Here's a painting by Joseph Zbukvic in which he relies on a very general description of the buildings to make the scene believable. Although the artist has an undeniably deft hand, it is not the brushwork that is most impressive in his work. Zbukvic's awareness of what is essential and what is optional is what dazzles the mere mortals among us.
How did he know that so little specific information would be enough to tell the story? He paints shapes, and very little else, yet there seems to be more there than he has actually described. Do you see the sculpted figures on top of the building on the right side of the background? Here's what they look like up close;
It's as if he can read our minds and see just how far we will go to meet him halfway. And just when we think he's stretching the limits of what we are willing to accept, he pushes it a little further;
How about those buildings? You know Zbukvic could see lots more information that just three gray shapes. These are deliberately oversimplified. If you cover the street level area of the scene so the buildings are all that remains only the street lamps tell us what we're looking at. He's playing with our heads, and I, for one, am happy about that. As a viewer, I want a role to play in the interpretation of the subject.
For homework, experiment with putting yourself in the viewer's place. How much information is enough for you?
Try one of these, and have fun