This is a great little free tool you can use on your website or blog, StatCounter.com. (No, I'm not affiliated in any way so I'm not trying to advertise here.) I just started using it on my website not too long ago and so far it's been pretty interesting. It's not just a counter. It gives you all sorts of info on where visitors are from, referring sites, search engine keywords they used, where you ranked in that keyword search, if they found you through an image search, etc. This is helping me optimize my site by using more of the popular keywords. I'm finding out, for instance, that a lot of people land on my blog searching for hyena art and brown pelicans, which I find odd. I would not have thought of those as popular search subjects.
I think it's worth the time to watch the Keyword Analysis and Recent Keyword Activity on your site. Pay attention to what search terms seem to come up frequently and use more of those keywords in your blog posts.
One thing that seems to make a difference is naming your image files with the keywords. Don't name your barn painting with something generic like 'image01.jpg', for example. Be sure to name it what it is, plus some extra keywords, even if the name is long. Name it something like 'landscape-farm-red-barn-oil-painting.jpg'. I've gotten more visits through Google image searches since I change my file names. Even though it was a big pain to change all my file names and the corresponding HTML, I think it's worth the effort.
Other interesting information you can gain is finding out where people are coming from. If you post in several forums, for example, and include your website or blog in your signature, you can see if visitors are coming from those forum posts. If you notice more visitors coming from certain forums, and fewer from other forums, that can help a lot. It tells you which forums to spend your time and energy posting in, and which to not waste your time on.
There's tons more info you can see from this site, like which of your site pages are most popular, what images they've downloaded from your site, what countries they're from, even what browsers they're using. Lots of info! Worth checking out.
Jun 30, 2012
Jun 29, 2012
Wolf Pups Coloring Book Page
Here's another one for the kiddies! This time it's a coloring page of a couple of curious and cute wolf pups investigating a small animal burrow.
As with the previous coloring pages, have your kids download it, print it out, and color it or paint it any way they want, realistic or wild and crazy! (Click on the image to see a larger version. Then right-click on the larger image and select "save image as..." to save it to your hard drive.) If they want to color it realistically they can use the image below of my original painting as a reference and try to match the colors.
Tell me what other wildlife subjects your kids would like to color!
As with the previous coloring pages, have your kids download it, print it out, and color it or paint it any way they want, realistic or wild and crazy! (Click on the image to see a larger version. Then right-click on the larger image and select "save image as..." to save it to your hard drive.) If they want to color it realistically they can use the image below of my original painting as a reference and try to match the colors.
Tell me what other wildlife subjects your kids would like to color!
Jun 28, 2012
Wolf Portrait Mini Painting Finished
I finished up my wolf portrait mini painting today. Here it is!
For comparison here's the Work-In-Progress (WIP) image I posted a few days ago.
I have not yet named this piece. If you have any suggestions for a title, let me know!
'Locked!'
Wolf Portrait Mini Painting
5"x7" oil on Gessobord
For comparison here's the Work-In-Progress (WIP) image I posted a few days ago.
I have not yet named this piece. If you have any suggestions for a title, let me know!
Jun 26, 2012
Are Insects Wildlife Art?
Do you consider painting of bugs "wildlife art"?
I created a wildlife art group on FineArtAmerica.com and when people submit images I sometimes have a hard time deciding whether or not to accept them into the group. Horses, for example, are borderline. It depends on if they are portrayed as domestic animals or wild horses. Hunting and fishing scenes are generally accepted in the art world as "wildlife art" although to me it depends on whether the focal point is the animal or the hunter/fisherman.
One thing I have a hard time with is insects. Is a butterfly on a daisy considered "wildlife"? Probably, because we like butterflies, we'd say yes. What about an ant crawling up a blade of grass? Hmmm. Maybe. What about a stagnant pond swarming with mosquitoes? Is that "wildlife art"? I don't know. It seems we decide if insects are accepted into the "wildlife art" genre largely upon whether or not we like that particular insect or if we're repulsed by it.
Yes, technically insects are wildlife by definition. But talking more about the way we categorize art. There are just some fuzzy areas there. Fish in a pond is another example. If it's a perch it would be considered wildlife art. But what if it's a koi pond? Are they considered domesticated? They're not really pets. More like zoo animals. But zoo animals are considered wildlife, not domesticated. So they're not really wild ... but they're wild animals.
And what about some birds? Parrots are wild, but also pets. Parrots are generally portrayed in art as wild birds. But what about parakeets? They are wild but we generally associate them with being caged pets.
Mice? Rabbits? Lizards? All can be wild or pets. Where do they go in the art world and what do you do to make the distinction?
I created a wildlife art group on FineArtAmerica.com and when people submit images I sometimes have a hard time deciding whether or not to accept them into the group. Horses, for example, are borderline. It depends on if they are portrayed as domestic animals or wild horses. Hunting and fishing scenes are generally accepted in the art world as "wildlife art" although to me it depends on whether the focal point is the animal or the hunter/fisherman.
