About Me

My photo
Stan Fellows has been an illustrator for thirty five years, painting for magazines, corporate clients, and children's books. Clients from the past two years include: Martha Stewart Living, Harper's Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, Smithsonian Magazine, Audubon, National Geographic, Field & Stream, The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, NYU, Notre Dame, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines, (what’s with all the airlines?...) Kiplinger's, Arts & Antiques, Simon & Schuster, and for six years he has worked monthly for the Wall Street Journal's Friday wine column. In his native Minneapolis he taught watercolor painting and illustration at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, and has also taught watercolor workshops in Iowa City, where he lives with his daughter.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010



Interesting session w/ Barrie today; We'd both struggled with our paintings of Barb's garden last week, repeatedly feeling lost and confused by the overwhelming amount of information.
Today I tried a favorite trick to remedy this, which is to turn my back to the subject. Working from a photo I placed behind me I was forced to memorize simpler, smaller bits of information which I then turned and applied to the painting.

This self imposed handicap changes what you look for when observing the subject, and when you work on the painting you feel more at liberty to change things to serve the painting, rather than getting caught up in simply copying the subject.

June 8 2010 SF

1 comment:

KelvinD said...

Interesting comparing the painting from June 1 and this one from a week later.

My personal preference is for the earlier piece. Something about the diagonal-ness of the POV resonates with me, but I dunno why. However, I see your point, which I paraphrase as "it's kinda busy".

Am I off my rocker to think that the angles of the earlier composition, then done with only a little detail, surrounded by a looser, lighter style, might serve it well? I could be wrong. I've been wrong before... twice, I think.