Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Another small church - with a fun way to critique
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 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Hey folks.
How about a bit of fun, and having a 'fun' way to critique this please.....
can you give me
A - three words, max, of what you think are strengths/positives/successes with this one,
and
B - three words, max, of areas you think could be stronger/improved or that I could look at etc
(Don't feel obliged to come up with three, if less comes to mind)
hopefully just a bit of fun, thanks folks
Posted
I like the strong depth of colour that you’ve used in those trees, that was a good move.
The pathway is a bit pale and weak and too blue…same as the sky almost! I’d make it more like the church colour. And that grass is insipid.
The front right gravestone could do with being much more prominent in tone … it would add some interest, and guide the eye up to your focal point!
Decent job though in the main!
Edited
by Alan Bickley
Posted
Sorry, I can find nothing funny or amusing about this. Just a really nicely painted sketch to be proud of. .Sorry Jim, I was meaning the process of only giving me three words would have been a fun way of critiquing, I was thinking. I didn't mean to give the impression I was looking for funny comments on the actual painting. I think perhaps the way I wrote my post was a bit oblique. Thank you for your compliment
Posted
Also… I would have invented an out of view tree, this tree would cast a heavy shadow across the foreground area -I did wonder about the foreground, and felt it needed something. This view is actually from just inside the churchyard, under the gateway arch entrance to the churchyard, and so is at this point devoid of any features in the foreground. Maybe a little invented tree shadowing would not be too noticeable by the locals that know the church. I'll bear this in mind for future ones. Thanks again
Posted
Consider another tombstone or small bush (even if it doesn't exist in reality) in the foreground (RH side of the path?) to create more of a visual journey – as others have suggested. Perhaps, make the shadows longer and darker to increase the values contrast. Consider making the whole composition wider, taking it to the full width of the paper and so increasing amount of visible background horizon: thereby, giving the composition a greater depth and increasing the visual interest. Regards.
Posted
If not the shadow of a tree, you could make it a cloud shadow - I think all of the suggestions made so far would help the painting, though I also agree with Jim, really: you can improve, add to, re-balance, provide the eye with a more interesting journey; the trouble is that you can keep doing that until you've lost the appeal of the scene to you (and yes, the locals will notice any variation from the actual, and will tirelessly point it out to you!).
If it were my painting, I'd indicate a shadow over the church itself, and or over the path; and I'd zhoosh that green up a bit - that in itself should help to increase the sense of depth. More likely, though - I'd just do another study of the same scene, with some of those aspects if not all attended to. I often do several versions of the same picture - or more or less the same: I'd never be a good forger, I can't even copy myself accurately.
Posted
I’ll stick with my original suggestion of introducing a deep shadow to the foreground!
It needs it to help solidify the foreground and push the remaining components of the painting further back… one of the many tricks which help us give the illusion of a three-dimensional image.
It’s totally irrelevant whether or not there was or wasn’t a tree present in the first place, we’re artists (not photographers), and these are the ‘tricks of our trade’ if you like.
It’s worth having a look at the landscapes of Rowland Hilder. Look at the really strong tonal depth that he adds to his foreground - in a less dramatic way, but using the same principle, Edward Wesson adopted the same method, sweeping darker washes of watercolour to indicate shadows across his foregrounds! It’s no coincidence…
Edited
by Alan Bickley
Posted
Additional tweaking (a couple of days ago, before the more recent comments (thanks Alan, Robert and Trevor))....
Path colour, foreground, subtle red tones/blocks added to walls and around window, increased dark (to wall shading) , and strengthened tones and colour around door focal area. I'm pleased with this now, so thank you everyone for your thoughts.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2