The November 2014 raffle painting!

[GKreindler]

Thanks so much, everybody! I'm glad that you feel it's coming along.

Andrew, for the most part, I feel like when it comes to baseball paintings, I'm down for most ideas. I remember that when I first started, I only wanted to do large, sprawling panoramics and never smaller portraits. Eventually, I found myself liking the smaller portraits, but not so much those taken in a studio. My thoughts have changed on those over the past few years too, thankfully.

Really, the only thing I really don't enjoy doing (and more often than not say 'no' to) are those that I call 'montages'. I know the term's really meant for film, but I thought it kinda fit with a certain style of artwork, too. I'm really referring to a kind of painting that might have a large portrait on it with a few action images in the background, and doesn't necessarily depict an actual scene. It's not that I don't like those who make art like that, and I've definitely seen some incredible pieces done in that kind of picture-making style, it's just not really the kind of stuff that I want to paint. I'm a lot more interested in capturing a moment than.

I'm also not crazy about adding a client's family members (or the client him/herself) into a painting. I've done it a couple of times when it hasn't been super intrusive, and those paintings have ended up working well. However, there were a couple of commissions I did many years ago where the buyer was dead-set on seeing himself depicted in each one, and much more-so in a way that was pretty obvious. Neither of the two ended up being paintings that I was proud of because of that fact. I definitely understand what the appeal was, but in the end, again, it just wasn't the kind of stuff that I wanted to paint.

And of course, I don't say any of this stuff maliciously, as I'm always grateful that people even want to pay me to do something I love to do, but in the end, I think it's more satisfying to my soul to follow my own artistic inclinations, and to be honest, when I'm able to do so, I feel like the client always gets a better painting.

Graig

[YankeeFan]

Wow! Looking great.
It's nice to see the progress being documented like this. I never realized what went in to creating a painting.
You are not "just" a artist, you are an architect and a builder! Thanks for sharing.

[7nohitter]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Thanks so much, everybody! I'm glad that you feel it's coming along.

Andrew, for the most part, I feel like when it comes to baseball paintings, I'm down for most ideas. I remember that when I first started, I only wanted to do large, sprawling panoramics and never smaller portraits. Eventually, I found myself liking the smaller portraits, but not so much those taken in a studio. My thoughts have changed on those over the past few years too, thankfully.

Really, the only thing I really don't enjoy doing (and more often than not say 'no' to) are those that I call 'montages'. I know the term's really meant for film, but I thought it kinda fit with a certain style of artwork, too. I'm really referring to a kind of painting that might have a large portrait on it with a few action images in the background, and doesn't necessarily depict an actual scene. It's not that I don't like those who make art like that, and I've definitely seen some incredible pieces done in that kind of picture-making style, it's just not really the kind of stuff that I want to paint. I'm a lot more interested in capturing a moment than.

I'm also not crazy about adding a client's family members (or the client him/herself) into a painting. I've done it a couple of times when it hasn't been super intrusive, and those paintings have ended up working well. However, there were a couple of commissions I did many years ago where the buyer was dead-set on seeing himself depicted in each one, and much more-so in a way that was pretty obvious. Neither of the two ended up being paintings that I was proud of because of that fact. I definitely understand what the appeal was, but in the end, again, it just wasn't the kind of stuff that I wanted to paint.

And of course, I don't say any of this stuff maliciously, as I'm always grateful that people even want to pay me to do something I love to do, but in the end, I think it's more satisfying to my soul to follow my own artistic inclinations, and to be honest, when I'm able to do so, I feel like the client always gets a better painting.

Graig

Thanks for the response! It's been a privilege to read/view your insight into your process.

Andrew

[perezfan]

A couple of really dumb (but nagging) questions for Graig...

1. How do you know it's a flag that's draped over the dugout? I could never have discerned that much from the B&W photo.

2. Is the man sitting in the dugout behind Ruth (in the Fedora) going to be left out of the painting?

It appears so, but am interested in "artistic license" aspect and/or rationale for leaving him out.

Thanks!

