Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

My art

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

- and it's the greatest thing that an artist can have - that freedom to be able to draw whatever they please, without having to first create a model in reality.

Is that the greatest thing? I would have thought the greatest thing artists can have would be something more like, the ability to essentialize visual data such that their representation of an object looks "more real" than actually looking at the object. I suppose the ability to do that without a model would provide even greater freedom, but still I would think that that skill would be the most important, and the ability to do it without a model would be a secondary issue. Does that make sense, and would you agree with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here's another drawing I did for fun: That's it for now. I'll update it later with some more works.

I'm in the mood to share this drawing I created. 8''X11'' Graphite, the drawing was done from imagination.  I named it 'Dancing through Fire'.    (I post a lot of artwork and studies on my Art page

Hi, Been such a long time since I've posted here. Stumbled upon a post from this forum tonight and decided to check my old thread.  I've recently finished a few paintings. I'll post a couple

Posted Images

There are some of my oil paintings that have a proportionality problem which is quite visible: pelvis is too narrow when compared to the head, for example, in "Metal suit", or in "Night out".

In "Night out" the face is also problematic. (Still I love that painting, for what it expresses, just a note).

There is Celebrating life, where her pelvis is rather narrow, but still on the border of real. I like that narrowness, though now I would do it a bit differently (less height, for example).

That painting is beautiful, and I wouldn't say that the proportions were bad at all. Maybe they could be improved somewhat, but not bad. Her pose is a bit stiff, but not too bad. The colors, the detail, the lighting, the mood are all awesome in that painting. In fact, I think making a woman look extremely sexy and beautiful is a good stylistic idea. <_<

This drawing I'd say is an example where the heads are a bit too big for the bodies http://www.ifatart.com/pencil/onadate.htm

I think I improved the proportionality thing, and am able to criticize myself about it more easily now than before when I did my earlier oil paintings.

I agree, and it's a hard thing to get right. I think you have to do it at the outset, before you get down to details, that way you have a good foundation to work with. Look at it this way, once you’ve established a good foundation that will make everything else in your work look all the better. It'll make the later steps easier too, because you won't have to work as hard to get things right.

Here's what I think happens. You get really focused in on a detail, say the eye, and you make the eye look perfect, then you pull back and see it in relation to the head and it's off, and so all of your work in detailing is lost. This is why it's important to get the proportions and positioning right at the start. This makes you more efficient at drawing, and ends up making it more fun for you.

In the drawings and painting in the "New" section I used a model. For now I will be using models, but I am interested in your opinion of the next new drawings/painting I will do that will not be based on a model, because it will reflect my current ability and the criticism will be more efficient.

Or, better yet, find someone who does this stuff for a living or as a serious hobby. This is where artist forums would be invaluable.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago, that to develop from the point I was in, I need to do a lot of drawings based on some object/model. But I feel that this will not be enough: I want to be able to reach, at some stage, an ability to construct a 3D image of a human body in mind, and visualize how light falls on it. I believe that this is what artists like Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo have - and it's the greatest thing that an artist can have - that freedom to be able to draw whatever they please, without having to first create a model in reality. If there is a guide to help me reach this - I would be very happy to accept that "push".

You can definitely do it. In the book I mentioned he starts you off with simple 3D shapes: cubes, cylinders, spheres, etc. You practice doing those shapes with perspective, and then you move on to more advanced objects: apples, chairs, lamps, using the more basic shapes as building blocks. Later, those skills are used to construct humans. In this way, step-by-step, you are given a solid foundation on which to draw. Eventually you find your own style and move a bit away from his, but the foundation is always there for you.

Anything you think I should focus on while doing them?

The pages I've scanned provide descriptions with the drawings, which should help you out.

Good idea, but I don't have time for it. Until now I've been showing my drawings to one of my roommate, who draws as well. The bitch (affectionately) has a good eye for these things, and she was able to find even slight problems. It was very interesting and fun to be able to suddenly see those things, correct them, and realize how the new version is more complete.

However, when I barely have time to draw, I would rather focus on learning by myself and doing new things for now (and finishing paintings/drawings that I've started).

Okay, I just wanted to give you an idea. Btw, you can always just peruse such a board, look at other people's drawings and the advice they receive and use it yourself. Some boards have tutorials on them as well.

