I remember the first time I saw a white pine in the not-very-wilds of cottage country just north of Toronto. Unlike the pines I knew in Alberta, it was all twisted and bent from the wind. As my sister-in-law said, “There’s a reason all those Group of Seven paintings look like that.”
Indeed. They were painting what they saw.
There’s a reason, too, why so many paintings of the West Coast look sort of misty, even on an otherwise clear day.
Like the “skyline” effect.
Barbara – That’s funny. I see from later comment that others saw it the same way, but it never occurred to me.
I am not sure quite why the mistiness, but in 1975 I painted my recollection of an Oregon barn I saw in rain circa 1968 and a guest who saw it a couple of years later (’77) instantly recognized it as “home.” She had grown up within a few miles of the spot. I had made the painting partly as a test of my visual memory and received the answer in a most unexpected manner.
Laurna – I expect the mistiness has something to do with humidity and a constant source of water, but what do I know? I grew up on the dry prairies, which have their own distinctive look. And quality of light.
I usually read your blogs twice. The first time to see what they’re about, in general. The second time to see if something stands out that I want to respond to. And often a third time to see what other people have said.
Okay, I can’t count.
The first time I glanced at the pilings, I thought I was looking at a picture of downtown skyscrapers, and wondered if Comox really had such things. Then I realized they were pilings. But startlingly similar to landscape pix of Toronto, Vancouver, New York, etc. etc.
If so, I wonder which is the copycat, and which the original inspiration.
Jim T – We need an architectural historian. I met one (in New York, New York) but I don’t think he’d respond to an email.