One thing I have a hard time with is insects. Is a butterfly on a daisy considered "wildlife"? Probably, because we like butterflies, we'd say yes. What about an ant crawling up a blade of grass? Hmmm. Maybe. What about a stagnant pond swarming with mosquitoes? Is that "wildlife art"? I don't know. It seems we decide if insects are accepted into the "wildlife art" genre largely upon whether or not we like that particular insect or if we're repulsed by it.
Yes, technically insects are wildlife by definition. But talking more about the way we categorize art. There are just some fuzzy areas there. Fish in a pond is another example. If it's a perch it would be considered wildlife art. But what if it's a koi pond? Are they considered domesticated? They're not really pets. More like zoo animals. But zoo animals are considered wildlife, not domesticated. So they're not really wild ... but they're wild animals.
And what about some birds? Parrots are wild, but also pets. Parrots are generally portrayed in art as wild birds. But what about parakeets? They are wild but we generally associate them with being caged pets.
Mice? Rabbits? Lizards? All can be wild or pets. Where do they go in the art world and what do you do to make the distinction?
Jun 25, 2012
White Tiger Painting -WIP
Here's something currently on the easel, my first white tiger painting. I'm painting it from a reference photos I took at the Triple D Game Farm. It's a bit interesting because the photo is of a yellow Siberian tiger and I'm trying to make this one a white Bengal tiger. (There's no such thing as a white Siberian tiger, as far as anyone knows)
Yeah, I know sometimes it looks like I jump around a lot. A wolf half-finished one day, a tiger the next. But I work in oil paints and sometimes you have to wait for one layer to dry for a day before you can apply the next. So it's good to have several paintings going at once so there's always something to work on. I'll probably jump back to the previous wolf painting tomorrow, since it should be dry by then, and hopefully finish it up soon.
Yeah, I know sometimes it looks like I jump around a lot. A wolf half-finished one day, a tiger the next. But I work in oil paints and sometimes you have to wait for one layer to dry for a day before you can apply the next. So it's good to have several paintings going at once so there's always something to work on. I'll probably jump back to the previous wolf painting tomorrow, since it should be dry by then, and hopefully finish it up soon.
Jun 24, 2012
Observing Animals in the Wild
I was recently in a discussion with some other wildlife artists about the importance of observing wild animals in their natural habitat. Some believe you cannot paint or draw a good piece of art if you have not spent considerable time observing your animal subject in real life, in the wild.
The arguments were you can't paint from photos because they lie and distort. You can't paint from zoo animals because they are overfed, out of shape, and don't accurately represent their lean, fit, and war-torn wild counterparts.
While these arguments may have some validity, it doesn't mean an artist can't paint or draw good wildlife without observing an animal subject in its natural wild habitat.
How can I say this, some of you may think?
Well, how many artists who paint snow leopards, for example, have actually observed them in the wild? Even if you get the opportunity to travel to Tibet (which few artists probably do) the chances of seeing a snow leopard in the wild are extremely low. I'd bet money most artists who paint snow leopards have never seen one in the wild. They are most likely zoo or game farm animals. That doesn't mean the art can't be good. There are plenty of beautiful snow leopard works of art.
There are many other subjects of rare animals artist paint frequently that I have a hard time believing have been observed in the wild first-hand by that artist. White tigers, okapi, the red wolf. These are all animals I've seen in art, some by artists who argue observing animals in the wild is necessary. These animals can easily be seen in many zoos, but I seriously doubt these artists have painted them plein air from wild specimens. Not that they're making such claims. But they imply it's necessary, yet paint subjects they probably have never seen in the wild themselves.
I don't think the argument is valid. Or course it would be great if we could all spend lots of time watching and sketching animals in the wild. But the fact is, most of us can't. Not all of us have wildlife in our backyards. Not all of us can run off on African safaris. When I was working full time I never had time to go to Africa. Now that I'm not working, I don't have the money. Many artists are in the same boat. You either have time or money but rarely both. Does that mean you can't paint?
For those of us who are unable to spend much time, for whatever reason, observing animals in their natural habitat, I think zoo and refuge animals can still be very useful, despite what some may argue. I also think watching lots of documentaries helps. You just have to make a little extra effort bridging the gap between these artificial settings and the wild world. You can learn a lot about movement, anatomy, and behavior by watching these shows. Observing animals in real life in the zoo, then looking at how wild animals in documentaries differ in their leaner and more haggard look can give you a lot to go by.
And don't forget your pet. You can't learn everything about a wolf by watching your dog, but there are some similarities. The same is true for your cat, horse, and bird. Watching pets and farm animals, watching documentaries, visiting zoos and wildlife refuges, reading books, and researching online can do a lot to bridge the gap between you and the wilderness.
The arguments were you can't paint from photos because they lie and distort. You can't paint from zoo animals because they are overfed, out of shape, and don't accurately represent their lean, fit, and war-torn wild counterparts.
While these arguments may have some validity, it doesn't mean an artist can't paint or draw good wildlife without observing an animal subject in its natural wild habitat.