B) at this one I just bought a new pencil (3B), and I got enthusiastic about the effects of "depth" it allows me to do (before that I was using an HB all the time :lol: ), so I just set on this one for hours. It was fun.

It looks like it was fun. Your paintings all show a great sense of life and choice of subject matter. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that the greatest thing? I would have thought the greatest thing artists can have would be something more like, the ability to essentialize visual data such that their representation of an object looks "more real" than actually looking at the object.

Not sure I understand what you mean here by "essentialize visual data"... is this something like making the details and background blurry, and using just the most important lines to make the painting look real?

I suppose the ability to do that without a model would provide even greater freedom, but still I would think that that skill would be the most important, and the ability to do it without a model would be a secondary issue. Does that make sense, and would you agree with that?

Ahmm, I'm not really sure what you're asking here Bold :confused: . If I understand you correctly, then I would say that if someone is unable to tell important details from unnecessary ones, he will simply have to work much harder than required.

Perhaps I should correct what I said from a generality to something about me only: for me, it is very important to be able to draw from imagination in a realistic manner. This freedom, for me, is very very important, because it would allow me much better self-expression.

This drawing I'd say is an example where the heads are a bit too big for the bodies http://www.ifatart.com/pencil/onadate.htm

Yes, definitely: I can see what you're saying. The man's head is slightly too enlarged, but the woman's is much too much.

However, this mistake doesn't always happen because of starting from details. In this one I started by doing the entire figure first, but I think that as I start with the face, I focus on the eyes, make them pretty big, and then the rest of the face has to follow this dictation, and since the hair, which I do at the end, is a degree of freedom to the face, it allows me to make the head bigger than the initial draft.

This is why it's important to get the proportions and positioning right at the start. This makes you more efficient at drawing, and ends up making it more fun for you.

Yep, good advice.

You can definitely do it. In the book I mentioned he starts you off with simple 3D shapes: cubes, cylinders, spheres, etc.

Wow... cubes! this sounds so exciting! :lol:

But I guess it can be helpful. (like physicists say... "let there be a spherical cow" ;) ).

The pages I've scanned provide descriptions with the drawings, which should help you out.

Yeah, thanks (again) for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I understand what you mean here by "essentialize visual data"... is this something like making the details and background blurry, and using just the most important lines to make the painting look real?

Hmm, actually, I don't know what specific techniques the painters use to achieve the effect I'm talking about.. I'd like to know. But, when I look at a painting that I really like.. When I look at the painting as a whole, it looks much more real and three dimensional than any photograph, and even more perfect and clear than when I'm actually looking at something in real life. After looking at such paintings, I see more detail and clarity in everything else I look at in real life for the next few hours. But when I look really closely at the details of the paintings, I notice that it's not usually an exactly proportionately accurate representation of the dimensions and colors of actual objects.. Certain details are exaggerated, and others are omitted, and some of the colors are completely different than anything I would normally notice in nature.

Here are some pictures from my favorite artist, Vermeer of Delft. He's the best I know of at what I'm trying to describe, but I don't know how he does it.

This is his most famous, "Girl With a Pearl Earring." Especially the earring itself looks like what I'm trying to describe. It seems to jump out of the picture. Also, the moisture in her eyes and on her lips is incredible. But when I look closely, the details look more exaggerated than I think they probably would in a photo or in real life:

post-634-1175995664_thumb.jpg

Here's "View of Houses in Delft" or "The Little Street." The bricks on the buildings, and the people look so real, but I think the colors are more extreme and everything more symmetrical than it would probably really look:

post-634-1175995773_thumb.gif

Here's a close up detail of the globe from his famous painting "The Geographer." Close up it looks a little less realistic, but in the framework of the whole painting it looks ultra-real:

post-634-1175995792_thumb.jpg

Ahmm, I'm not really sure what you're asking here Bold ;) . If I understand you correctly, then I would say that if someone is unable to tell important details from unnecessary ones, he will simply have to work much harder than required.
Why would he have to? What would compel him to do this rather than merely make mediocre art? If there is such a force compelling artists to work hard, I assume, to achieve some goal, how do you explain modern art?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, actually, I don't know what specific techniques the painters use to achieve the effect I'm talking about.. I'd like to know. But, when I look at a painting that I really like.. When I look at the painting as a whole, it looks much more real and three dimensional than any photograph, and even more perfect and clear than when I'm actually looking at something in real life.

