Already had some emails about shapes...and was explaining it to various people who have been in my studio lately.
Typically, if a painter has to explain their painting, they did something wrong. I think that is a bunch of hooie, really. Where is the theory about letting the viewer create their own story from the painting? That's what I'm talking about (besides, it's a good story when you missed your target completely :)
However, this variations project does require some explanation. Remember (from the previous post) that the size and shapes are all that is consistent. Karen Margulis and Marla Baggetta each set a time limit on their little jewels...and for the most part, stuck with a landscape motif. I allowed myself to not only experiment with mixed media, but to explore non-landscape motifs that fit the shapes. I also didn't force them into a daily painting routine. Some came together quickly, some over several sessions.
They both report huge strides in freedom and expression that carried forward into their regular work. I am happy to say that I'm on number 40 or so, and still wake up with ideas.
I chose a strong vertical almost on the thirds here. High sloping line just under a high horizon bumpy shape. Yeah, I know...clump of trees, edge of meadow and mountains. But you'll see why I didn't want to label my shapes. I also think it is good to use thumbnails and not photos so your creativity can kick in a bit.
My source pic and rough thumbnails are first: