William Lloyd Duncan
1012 South Shore Road
Madawaska Lake
Stockholm, Maine, 04783
207-896-3461 Studio and message.
my personal profile!/WmLDuncan
Skype williamduncan83
Use the reply form below to send me a message (keeps the spam down).

Or you can guess my email–I’m Bill @ the URL for this website.

4 thoughts on “Contact

  1. I appreciated the thoughts you shared here. It seems to me that working on top of a photographic print, instead of “plein air,” risks flattening the vast space of a landscape; as well as the nuances of light; and a mechanical cropping of the image–human vision just blurring into the periphery.

    With that said, I think you’re work is really quite successful and charming. It challenges working “traditionally” in today’s times. Wether you work “plein air” or not, you’re still having to match color tones and think about composition.

    Have you ever thought about letting a little bit of the mechanical “lie” show through? I’m wondering if challenging people’s sensibilities by making the mechanical print show, would force you to lower the prices of your work. In my opinion, you’re definitely trying to balance a lot of interesting elements.

    Thanks for putting yourself out there!


    • [Edited 091012]
      Thanks Randy for a great post, you are touching on a lot of interesting elements yourself.

      I actually think the photograph captures a deeper sense of space and light than my naked eye can apprehend. For comparison, I just posted a life-painting I did last year:

      I concede the superiority of machine-vision. The aerial and optical perspective is always perfect. I can’t discount the roll of the photographer in making decisions about point-of-view, time-of-day, and subject framing. That’s not to say my photographic composition is always successful. There is a fair amount of chance as well and I try to put odds in my favor by shooting extensively.

      With the camera doing the drawing, I tend to focus my painting on interpreting the photo’s textures lines and colors. I am often surprised how subtle details in the photo add depth cues. These surprises may be opportunities to improve my own awareness of space and light as I try more painting from life. When I look up, after painting over a photograph for a while, the world takes on the qualities of my painting.

      The show I just hung yesterday includes both straight photographic prints and paintings on photos. I haven’t put them together for some time so it was interesting to contrast the two mediums. I’m hoping for a good discussion for my art talk on the 12th. I’ll try to remember to record it.

      I usually try to “cover my tracks” by obliterating any photographic detail in the painting. My paintings go through several phases. About half way through they are the ugliest to me. It seems that detailed textures are most outstanding trait of a photograph. As I cover theses photo-textures with my painted textures, the work suddenly flips to read as a painting. Yet as many viewers have noted, there remains a sense that a camera was involved.

      I’ve danced around revealing my camera based process. Seems like every month I come up with a new term (euphemism) for “painting on photograph.” I am opening up more about it to potential patrons (in this post for example). I wonder about the art-world / real-world divide. I have no doubt that the art-world would see my technique as valid but they may view my subject as too traditional. On the other hand, I hope my real-world audience sees the celebration our region but they may get a little sting from my process.

      I’m not sure if my photographic-based process is, overall, any less work than life-painting. Also I have quite a big overhead in cameras, computers and printers. My work is getting pretty expensive in the local market but I am not making a living from it yet.

  2. I’d love to see a painting of the ashby farm on ashby road. (grandaughter of Fred Ashby)…so many happy childhood memories of fun out there! Thank you.

Leave a Reply