I could see what you were talking about in the pearl and the lips from "Girl With a Pearl Earring". I think this effect is achieved in this painting by making having the earing sparkle in an environment which is dark, so the darkness draws your attention to contrasts in it.

I don't like the artist though.

How about these examples for something that looks ultra real?

Centered by Steve Hanks

Or this: Coastline by Steve Hanks

Or Julie Bell's amazing metal technique: Commandoes.

Why would he have to? What would compel him to do this rather than merely make mediocre art? If there is such a force compelling artists to work hard, I assume, to achieve some goal, how do you explain modern art?

I think there is miscommunication here big time. What I meant was that if an artist wants to make a realistic art, and yet he doesn't have an ability to distinguish between important details (that make the painting appear real) and not-important details, he would have to work harder by painting all the details for the painting to look realistic.

And how would I explain modern art? I don't know... shit happens? <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
When I consider presenting my art in the way I see fit vrs. sparing the feelings of co-workers (or users which are bothered by this), choosing the second will be a sacrifice for me.

Honestly, I do not understand what the sacrifice will be in these circumstances. But this is fine! I am still glad that you continue to share your gift with us! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow... cubes! this sounds so exciting! :lol:

But I guess it can be helpful. (like physicists say... "let there be a spherical cow" ;) ).

I should have noticed this before. Yes, let there be a spherical cow, makes life a whole lot easier for the artist.

Anyway, see, I told you not to laugh, and you went and laughed anyway. :)

Seriously, those shapes are the starting point, not the end point. They're building blocks, unless you want to be a cubist. :lol:

But this is fine! I am still glad that you continue to share your gift with us! :D

I agree with you, and she is talented. I'd like to see her develop her talents all the more. With her choice of subject, talent for detail, and sense of life she could produce some amazing work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I could see what you were talking about in the pearl and the lips from "Girl With a Pearl Earring". I think this effect is achieved in this painting by making having the earing sparkle in an environment which is dark, so the darkness draws your attention to contrasts in it.

That's interesting. I like how you say that the earring sparkles. I agree, but I am not sure how that's possible, since the paint itself isn't sparkly (at least, in the reproductions I've seen such as this one). How does he make the earring sparkle? I think it's just the right amount of sparkle for that amount of light.. Like if you happen to catch someone at the right angle at the right instant.. The kind of sparkle that would last only for that special moment and not even be noticed unless one was looking for it and waiting for something like that to happen.

I don't like the artist though.

Hm, I don't think art is subjective, so I just can't comprehend why that would possibly be. His subjects are pretty naturalistic, but the technique is just so brilliant. I think the technique makes up for anything unromantic about his subject matter.

How about these examples for something that looks ultra real?

Centered by Steve Hanks

This one doesn't look realistic to me. It looks more realistic than a Spider Man comic strip, but if I were to compare the quality to the best Renaissance painters and to talented comic book artists, I would say it falls closer to the comic books. I think everything looks too outlined. It looks like every shape was outlined in black and the colors filled in, but things in reality don't look like that.

I think that her dress approaches ultra real.. This is the best of the three. But it still looks too cartoony and outline-y in the foreground. And the background looks too blurry and foggy/vague (at least, on my monitor, which is not the best).

Or Julie Bell's amazing metal technique: Commandoes.

To me, this looks like the opposite of realistic. The costumes especially--they look more like liquid than metal, if they look like anything. I think I've seen greater realism in some of Van Gogh's paintings than this. Of course, I'm no expert and I know I need glasses. But still. : P

I think there is miscommunication here big time. What I meant was that if an artist wants to make a realistic art, and yet he doesn't have an ability to distinguish between important details (that make the painting appear real) and not-important details, he would have to work harder by painting all the details for the painting to look realistic.
But I don't think that painting all the details would make the painting look realistic. At best, I think it would look like a photograph, but I think a truly realistic painting should look more realistic and three dimensional than a photograph.

And how would I explain modern art? I don't know... shit happens? :)

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you, and she is talented. I'd like to see her develop her talents all the more. With her choice of subject, talent for detail, and sense of life she could produce some amazing work.

Thank you. This put a huge smile on my face.

Mainly because I agree with you, and this knowledge is like a fire within me that keeps me going.

