Studio Process Notes from Cabled History
- Sheryl Brake
- May 17
- 2 min read
Updated: May 18
While working on the Cabled History collection, many of the decisions that shaped the paintings happened quietly in the studio. This post shares a few of those considerations—not as a step‑by‑step explanation, but as context for how observation translated into paint.
(This post accompanies the Making of Cabled History collection essay.)
Studio Process for Cabled History: From Reference to Structure
Back in the studio, I spent time reviewing the reference photographs I had taken along the river. Cropping played an important role early on, allowing me to focus on tension, weight, and the relationships between cable, rock, and surrounding space.
Before painting, each piece began with a careful drawing. Drawing helped me understand the underlying structure of the cables—the way they coiled, unraveled, or pulled against other surfaces. It also became a kind of map, guiding how color would be applied and where shadows would be established as the painting developed.
This studio process for developed through close observation and restraint rather than step‑by‑step planning.
Working with a Limited Palette
For Cabled History, restraint was essential. I worked from a limited palette to keep the focus on surface, form, and subtle variation rather than color complexity. Limiting the number of pigments allowed me to mix a wide range of earthy tones while maintaining harmony across the series.
Using the same palette throughout the collection helped unify the paintings visually. Even as individual compositions shifted, shared color relationships and tonal structure held the work together as a cohesive whole.
Surface, Texture, and Translation
Much of the challenge in this series was translating physical surfaces—rusted steel, worn stone, and layered sediment—into watercolor without overstating them. Texture needed to be suggested rather than described.
The process required a balance between control and responsiveness. Some passages were carefully planned, while others relied on allowing the paint to behave naturally. In a few areas, I allowed simple material interventions—such as selective use of salt or natural granulation—to contribute to the surface, helping suggest irregular texture without overt description. Paying attention to where to guide the medium—and where to step back—became an important part of the work.
Method and Intuition
Throughout the series, I moved between methodical decision‑making and intuitive response. Structure and drawing provided a foundation, but the paintings developed through close looking and adjustment rather than adherence to a fixed formula.
This balance—between intention and openness—mirrored the subject matter itself. The cables carried evidence of order and function, but also of time, wear, and change. The studio process needed to hold both.
In Relation to the Collection
These studio decisions supported the broader aims of Cabled History: to remain attentive to form, surface, and the quiet presence of objects shaped by time and use. The process was not separate from the work—it was a continuation of the same act of looking that began along the riverbank.
A brief studio moment from the Cabled History collection.
Selected works from the Cabled History series are available here.
Comments