[Steven Sweeney]

Overall a very accomplished work, evidencing considerable forethought and excellent execution. Drawing and perspective seem correct in nearly every respect. I think the skin tones, especially as revealed in the close-up, are generally handled in a sophisticated, effective manner, particularly as the cooler greens and relatively cooler reds appear in the the halftones and then shadow areas of the face and head.

I don't know that there's anything that "must" be changed, but there are a few areas that might profitably be looked at again with an eye toward increasing the overall visual dynamic of the piece. My random thoughts:

-- Whether or not the blue reflected light (or highlight) in the lower part of the glasses lens on the viewer's right was actually that blue and that high in tone, I would substantially subdue it, for the reason that it is now a somewhat jarring spot of light in the larger shadow shape that you're relying on to create form. I'm not suggesting that you get rid of the reflection, just tone it way down. (Though I admit that, when I completely cover up that blue reflection in the close-up, the intensity of the eyes seems to me to be enhanced. The eyeglasses are still evident from the various highlights on the frames and pads. And . . . now that I've said that, the gold highlight on nose pad above the blue light in the lens is also a bit too bright. [And also quite a bit lower than the one on the other side.])

-- For the same reason -- retaining harmony within the shadow areas -- I would subdue the light on the upper eyelid on the eye on the viewer's right, at least as it turns around the eyeball and enters the shaded area of what is, after all, a sphere.

-- Staying with the glasses for the moment, the lenses seem to be, in lower contour, identical rather than mirror images of each other; that is, the lower edge goes from higher to lower on both lenses as we move left to right. There's something a little different going on on the top edges, which contributes to the bows attaching at different heights, well above the corner of the eye on one side, right at the corner of the other.

-- The trapezoidal or "keystone" shape between the eyebrows, marking the turn of the brow down and under to meet the bridge of the nose, would typically be treated as a planar shape affected uniformly by the light (with lighting from above, the shape would be relatively darker in value than the brow or the bridge of the nose, and so on). In your subject, we don't see that shape or effect, but instead see the light and dark shapes from the bridge of the nose extend upward unchanged through the keystone area. The reason I mention this at length is that I had a feeling that the nose seemed a little long, and I suspect that this may be why.

-- The tip of the nose appears a little wide and flattened, caused in part by the light on one side stopping a little too soon and the crescent of shadow on the other side of the "bulb" being a little too dark, so that there seem to be sharper plane changes in that area than we'd expect to see.

-- I think the upper lip might be a little darker and a little warmer, in contrast to the lower lip.

-- I wouldn't presume to know the age of the subject, but I would go to some length to flatter by reducing the contrast in values in the neck. The neck looks "older" than the face, and you can do the plastic surgery much cheaper than a surgeon. Considerably lighten that triangle of shadow in the pit of the neck, and soften the line at the edge of that cool dark shadow on the side of the neck.

-- There seems to be some confusion of light in the piece overall. The woman is quite strongly side-lit, so that even her cheek on the shadow side catches a bit of the light, so we know that light source isn't behind her; and yet the shadows cast by, say, the sculpture on the desk and the papers in her hand are coming right out toward the viewer, a backlighting situation.

-- Speaking of the sculpture: that and the flower and the arm of the chair and the carved knob on the chair back are the areas of greatest contrast in the painting, and I find that my eye has to work somewhat to stop focusing on those areas and look at the "real" subject of the portrait, the woman, whose upper torso and head exhibit almost no similarly pronounced contrast, which is exacerbated by the fact that those areas of the body are very close in tone to the background wall. At the very least, I would substantially darken her hair on the shadow side -- even if she has gray hair [and, I guess, especially if she does not], for you are representing not just hair as it looks but hair as it looks in shadow. It would seem to me that the shadow value on that side would approach the value of the darkest shadows in the jacket. Enhancing that shadow side of the head would also increase the contrast between the figure and the background, helping both to create depth and to counterbalance the effect of strong contrast in other objects mentioned above.

-- To similar effect (that is, looking for opportunities to introduce form-producing contrast), I think you would benefit by darkening other areas, even if only through definition by accent rather than altering large shapes. One example: the line of shadow cast by the jacket onto the blouse would be very dark, right underneath the turn of the "lapel" (sorry, ladies, I don't know the name of that edge), all the way from the area of the neck to below the bustline.

Enough random thoughts for now.

Best wishes,
Steven