Pink Shoes
 

Hi,

This is "Pink Shoes", 24"x16". I'd love comments, particularly on composition.

Thanks,
Holly

I like this - especially the free background - very lively. The only thing I have issue with is the white by her legs - it makes her legs hard to distinguish from the background.

Hi Holly,

I'm finding the light area beside her leg on our left to be very distracting. It first attracts attention by being the largest bright area of the painting. It is very close to the color of her legs, so I spend extra time reading the position of her legs. The back of the knee on her standing leg reads as being too low, and that continues to draw my attention. In relation to that, her face seems buried in the dark and almost pushes attention away.

Kim and Chuck,

Two votes has it - I'll separate her back leg from the background more and bring up the slight bend of her knee. My intention was to direct the eye to her forward leg/hands and shoe first, then up to her face, then over to the red on the right hand side, and back down again.

Thanks,

Holly

I love the sensitive way you painted her head; very well done, especially considering it's angle. I understand what you're trying to do by integrating a more painterly background but it's just not working for me here.

To me, the vertical and horizontal strokes are juxtaposed in a way that creates a very static, almost vise-like, structure surrounding the girl. I think the arbitrary placement of the bright reds and yellows bring the background forward and flatten the space. Also, to my eye, the background color doesn't seem to relate to the colors in the girl.

The darks around her head and the lights around her legs also have a flattening effect. Every thing is vying for my attention. Some things needs to be subservient in order for one thing to be dominant. If there were more contrast in the foreground and less in the background you would create more illusionistic space. I am also confused by the stool. Is her foot actually on it or suspended in the air in front of it?

The idea that artists are supposed lash out and throw paint around is a modernistic myth. Sargent who is known for the apparent freshness of his paint application was very controlled and calculating in creating the appearance of spontaneity . He was documented by his sitters as taking up to 80 sittings to complete one portrait. Hardly lashing, I'd say.

I think you're one of the most talented people on this forum. I believe you have tremendous potential but for whatever reason you seem to go against your strengths. Just sayin'!

Hi Holly - I do like the idea of a fresh background, but I do think that there are a few things that distract with what you have done. I like the abstractness, but I agree that the use of almost primary colors take away from your beautiful work on the figure. The tones and values seem to fight. I agree fully with the white - light value on the bottom being too much. I still think the background can work as abstract shapes etc, but not how you are showing it now. I love the figure and the pose.

Marvin,

I appreciate your frank critique, and for taking the time to explain what doesn't work. Backgrounds, although a necessary evil, can be awfully frustrating for me. Keep sayin', I may actually listen to you one of these days :) .

You read that Sargent took up to 80 sittings to complete portraits, and that he would frequently throw a work away and begin with a new approach. However considering the enormous volume of work he left behind, he must have been an absolute painting machine.

Amy,

Thanks for the comments. I'm going to take what you and Marvin wrote and fix the background a little and try and salvage the painting.

Cheers,

Holly

Holy,

I have a lot of trouble with backgrounds myself and can offer no advice of my own. I too appreciate and learned from Marvin's' assessment and would offer this link to the comments of John de la Vega regarding backgrounds.

A necessary evil? OUCH! Methinks I've found your problem! You need to reorient your thinking. Think of the background as that which supports your main focus. You need air around you to breath, don't you? So do the heads you paint. Every yin needs its yang. Think in complementary terms. What colors, shapes and values will make the key foreground elements come to the fore while harmonizing with it.

In the most simple terms, the background is a part of the shadow realm; it balances the light. This is regardless of whether the background is in shadow or in light. The reasoning behind this is that the atmosphere inhabits both the background space as well as the shadow realm.

If all else fails you could just do vignetted paintings on tonal backgrounds. This is a technique that some of todays most renowned and successful Alla Prima portraitists regularly employ.

Holly,
I agree with the others here in that the girl's face here is really lovely. You know, if you really get frustrated with backgrounds, you could always try sculpting - no backgrounds at all to deal with in my world! Unless, of course, you take up relief sculpture.

Mike,

I do remember enjoying John de la Vega's paintings a couple years ago when I first found Cynthia's site, and this forum and the Stroke of Genius websites were my first amazing introduction to the world of portraiture. Thanks for the link and reminder.

Marvin,

Once again, thank you. And yes, several painters I particularly like are Richard Schmid, Harley Brown, Scott Burdick, and Ramon Kelley, all of whom regularly paint in the technique you describe.

Heidi,

One thing at a time! But seriously, I enjoy seeing your work and appreciate your different perspective on this mostly 2D forum. I've seen a couple artists who are successful in 2D and 3D, which to me is amazing.

Regards,

Holly