How can I say this, some of you may think?
Well, how many artists who paint snow leopards, for example, have actually observed them in the wild? Even if you get the opportunity to travel to Tibet (which few artists probably do) the chances of seeing a snow leopard in the wild are extremely low. I'd bet money most artists who paint snow leopards have never seen one in the wild. They are most likely zoo or game farm animals. That doesn't mean the art can't be good. There are plenty of beautiful snow leopard works of art.
There are many other subjects of rare animals artist paint frequently that I have a hard time believing have been observed in the wild first-hand by that artist. White tigers, okapi, the red wolf. These are all animals I've seen in art, some by artists who argue observing animals in the wild is necessary. These animals can easily be seen in many zoos, but I seriously doubt these artists have painted them plein air from wild specimens. Not that they're making such claims. But they imply it's necessary, yet paint subjects they probably have never seen in the wild themselves.
I don't think the argument is valid. Or course it would be great if we could all spend lots of time watching and sketching animals in the wild. But the fact is, most of us can't. Not all of us have wildlife in our backyards. Not all of us can run off on African safaris. When I was working full time I never had time to go to Africa. Now that I'm not working, I don't have the money. Many artists are in the same boat. You either have time or money but rarely both. Does that mean you can't paint?
For those of us who are unable to spend much time, for whatever reason, observing animals in their natural habitat, I think zoo and refuge animals can still be very useful, despite what some may argue. I also think watching lots of documentaries helps. You just have to make a little extra effort bridging the gap between these artificial settings and the wild world. You can learn a lot about movement, anatomy, and behavior by watching these shows. Observing animals in real life in the zoo, then looking at how wild animals in documentaries differ in their leaner and more haggard look can give you a lot to go by.
And don't forget your pet. You can't learn everything about a wolf by watching your dog, but there are some similarities. The same is true for your cat, horse, and bird. Watching pets and farm animals, watching documentaries, visiting zoos and wildlife refuges, reading books, and researching online can do a lot to bridge the gap between you and the wilderness.
Jun 23, 2012
The Importance of a Good Title
I wanted to share with you tonight the artwork of Jim Clements. His artwork is not only amazing just for its sheer beauty but for the stories it tells. While browsing his art one image in particular struck me. This piece is called 'Last Roundup' (posted here with the artist's permission):
Does this piece invoke an emotional response? Absolutely! But how much of that emotion is the result of the image itself and how much is from the title of the piece? Imagine if the piece had been titled something generic like "horse and rider". Would you have had the same response? I would have still liked the piece simply because it's beautiful and well executed. But would it have stirred me emotionally? Maybe not as much.
I believe it was a Pixar animator who once said, "My job is not to move the character so much as to move the audience". I think that applies to still art like paintings as well. We, as artists, often paint because we feel an emotional response to the subject. When we paint our subject, aren't we trying to share that emotion? Of course, we want much of that emotion to come across in the artwork itself, but why not help it with a good title?
Too many of us, including myself, struggle with finding a good tile for our work so we often neglect it. My art speaks for itself after all, right? So why do I need to worry about a title? Well, as you saw in Jim Clements' art, a good title can speak so much more and make a huge difference.
I see so many wonderful artworks with generic and uninteresting titles like "moose" or, even worse, "untitled". Don't do this to your art! Viewers can't read your mind. They don't know what you were thinking and feeling when you created that piece. They can see the art and may feel an emotional connection to it. But if you don't help them out they may not feel your emotional connection to it. Wouldn't you like them to know what that is? Tell them with a good title!
And while you're thinking about all that, please take some time to go browse some of Jim's other wonderful artworks! Jim Clements Art
Does this piece invoke an emotional response? Absolutely! But how much of that emotion is the result of the image itself and how much is from the title of the piece? Imagine if the piece had been titled something generic like "horse and rider". Would you have had the same response? I would have still liked the piece simply because it's beautiful and well executed. But would it have stirred me emotionally? Maybe not as much.
I believe it was a Pixar animator who once said, "My job is not to move the character so much as to move the audience". I think that applies to still art like paintings as well. We, as artists, often paint because we feel an emotional response to the subject. When we paint our subject, aren't we trying to share that emotion? Of course, we want much of that emotion to come across in the artwork itself, but why not help it with a good title?
Too many of us, including myself, struggle with finding a good tile for our work so we often neglect it. My art speaks for itself after all, right? So why do I need to worry about a title? Well, as you saw in Jim Clements' art, a good title can speak so much more and make a huge difference.
I see so many wonderful artworks with generic and uninteresting titles like "moose" or, even worse, "untitled". Don't do this to your art! Viewers can't read your mind. They don't know what you were thinking and feeling when you created that piece. They can see the art and may feel an emotional connection to it. But if you don't help them out they may not feel your emotional connection to it. Wouldn't you like them to know what that is? Tell them with a good title!
And while you're thinking about all that, please take some time to go browse some of Jim's other wonderful artworks! Jim Clements Art
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
