Quote:
|
Now I hesitate to post the reference lest someone point out another multitude of obvious flaws in my work.
|
Try not to think too much in terms of "flaws". Sometimes our execution works well, and sometimes not as well, as we develop and shape a piece toward our "idea" of the painting. To be sure, it's not an "anything goes" endeavor (if we care about our art), and there are skills to master. Over time our analytical abilities get better and better, and our experience grows in breadth and depth, and what we put down on paper or canvas gets closer to what we know we want. Be patient with yourself. I had a lot of training in life drawing and painting, and by all accounts (including a depleted bank account) I should usually get that right, but I still discover areas all the time where my drawing is not as accurate as it should be. That's the game, comparing what you've drawn or painted to what you "see" in nature and work to lessen or eliminate the difference, insofar as that suits your artistic purpose.
You'll see a lot of reference photos posted here, but it's fine that you haven't posted yours and indeed it may not have changed anything that's been said here, because you're not trying to make a copy of a photograph, you're using a photograph for reference and inspiration. If you'd posted a photo that was a visual duplicate of your painted result, I'd have still made all the same observations and recommendations about the painting as I have. It wouldn't have mattered to me whether the photographic image was accurately depicted, if I nonetheless saw in the painting a need for further attention to drawing accuracy, color temperature, dramatic play of light, and composition.
I know that some artists are able to go back into a watercolor and manipulate it a bit, but I'd hate to see you spoil your painting. It's already a very nice effort in many respects and doesn't need to be "salvaged." Get another sheet of paper mounted on your easel and start the next one.
Best wishes,
Steven