Landscapes please help!

Hi Christine. I'm a little late for this train, but I just wanted to add my own observations.  I used to play in a brass band and in music there's an adage: "You're only as good as your last performance." I think it applies to art too and as far as my confidence is concerned it certainly does to me. If I do a poor painting, for weeks afterwards I have a very low estimation of my abilities. I can use it as a spur to improve though, and often do. Some of my best work has come after a disaster of a painting. I'll throw it away and paint a new and often much better one right afterwards, sometimes right over the old one (that can backfire though, because I can change my mind later on, and often only have a photo of the old painting I now like). So my first piecce of advice is to use your 'failure' to spur you on to new heights. Secondly, I like the two paintings you've shown. You sound like you're your own worst critic, and that's pretty common too. I'm the same - all I can ever see is the faults in my work and I sometimes add to them months or years later. There's an artist who exhibits on Twitter who is truly excellent but who almost had a nervous breakdown a couple of weeks ago, after someone made what seemed like a mild criticism of her work. We're a sensitive lot - the original snowflakes. So, my second piece of advice is don't be so hard on yourself.  Thirdly, the two paintings have a kind of post-apocalyptic feel I like and it's mainly because there's nothing much between the trees and the mountains and sky. The trees are pretty good actually - I struggle to paint trees myself. The mountains in the first and both skies are excellent. But there's little to hold your attention in between and that creates the apocalyptic feel, along with the bare trees. Maybe that's what you wanted and if so, fine, you achieved it. They're pretty good paintings as it is. But if you want them to be 'fuller' or more harmonious, I suggest you put something like a sea or grass, bushes, etc in between. You don't necessarily need greens in there. I like working with a restricted colour palette, mainly because I'm very much a learner myself and I've learned from earlier attempts to walk before I run with a full colour palette.  Anyway, you don't lack technique or artistic imagination. I'm impressed that you painted them from your own imagination, because that's difficult. It's hard to touch up a watercolour once it's dry, so maybe you could see these as practice paintings. I think they would have benefitted from a sea or river in the middle ground. That way they could pick up the interesting sky colours. A building or two might have helped too, and you could still add them. Anyway, I'll maybe post one I just did, which I genuinely haven't a clue about. My wife isn't impressed and I'm not sure myself. Maybe you and others can give me a tip or two.

Hi Christine. I'm a little late for this train, but I just wanted to add my own observations.  I used to play in a brass band and in music there's an adage: "You're only as good as your last performance." I think it applies to art too and as far as my confidence is concerned it certainly does to me. If I do a poor painting, for weeks afterwards I have a very low estimation of my abilities. I can use it as a spur to improve though, and often do. Some of my best work has come after a disaster of a painting. I'll throw it away and paint a new and often much better one right afterwards, sometimes right over the old one (that can backfire though, because I can change my mind later on, and often only have a photo of the old painting I now like). So my first piecce of advice is to use your 'failure' to spur you on to new heights. Secondly, I like the two paintings you've shown. You sound like you're your own worst critic, and that's pretty common too. I'm the same - all I can ever see is the faults in my work and I sometimes add to them months or years later. There's an artist who exhibits on Twitter who is truly excellent but who almost had a nervous breakdown a couple of weeks ago, after someone made what seemed like a mild criticism of her work. We're a sensitive lot - the original snowflakes. So, my second piece of advice is don't be so hard on yourself.  Thirdly, the two paintings have a kind of post-apocalyptic feel I like and it's mainly because there's nothing much between the trees and the mountains and sky. The trees are pretty good actually - I struggle to paint trees myself. The mountains in the first and both skies are excellent. But there's little to hold your attention in between and that creates the apocalyptic feel, along with the bare trees. Maybe that's what you wanted and if so, fine, you achieved it. They're pretty good paintings as it is. But if you want them to be 'fuller' or more harmonious, I suggest you put something like a sea or grass, bushes, etc in between. You don't necessarily need greens in there. I like working with a restricted colour palette, mainly because I'm very much a learner myself and I've learned from earlier attempts to walk before I run with a full colour palette.  Anyway, you don't lack technique or artistic imagination. I'm impressed that you painted them from your own imagination, because that's difficult. It's hard to touch up a watercolour once it's dry, so maybe you could see these as practice paintings. I think they would have benefitted from a sea or river in the middle ground. That way they could pick up the interesting sky colours. A building or two might have helped too, and you could still add them. Anyway, I'll maybe post one I just did, which I genuinely haven't a clue about. My wife isn't impressed and I'm not sure myself. Maybe you and others can give me a tip or two.

Thankyou so much for taking the time to help me with my work, I really appreciate it. Your very kind. Xx