3: Monsted and the Matter of Fluff
[Click image for larger.]
Peder Mørk Mønsted
Wood in Winter (translated title), 1915
Oil on canvas (dimensions unknown)
In private collection
(Phsyical) texture vs. (visual) texture1 — we touched on this briefly in a roundabout way back in a blow-past discussion about mark-making, but an easy difference between the two.
Physical texture = texture you as the audience could actually touch (if allowed to, which you usually aren't). Thick ridges of paint, a surface roughed up with scoring, the weave of course canvas sticking out, that kind of thing.
Visual texture = illusory, suggested by the artwork but not actually present. So something like the glint of polished metal, the coarseness of wood, or worn stone pavement, all done by the same thin patient layers of smooth paint. Visual texture is by far the most common type, at least in realistic/representational art.
Mønsted is really great at visual texture, and I love this one in particular for how *wet* and *heavy* the snow feels at first glance — if you picture yourself standing there, you can damn near hear how it makes sound bounce around more closely and fade out at a distance.
Also, not particularly connected to anything but I'm going to work on copying this guy's trees. Trees are a struggle point for me, but his I think I could adapt.
NOTES:
1. 'Texture' is often used interchangeably to talk about either, with which one it is made clear in context. That's the nice thing about visual art — there's always something real to refer back to.