache/watercolour in connection with inked contours. Two more of these experiments below the fold Continue reading →
Not a complete failure; it is a cat, even identifiable (“Hey, that’s my Peter!”) but still not what I was able to do some twenty years ago. Such a long pause is definitely not good for anything that needs a steady amount of training. The old saying “A picture a day holds you on pay”* is not one of the most idiotic proverbs, although it comes close if you ask some of the not-extremly-famous artist.
Some people like to know all of the gory details, so here they are: it is painted on a 30x40cm size 220g/sqm cold-press paper. Some repairs have been made with acrylics (the black spot on the back has seen three to five work-overs and I still don’t like it) namely iron oxide and titanium oxide. The titan-white has been used for the lights, too, as acrylics seem to do a better job than gouache for the lights.
Oh, and yes: 220g paper is too light for large wet-on-wet washes. Even with a heavy glass plate laid on top of the paper the large crimps are still visible.
The quality of the picture is bad, I know. It is the same cheap digi-snapper I’ve done all the pictures on this blog with.
The size of the flame should fit the size of the candle, of course. At least that is the first guess of most; common knowledge, so to say. That is not the case here, the flames are too big for both sizes of candles, about one third too big but still look kind of right, right? Continue reading →