Part II. Results From the Reconstruction of an Image Description

Once the written descriptions of our chosen art works were handed out, each of us went to work reconstructing the image we were given. As we read and re-read we put media to paper and an image was reborn. In some cases not exactly the image the writer was hoping for, but nonetheless an image. It was fascinating to see the variations in each person’s reconstructed piece. There were a few images containing all the elements, but in total reversal of the actual piece, in a flip-flopped orientation. There were at least three that came so close I would have been able to pair them up with their companion piece, no problem at all. One of these was mine. Or so I thought at first glance.

I truly thought I had captured the description of my image, if only because of my approach to the problem. My first attempt, I sat and studied the painting and once I thought I had the image in my mind I left the room and wrote it down from memory. Writing down just the concrete parts of the image as I had remember them. During my second attempt I took what I had written from memory and compared it to the actual painting. Although pretty good for a first attempt I still needed to clear up the omissions and mistakes before going final. So I filled in the missing pieces and clarified some of the more obvious mistakes. One such mistake was a branch that split off from the main branch and doubled back into the center of the painting crossing in the front of the falcon. Also from memory I thought I had noticed some feathery down from the young falcon blowing in the breeze. That was totally out in left field, there was absolutely no sign of a breeze or wind of any kind whatsoever in the painting.

After correcting my memory omissions and mistakes, I began to elaborate on my perceived emotion from the painting, trying to, with words, pull out what I felt from viewing the painting. I remarked about the dominance of the boulders and their relationships to one another and to the diminutive size of the falcon in comparison. I pointed out the colors of the boulders, but omitted their color independence one from the other. Thereby leaving the reconstruction artist somewhat confused and in the outcome, all the colors were mixed together rather than being independent one from the other.

My depiction of the branch in the foreground was not quite as sound as I had thought it to be. Evidence of that was in the rendition of the artist’s omission of the top half of the branches climbing up the left side of the painting. I left out the fact that the main branch spilt into three secondary branches, on approximately the same horizontal axis where the falcon sat on his rocky ledge. Two of these branches continue to twist and climb upwards filling from the left side of the painting to the center, arching inward and toward the upper right, tickling the rocks with their spindly barren smaller off-shooting branches. None of these branches attempt to cover any part of the falcon. Although one of the smaller branches, reaching to the right and above the bird’s head, does aid in the visible formation in the shape of a “C”.

Although I mentioned the shadowing effect in the painting, I made no reference to the placement of the sun other than late afternoon. Again leaving the reconstruction artist without enough information for a more accurate placement of those shadows, which show up on the left side on the rocky formation behind the dead grayish-white branches in the foreground. One aspect of these shadows seem to indicate an overhang from an upper rocky formation not seen in the picture, but evident from the light and shadows. The strongest light was seen also in the same formation of the “C,” covering the top half of the branches, the top of the falcon on the right side of the painting. It was here that the individual colors of the rocks show up. There was also a shadow cast from the young falcon’s torso and slightly uplifted left wing, falling underneath the falcon to the left on the third branch that splits-off from the main branch that doubles back in the lower center of the painting crossing in front of the falcon.

My description of the immature falcon was also lacking enough facts for a more accurate rendering. His feathers were a bit more ruffled in the painting than I had indicated in my original description. I also forgot to mention, that the falcon was in a three quarters position facing the twisted branches on the left side of the painting. However, only after seeing the reconstruction artist’s rendering, did I think of a description that would more accurately portray his posture in the painting. I should have said that the falcon peered from under his wing in a Dracula-like pose from a seated sleeping position. His coloring was also more of a grayish-white though, the other artist shows him as predominately brown. I should have been more descriptive with the amounts and placements of the colors of the falcon. The black markings were more on the tips of the feathers about the head and shoulders indicating the age of the falcon. The shadowing on the falcon is also omitted from my original description again leaving the artist nothing to work with. I could have said that the falcon's shadows are shown from underneath his slightly lifted Dracula-like wing and that part of his lower underbelly that can be seen from his three quarters angle to the viewer. The light strikes the bird’s upper torso, back of his neck, head and outstretched wing.

Again this has been a very stimulating and eye opening exercise. One that has helped, from first hand experience, my understanding of the reasoning behind the expression, “One picture is worth a thousand words.” Depending on the complexity of the object of art, it should be considered that sometimes more than a thousand words might be necessary in order to bring that image back to life.

The Original Painting by A. Cialone is shown below:

The rendering of the reconstruction artist shown below: