Blog

I recently wrote an article for Fine Art Views about the many various definitions of the term en plein air . In the comments, the discussion drifted towards a few questions that surround the debate between plein air and studio works.

I'll address a couple of them here in this post and save others for future posts. First, does it really matter if a painting is done on location or in the studio or a combination of the two? Do collectors really care to know where or how the paintings were created.

Does It Matter?

The short answer is 'No'. It doesn't really matter where or how a painting was created. What matters is twofold: quality and authenticity. I define authenticity as being an expression, filled with meaning, that is a true reflection of what inspires the artist.

Plein air work has its place with many, many benefits. It also has some drawbacks.

Likewise, studio work has just as many pros and cons.

Near Taggart Lake Trailhead (plein air), by Keith Bond, 8 x 10, oil

I've written several articles in the past about the pros and cons of both plein air and studio work. So, I won't rehash everything here.

But, there are a few points I want to make.

First and foremost, my plein air work is all about my relationship with nature, having a conversation with nature, finding inspiration in nature.

When something strikes a chord with me, and I know I have to paint it, I am more likely to capture that emotional response if I paint from life while that emotional response is actually happening.

If I merely take a photo and try to paint that scene back in the studio, I may capture the scene's beauty, but that emotional response is one or two steps removed.

Here I am (left) painting on location in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming with Mitch Baird (right) while Jake Gaedtke (background, center) is taking a photo.

So, if that emotional response is missing in the studio, why do studio works at all?

For me, there are still many valid reasons to do a studio work. But before I begin a studio painting, the most important reason is that I have something I want to express that I didn't capture in the plein air piece.

First, I never merely copy a photo. Nor do I merely enlarge a plein air piece in the studio. I use photo references combined with my plein air field studies as a springboard for a new work that is a unique expression independent of any plein air reference.

I can elaborate on other emotions, ideas, philosophies, color, design, mood, etc. in the studio. I can use imagination and memory to aid in the creation process to make a work that couldn't have been made en plein air.

South Fork Canyon (studio), by Keith Bond, 20 x 26, oil

Neither plein air nor studio is superior in my mind. They are equally important.

I will note, however, that my ability to infuse my studio work with the correct color and value relationships found in nature comes precisely from the discipline of painting from life on a regular basis.

Now, I do acknowledge that each artist is unique. As it should be. So, the methods that are important to me aren't necessarily important to all artists. And I am not dictating that they should be.

This is merely the 'what' and 'why' behind how I work.

Taggart Lake Sparkle (plein air), by Keith Bond, 10 x 12, oil