Ayn Rand was talking about looking at the world around, it's potential, and getting energy and motivation from that; energy to use what one sees around and make something good from it. In my case, I look within at my potential, and get that same feeling.

And I know that I do have it in me: the ability to reach the level of technique that I want. And I'm looking forward to the day of looking at my own creation and knowing I reached what I have been striving for. Just need some patience now :worry: , and afterwards some hard work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's interesting. I like how you say that the earring sparkles. I agree, but I am not sure how that's possible, since the paint itself isn't sparkly

Oh... haha!! I remember asking myself this question when I first started looking at paintings by Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo: "How do they manage to make something look shiny, when in fact no single color reflects light?"

In reality, something looks shiny because of a combination of the intensity of the light reflected by an object, and the color of it. Usually something that is shiny will appear in white, or some bright color. But in a painting, all the artist has is the colors. The intensity of light is not a parameter he can use. Still, the combination of colors seems to be enough to create in our brain the image of a spark. The right combination of colors is more important than the light intensity, so it seems.

How does he make the earring sparkle? I think it's just the right amount of sparkle for that amount of light.. Like if you happen to catch someone at the right angle at the right instant.. The kind of sparkle that would last only for that special moment and not even be noticed unless one was looking for it and waiting for something like that to happen.

You managed to make me like that painting more by describing "catching that right moment".

You said "His subjects are pretty naturalistic, but the technique is just so brilliant. I think the technique makes up for anything unromantic about his subject matter."

I actually have no idea what "naturalistic" is. I decided a long time ago, not to make myself educated about art types or art history. Anyway, this was just a side comment.

For me, the subject of the painting is the main thing. A great technique without a good theme cannot provide me with the pleasure I seek from art. So when I look at "Girl with a pearl earing" the first thing I look at is her face. She has an ordinary face, the eyes are not interesting, they don't feel alive, they don't tell a story of bravery or daring, or intelligence. And that's it - for me this is the point where pleasure from the painting is destroyed. A technique should be used for the sake of expressing a good idea/concept, story, or sense of life. Technique is a tool for great art, not the main goal.

A good technique can never make up, for me, for that missing idea/SoL in an art-piece. The technique can be gorgeous, but if all I get to see is some ordinary building, the pleasure gained from looking at the piece is almost 0 for me.

It seems, however, that the elements of technique that you enjoy from Vermeer are more about a SoL than about accuracy.

There is something I would like to understand about the emphasis that different people put on when analyzing art. A close friend of mine, for example, would only look at the technique and how realistic it is. He would not be able to see/enjoy the romantic side. I, on the other hand, would care about the theme and SoL first and foremost.

This one doesn't look realistic to me. ... I think everything looks too outlined. It looks like every shape was outlined in black and the colors filled in, but things in reality don't look like that.

There is a little bit of outline-ning on the left side, but overall - it looks very real. The difference in our opinions must come from a different concept of what "real" is: for me, something is real if it looks like in reality, like a photograph, or better. For you "real" means something else.

To me, this looks like the opposite of realistic. The costumes especially--they look more like liquid than metal, if they look like anything.

It's not realistic in the sense that it copies something that exists in reality - when did you ever see a human move around in a flexible metal suit? But the artist still manages to have all the effects of reflection that a metal has. So in my book, she gets credit both for imagination and creativity, and for excellent technique. consider the fact, that she had no model for this - this is all from her head: She had to calculate where the light was coming from, the angle the light reflected from the water will hit the body and be reflected to the eyes of the viewer, the shape of the body... This is amazing work. Check this out, for example, and consider all the things she had to take under account to create this. I don't know if it takes a genius, a good teacher or just plenty of hard work to achieve this. Probably all. (BTW, I don't like the painting I linked all that much, I just put it here to demonstrate the metal technique).

But I don't think that painting all the details would make the painting look realistic. At best, I think it would look like a photograph, but I think a truly realistic painting should look more realistic and three dimensional than a photograph.

Interesting. Need to think about this more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Ifat,

Do you know about this?

Objectivism in One Lesson Cover Art: Submissions are now being accepted for the working cover art for Dr. Bernstein's next manuscript. For more information, please contact Holly at [email protected]

Hyperlink: www.andrewbernstein.net

You should submit something!

