04-30-2014, 04:26 PM
Always great to see studies being done.
Looking at how other artists in history have handled atmospheric perspective is a good stepping stone. The thing to remember is that everything in art is relative. So there is no real right way to do anything. Usually the easiest way to make sense of it is to look at nature, look at how other artists have done it and try to get in their head and find out WHY they did it (this is probably the most important step), then translate nature with your own unique voice, which is usually a combination of your inspirations.
For specific examples of atmospheric perspective, my favorite is Bierstadt, or any of the Hudson River school of art.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...ntains.jpg
Specifically the mountains on the left. They are both dark and saturated, but they still look like they are further in the distance than the foreground.
Looking at how other artists in history have handled atmospheric perspective is a good stepping stone. The thing to remember is that everything in art is relative. So there is no real right way to do anything. Usually the easiest way to make sense of it is to look at nature, look at how other artists have done it and try to get in their head and find out WHY they did it (this is probably the most important step), then translate nature with your own unique voice, which is usually a combination of your inspirations.
For specific examples of atmospheric perspective, my favorite is Bierstadt, or any of the Hudson River school of art.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...ntains.jpg
Specifically the mountains on the left. They are both dark and saturated, but they still look like they are further in the distance than the foreground.