As I’ve been working on my “Petite Paper Paintings” project, I’ve been thinking a lot about how the format of a piece of art influences its creation.
It’s no secret that I prefer square panels to rectangles (and when I do paint on a rectangular surface, it’s always in the ‘portrait’ orientation, rather than ‘landscape’). But until I set out to make one hundred small paper paintings, I haven’t really been able to articulate why I am so drawn to the square format.
Now that I’ve completed 43 of the pieces in this project, I have a much better understanding of how my painting process is enhanced and supported by the shape of the substrate.
Let me explain.
3 Reasons why my Abstract Paintings are often Squares
Composition is easier (for me)
My paintings are frequently characterized by an off-centre or ‘asymmetrical’ composition.
I like to create movement and tension by placing the focal points away from the middle of the picture plane. I find this happens much more naturally when I’m painting on a square than when my canvas is rectangular, partly because it’s clear where the centre of a substrate is, but also because it’s easier for me, to visually balance off-set shapes when all four sides of the canvas are the same, than when they’re different. (By this logic, I should also feel comfortably painting on a circular substrate; I may need to give this a try…).
I don’t want to paint landscapes (right now)
When I first started painting, watercolour was my medium of choice. My favourite watercolour artists painted landscapes, so I learned to paint them too. Most often, the paper or canvas was rectangular, oriented horizontally (‘landscape’), to create a feeling of breadth and expansiveness.
As I ventured more into abstraction, I noticed that whenever I painted on a rectangle, a horizon line would creep in. So I switched to squares and no longer have that problem.
I like keeping my orientation options open
The most wonderful thing about a square substrate is the ability to change the orientation of the painting without changing the overall composition.
I do this while I’m painting; rotating a piece 45 degrees can help me see whether I’ve addressed the plane of the canvas evenly and if my eye moves easily around the painting.
I also do this when a painting is close to being finished. Sometimes a change in orientation produces a stronger finished piece, or at the very least, suggests multiple ways that a collector might display the painting.
Which orientation do you prefer? Yellow square to the right? Bold red rectangle to the left? Or at the bottom right? Why?
Please let me know in the comments below. And if you’d like to be notified each time I publish a new post, tick the ‘Notify me by email’ box before you click ‘post comment’.
These work very nicely in each orientation, but my favorite is the far right. I like the way the L-shaped bright green piece leads me through the top left, and then the dark red anchors me in the bottom right.
I do like reading these Studio Notes – your ideas are well developed and provide fresh insight not only into your practice, but mine as well! Thanks for sharing! It can be difficult to understand the WHYs, but they are very worth considering!
Thanks so much for popping by and sharing your thoughts Darlene! I agree with you. I almost always orient my paintings so as to have larger, darker shapes near the bottom. The word you used (anchor) is similar to the word I think of (grounding) and is something that really appeals to me in abstract work!
Sorry, this a question rather than a comment.
I was going to reproduce a painting ( It is in a square format ) and I was going to do that in a rectangular format.
Is this feasable or should I simply forgo my pan? Thanks.
I would never tell another artist what to do! Why not give it a go and see what happens? You could add a border, change the perspective, abstractify it or extend the foreground or background… the possibilities are endless!