Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Inspiration from Artists Wk 112 Bonus Artist Rodger McPhail
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
I've always felt that paintings should look like paintings, not photographs. Two entirely different arts. A purely personal opinion, for what it's worth I accept, but the more realistic they're made to look, always prompts a "why bother" in me. I love the quote about paintings having the artist's voice in them. Even portraits need an individual style that defines the difference. The partridge painting is a prime example over the rest of the artists undoubtedly skilful work.
Posted
I couldn't agree more Jim, why bother indeed. As you say, two different arts. Robert's take was interesting (not too long either for developing the point). Personally I liked the partridge, the wildlife sketches, and that was it. And I've seen paintings on the Gallery I've liked a lot better!
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2