[baseball tourist]

Originally Posted by perezfan

A couple of really dumb (but nagging) questions for Graig...

1. How do you know it's a flag that's draped over the dugout? I could never have discerned that much from the B&W photo.

2. Is the man sitting in the dugout behind Ruth (in the Fedora) going to be left out of the painting?

It appears so, but am interested in "artistic license" aspect and/or rationale for leaving him out.

Thanks!

My eyes must be half bad because I don't see a flag but do see the leg of the sitter being developed

[GKreindler]

Thanks for the kind words, fellas!

Mark, in response to your questions:

1) In my files, I actually have a few photos of the top of both dugouts from the '32 World Series, where it shows the flags in better view. They weren't traditional American flags either, but ones with just three horizontal stripes (like the German flag) in red, white and blue. Here's a shot of Babe and Lou from the actual game itself, and it shows what I'm talking about (albeit in black and white):



(PS: This would also make a killer painting, especially with the fella doffing his hat.)

2) The fedora guy is definitely going to be in there. Since he's in the shadow of the dugout, I haven't really done much with him just yet. But if you look towards the end of the bats on the right, you'll notice a white and gray blob, which is his leg peering into the light. So yeah, he'll be worked on soon. Eric actually was pretty set on having some sort of action going on in the dugout, so I think that kind of played a role in his choosing of this image.

Thanks for chiming in!

Graig

[T20Brew]

As others have mentioned here, thanks for all these details with each step. I, like others, didn't realize how in depth the process was for a painting like this until I started reading the "on the easel" thread and the progress on John's Aaron painting and now mine. It's a real privilege to see the progression, especially knowing where it will end up. 😀

[perezfan]

Thanks Graig... It is looking incredible

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Thanks for the kind words, fellas!

Mark, in response to your questions:

1) In my files, I actually have a few photos of the top of both dugouts from the '32 World Series, where it shows the flags in better view. They weren't traditional American flags either, but ones with just three horizontal stripes (like the German flag) in red, white and blue. Here's a shot of Babe and Lou from the actual game itself, and it shows what I'm talking about (albeit in black and white):



(PS: This would also make a killer painting, especially with the fella doffing his hat.)

2) The fedora guy is definitely going to be in there. Since he's in the shadow of the dugout, I haven't really done much with him just yet. But if you look towards the end of the bats on the right, you'll notice a white and gray blob, which is his leg peering into the light. So yeah, he'll be worked on soon. Eric actually was pretty set on having some sort of action going on in the dugout, so I think that kind of played a role in his choosing of this image.

Thanks for chiming in!

Graig

The amount of research that Craig puts into the process prior to starting to paint is amazing in of itself.
The photo of the red, white and blue stripes on the dugout is such a cool fact to build into making this painting even more authentic....

[Lordstan]

I have an original of that photo. It was taken from Game 1 of the WS.
It's not in the greatest of shape, but hey, it's Lou and Babe, so I'm not complaining.

Graig puts an incredible amount of work into the details. That's a big reason why I think his paintings come to life the way they do.

[howard38]

Graig, very interesting thread and confirmation in my mind that you paint like an old master in technique as well as result.

Good job staying away from "montages" as I find them cheesy no matter how well painted. It works fine for a 1956 bsseball card but I wouldn't want one on my wall. If someone wants an action shot and a portrait he'd be best served commissioning two paintings.

[GKreindler]

Thank you for your enthusiasm, everybody! Who's excited?

<---- This guy!!!

Howard, I agree. And that's happened on occasion. There was one fella who wanted a painting with Wrigley Field and Ernie Banks in it, but not so much of an action shot - more along the lines of what you were describing. It took a while, but I had to convince him to go with two separate canvases, which in turn became:





I'm super thankful he listened. These two are still two of my favorite paintings.

For me, I just feel like when you start doing those other kinds of pieces, they become a LOT less about the actual artwork, and more about the player. I mean, not that that's a bad thing, but ya know, it's just not how I want my paintings to feel, if ya follow.

Graig