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
  • 1 year later...

You improved a lot, in both rendering and anatomy. I like the one with the couple dancing the best. :)

Perhaps I should correct what I said from a generality to something about me only: for me, it is very important to be able to draw from imagination in a realistic manner. This freedom, for me, is very very important, because it would allow me much better self-expression.

It's certainly possible, concept artists have to do this and do it and fast. This is what I wanted as well. I find it excruciatingly hard and frustrating, though. All the repetitive exercises one needs to learn to get there, I really don't think I have the mind for it anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You improved a lot, in both rendering and anatomy. I like the one with the couple dancing the best. :)

Thanks. You know something though, you can't really tell if I improved based on the drawings here. I could do the same years ago too, more or less - so long as I have a picture/ model to work with.

The time I will say I have improved is when I draw things from imagination that look as good as this - which I'm beginning to see here and there.

There is something very good about also being able not to worry about technique, and just paint whatever inspires you - in that sense (of creativity, not technique) my old stuff are better than the new.

It's certainly possible, concept artists have to do this and do it and fast. This is what I wanted as well. I find it excruciatingly hard and frustrating, though. All the repetitive exercises one needs to learn to get there, I really don't think I have the mind for it anymore.

I don't do dry exercises. I draw using pictures that I like, and as I go about it I learn patterns of light and anatomy. This way I am not bored with the process of learning. Maybe you can try that.

Then I also do drawing from imagination, to see my progress, to see what parts I'm not sure how to draw yet so I can pay more attention to them in the future, and also because the ability to draw from imagination is important for maintaining ease of self expression. The key here is that because I see drawing from imagination as part of the process of learning, I allow myself room for errors and disatisfaction with technique doesn't stop my motivation.

I agree with you, the process is not easy. It requires a lot of looking, exercising, and even thinking. But it doesn't have to require self discipline and boring exercises.

I think the key for motivation is not to be self critical in the negative sense, focusing on what you enjoy drawing while combining it with a process of learning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. You know something though, you can't really tell if I improved based on the drawings here. I could do the same years ago too, more or less - so long as I have a picture/ model to work with.

Sorry. I should have known better to have said that. It annoys me when people say I improved in my public sketchbook, when it's not true and they cannot know. They just got to see a more polished drawing in comparison with others I posted.

There is something very good about also being able not to worry about technique, and just paint whatever inspires you - in that sense (of creativity, not technique) my old stuff are better than the new.

I know what you mean. I can't really do it anymore, though, I just anger myself. I know too much to like my art and too little to make it look right.

I don't do dry exercises. I draw using pictures that I like, and as I go about it I learn patterns of light and anatomy. This way I am not bored with the process of learning. Maybe you can try that.

I did, I wasn't progressing much. I end annoyed if the drawing looks too much like the reference I'm using or like a poorly made collage of all the references I looked at and in the end it never looks like my original idea anyway.

I think the key for motivation is not to be self critical in the negative sense, focusing on what you enjoy drawing while combining it with a process of learning.

Yes. I think I could do that intuitively as a child but not anymore. I used to be very satisfied as a child, but I think childhood protects us from reality in a way adulthood doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry. I should have known better to have said that. It annoys me when people say I improved in my public sketchbook, when it's not true and they cannot know. They just got to see a more polished drawing in comparison with others I posted.

I didn't find your appreciation annoying at all. I think it is well based - by everything you see an improvement does show. And there IS actually a level of improvement. I enjoyed your compliment, and just added the later as an interesting point.

I know what you mean. I can't really do it anymore, though, I just anger myself. I know too much to like my art and too little to make it look right.

I've been through that. You phrased it very well, too. But you've got to keep reminding yourself that allowing room for mistakes and imperfections is part of a process of learning. Such an approach doesn't come automatically - you got to want it, insist on getting it and train yourself to be like that. Simply tell yourself "now you just enjoy, do whatever feels inspiring, don't worry about technique". Then, every time you have the opposite thought, just tell it to go away, don't let it control your actions. I know it's hard but with time and repetition it works.

I did, I wasn't progressing much. I end annoyed if the drawing looks too much like the reference I'm using or like a poorly made collage of all the references I looked at and in the end it never looks like my original idea anyway.

