Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
"One of the women" - portrait
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
Message
Posted
Oh, we can breathe life back into it, Slyvia - Lucian had a rather cautious approach to this website, based on, so far as I could see, suspicion as to its objectives: doesn't mean he didn't sometimes have a good basic point: I wish he'd stayed a bit longer because he had an excellent command of English, and an understanding of recent artistic developments. I envision him now, lost in the ether, having nowhere to comment - the trouble was that he had too many settled certainties to engage in a public forum (now, if that's not provocation enough, what is? Come on Lucian - you had things to contribute, come back and do it). We could do with a bit more controversy here - a bit more to get our teeth into: but always, within the limits of reason: snag is when people contribute thoughts that aren't connected to reason at all.
Posted
Not sure if you're still following this thread, but when asking for critique, it's useful to say why - anatomy, composition, lighting etc. Jules Pew on 20/08/2022 18:59:19I've seen no one in the gallery do this, so why would this be a requirement for this section of the forums? But if it must be, ok, I'll oblige. What I want, critique-wise, is for you to tell me what art movement and the works of which artists this painting reminds you most of.
To me, the painting looks like you just blocked it in, and stopped. Jules Pew on 20/08/2022 18:59:19Well, I respectfully disagree.
Now do you want it realistic, if so, how realistic, photo realistic, loosely painted etc? The skin tones, to me, are fairly lifeless; skin is a myriad of colours, not just a shade of brown. You could try a hint of yellow on the top third, and blue on the bottom, red in the middle - don't overdo it unless you want to go wild, which is always another option. Yes, I agree with the comments about the whites of eyes, but more because there is no form there; you've put some in the rest of the face - eyes are balls where you only see part of the ball. Good luck and please update.No, I do not want it to look realistic. I want it to look "my style". I don't get the "do you want it to look realistic?" question. Would you ask Van Gogh this? If my style is shades of the same color and bright eyeballs, then that is what I want you to critique. Not how much or how little it fits your idea of a realistic portrait. P.S.: I recommend checking out the sandwich method and implementing it when offering critique: https://www.summerana.com/how-to-give-constructive-criticism-the-sandwich-method/
Posted
I understand the points you're making Lucian, and say again - put your work here for critique, if you wish; or show it on the Gallery; or even do both. I don't really see why anyone should have a problem with that - it's not an issue. As to style - well, that's yours: all anyone can do, unless you specify what exactly you want us to think about, is to pick out very general issues - e.g. does the painting work or not (and it does) - or quite specific ones - e.g. the eyes, what they convey, how they're painted: and that is largely a matter of personal perception once we've gone beyond the requirements, should they exist, of "realism". You could take a look at a very different painter from yourself, e.g. Lucian Freud - he certainly bent realism to serve his ends, especially in his earlier work - there are many examples of this in others' work, too. Style, however, is an extremely difficult thing to critique - one likes it or one doesn't; the reasons for and against may be deeply subjective.
Posted
Hi Lucian -
Since you asked, sandwich style, the work your painting reminds me most of is that by the New York painter Alex Katz (born 1929).
Here is an example (this one is in the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art). 
Look at how luminous and expressive the eyes are. He paints his wife, Ada Katz, a lot, and you see her change and age beautifully over the years in his paintings. His style has remained consistent over the years.
With regard to your portrait 'One of the women'. They are right about the stark whites of the eyeballs, and the shape. You also have nowhere to put the highlights in now, which give the eyes luminosity. You've indicated a lighter cheekbone contour and so on, so it's not as if it's intended as a flat painting. The style needs to remain consistent. Also, they are right about the skin in your painting appearing lifeless. The palette overall is quite cool toned, cool red lips, blue dress, lilac background, and the skin has those grey lilac tones in it - but with brown skin that gives an ashy, lifeless look. Check out youtube makeup videos by black women - complaints about grey, ashy tones in foundation. Remember that the subject is also part of the artist's style. Your subject here is a beautiful young woman - but I'm not seeing an understanding here of skin tones. So the style doesn't feel cohered yet.
Posted
Lucian: It struck me a minute ago that the sandwich method is one which I generally employ - or at least try to; I had not thought of the approach in that way before, but it has to be the case that criticism should not be the only, or even major, element in an assessment of a painting. I think the fact is, though, that few of us here would trouble to offer a critique of a painting at all, unless we could discern one of several things - which are: promise; a specific question requiring at least a stab at an answer; an attraction to the painting - that is, the feeling that a picture did have something to offer: that we liked it or appreciated it. Given those elements, most of us will respond to an invitation to offer a critique.
The big question is, what do we do when (I should perhaps say 'if') a painting is presented which has no redeeming features at all - when one might feel like saying 'is this really what you want to be doing, because your aptitude is completely lacking'. There HAVE been paintings on the Gallery, rather than on the Forum, which have provoked that response in me, but of course I wouldn't actually utter it - there is neither purpose nor charity in going out of one's way to upset or offend people, particularly if one can suggest nothing which might improve their work other than giving it up. So then - I don't comment at all, and on the whole most of us wouldn't; though I do remember one who did - in a quite kindly way, all things considered: but there was no escaping the fact that he thought a number of drawings from the artist who had perhaps ventured into public exhibition before he was ready were, well - dreadful.
Such occasions are very, very rare - if I mentioned the name of the artist so criticized, many here would remember him: he doesn't post much now...
However - I believe you will find that the more fundamental the criticism - even the most wounding or, perhaps in your view, the most mistaken - is not offered in order to wound, but to help. That is, if we bother to take up an invitation to criticize, it's because we see something in the work which is of value and could, in our opinion, be improved or developed. You have invited us to consider the difference between technique, and style - which I think was an important reminder - although style is in part at least derived from technique; occasionally, we shall have to grin and bear criticism which entirely mistakes what we were trying to do, or trying to ask - this is an occupational hazard.
Edited
by Robert Jones, NAPA
Posted
I love the eyes; that's painted the picture in itself. If I had to be nit-picky, the white is a little too white on the eyes; however, I like how the "picture" it's painted isn't explicitly shown. It's implicitly shown and open for interpretation, which engages the public, making the painting exciting and our imagination going wild. Very detailed, and the colors are very vivid. Keep it up!