So many times I see the work of artists who do such a nice job on the feeling, color temperature and mood of a painting only to top it off the those spindly, willow-like after thoughts of trees. Artists often paint them by dragging their brush in long calligraphy-like strokes which result in weak trees. When I teach, I tell people to visualize trees as a series of straight lines and use no curvy ones and they will get more power and interest in their trees.

There's a few artists with works in the latest American Artist that could just use strong trees to make their works take that final step into more dimension.

Next time you're outside. Look at the trees - how rough and irregular and knarley they are. Don't make them an afterthought in your paintings because it always looks weak.

Go to a museum and check out the landscapes by any artist and you will see for yourself.

You are correct to say trees should not be an afterthought.When you teach, why would you teach students to paint straight trees? Simply paint what you see...My belief is that one should not put anything as an afterthought,I don't mean to limit the creative thought process but rather, to add interest.

[i][b]i would never teach my painting students to create straight lines in their tree work..nature rarely has straight lines, though never say never, there are always acceptions to the rules....and? it definetly depends on what type of tree they are drawing...maple beech elm or baobab, a tree, each tree has its own character and rarely are two trees every the same....environment affects the growth sometimes to an extreme...there are many factors to consider...i totally agree about the gnarlyness, or depth of crevases in bark...but again depends on the tree type...
i definetly agree that artists should view them constantly to learn their forms...and as each one of us tends to be able to see trees just out our window...its an easy feat!