That's what happens after years of inhibiting self-expression (because of fear it won't turn out good "enough"). At this point self expression won't come automatically anymore. You need to take steps and change your approach for it to come back. I've had this problem as well, and I am much better now - I draw and paint from imagination. You just need to train yourself and not give up. It will be worth it. It is possible. Don't let pessimism get the best of you.

Yes. I think I could do that intuitively as a child but not anymore. I used to be very satisfied as a child, but I think childhood protects us from reality in a way adulthood doesn't.

That is true, what you said about childhood. But it's possible to enjoy the adult world just as much - and in different ways than as a child. That's a topic for a different thread though..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I love those, Ifat. Each and every drawing is very well done. I think, as with Jill, my favorite is the dancers. I like the way they stand out against the white background. You say you haven't improved by much, but the drawings look better to me in several ways from your earlier examples. Hey, and I love the sense of life your art projects. It's a real pleasure.

Thanks for posting! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I have some criticisms:

* The left arm becomes bizarely distorted past the elbow. The placement and perspective of the forearm doesn't seem right, there's no discernable wrist, and the hand itself looks deformed. I'm not sure whether this is the result of bad shading or texture, or whether its a structural problem. Either way, something is off.

* The head and neck seem slightly out of proportion to the body. The head looks too small and at the same time too broad. The facial features appear pinched and shaped around a strong, unfeminine jawline, which draws attention to an already long neck.

* The flow of water over the rocks looks less liquid and more static than it should. There's no sense of movement. The rivulets of water look more like a profusion of stalactites than a cascading stream.

* The color of the falling water is too opaquely white. You make an effort to render it translucent over her fingers, but in other places it looks like milk is pouring down from on high.

* The left side of the painting looks unfinished. The sky is dull and blank, and the cliffs in the background -- especially the edge above her -- look like smears of paint.

* The choice of subject (a woman bathing under a waterfall) is classic, but uninspired. The composition lacks some original twist to it, so it remains unfortunately derivative and cliché.

Edited by Myself
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you try to insult me and hurt my feelings to teach me a lesson not to be harsh on other people (because I told a modern artist that her paintings are not art). At the same time you do not care to distort your artistic judgement and dump on someone else's actual achievement. It's a pathetic motive and requires dishonesty to execute. I violated the virtue of niceness, and now I will get my retribution from you, right? it won't work with me.

Still it is evident you worked hard to notice every detail that could possibly be wrong, which actually does provide me a value, which is why I'll answer your points.

I have some criticisms:

* The left arm becomes bizarely distorted past the elbow. The placement and perspective of the forearm doesn't seem right, there's no discernable wrist, and the hand itself looks deformed. I'm not sure whether this is the result of bad shading or texture, or whether its a structural problem. Either way, something is off.

No you're wrong here. This looks exactly the same as the model I was using.

* The head and neck seem slightly out of proportion to the body. The head looks too small and at the same time too broad. The facial features appear pinched and shaped around a strong, unfeminine jawline, which draws attention to an already long neck.

Maybe you have a point here, which is room for improvement, but it's very exaggerated. It's pretty clear where you're coming from too, with not a single good thing to say about a painting which is obviously great. But I'll ignore that (because I don't respect it) and address your points which you noticeably have thought through.

* The flow of water over the rocks looks less liquid and more static than it should. There's no sense of movement. The rivulets of water look more like a profusion of stalactites than a cascading stream.

I don't agree.

* The color of the falling water is too opaquely white. You make an effort to render it translucent over her fingers, but in other places it looks like milk is pouring down from on high.

In some places it is too white and yet not enough turbulent (which would make white make sense). Again though this is an exaggeration, there are many areas where the water look great, especially at the bottom.

* The left side of the painting looks unfinished. The sky is dull and blank, and the cliffs in the background -- especially the edge above her -- look like smears of paint.

The picture is not the best, it doesn't show variations in the colors of the sky. In real life it looks luminous because the part of he sky closer to the woman is brighter. But it's a slight variation and the picture doesn't show it. The cliffs in the background look just fine, for something which is not the center idea of the painting.

* The choice of subject (a woman bathing under a waterfall) is classic, but uninspired. The composition lacks some original twist to it, so it remains unfortunately derivative and cliché.

This is just obviously an attempt to (I'm sorry to use this word here) dump some more. Such things should be done privately, not in public.

Edited by ifatart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...