In the three color/painting courses, and my figure drawing course, I've been learning about the artist's ability to (try to) draw the viewers' attention to certain parts/aspects of a work. I had thought previously that that was strictly a compositional thing, but I learned that you can also do this with color composition.Which in turn lead me to these thoughts:
For example, if I had an orange-red or a slightly burned red, I could potentially include that in the raincoat blues and greens to make this a tad zingier; just a bit "special occasion" than an everyday scarf. And I suspect that kind of manipulation/consideration on the artists' part could be the difference between weaving a pretty piece and a really satisfying deep-breath-afterwards kind of a scarf. I'm also picking this up by reading and studying Connie Rose's work, and how individual each one is.
1) I'm unhappy with this warp because I know I should have experimented with a bit of zing, and I feel guilty not having done so.
2) I've been looking at the raincoat colors for a year now and I have more than enough ideas in my head and on my notebooks.
3) I feel a "Let me explain" mood coming, summarizing thoughts around this issue, but this week is make-or-break week with the wall and the scholarship application.
4) On the other hand, this series of posts could help me in making clearer what I need to write on the application.
So.... 5) I'm going to sleep on it, and try to post if I can while work on the application as well - if not, I'll pick up this thread in November.
Honestly, I'm a tad creeped out by Mabel just now. And I'm hurting because the pick problem in Scarf 1 was grater than I had thought yesterday. Yikes.