The Rose Maiden

Dianne Gardner · 06-18-2007, 10:37 AM

I consider this one of my better pieces, but I seem to have a problem seeing the way a trained eye, such as those of you who are so skilled and seasoned do, so I am posting this here for suggestions and advice. I have not taken any professonal training in portraiture but am learning through this site and many books and whatever information I can glean from the internet. I have been painting from life almost every week and sometimes twice a week. When I feel like my work has advanced to a new level I am overwhelmed with joy, but I don't want to think more highly of my work than I ought to. I know it does not compare to probably most of you who post on this site. I am amazed at the beauty I see in your art! Please let me know what you see that I can do to improve. Thank you so much in advance.

This painting was taken from a photo reference that a friend gave me during a model session that I missed. The model is in full authentic Renaissance dress. I incorporated some of my rose garden for the background as I wasn't happy with the reference photo. I thought the wimple (veil) donned her like a rose and that is why I chose them.

Thank you in advance for your critique.

Dianne

18 X 24 oils

Marcus Lim · 06-18-2007, 11:07 PM

Hi Diane,
You certainly have placed the classical touch to the painting, very aptly. Looking at the painting brings up a visual feeling of looking at a Flemish old master's painting.

In my point of view, the roses lined up leads up to the face. But the lined-up roses doesn't serve well in the whole design of the painting. The roses on the left row are all in the same size, as well as the row of roses on the right. I see great value in varying the sizes of the roses, to give a sense of depth to the painting.

Another value which will boost your image quality, is to control the values used in the painting. The roses not only distract us by being too "lined-up" and similar in size, the color values of the roses take our attention away from the face.

I'm sure that if you look through these issues, you may find great improvements in the artwork - and for all you know, it can fool others to think it's the real Great Master's work!

Dianne Gardner · 06-18-2007, 11:15 PM

Thank you Marcus, what a flattering comparison!

I do agree the roses should probably be more varied in size and possibly less brilliant. Thank you for the critique!

Dianne

Alexandra Tyng · 06-19-2007, 07:50 AM

Dianne,

You are far too modest! I think you are perceived as a very talented artist on this forum. I very much admire your work.

My reaction--and I hate to be blunt--is: get rid of the roses completely! At first I was bothered by their even spacing, but then I realized that they simply don't belong here. She is a very strong presence and the portrait would be enhanced by a plain background, If she had been outside, in a rose garden, you would see very different light and colors on her and on the roses. You would have also seen an integration of subject and surroundings which I am not seeing here. In order to make this concept (woman in rose garden) entirely successful, you would have had to pose her in the garden.

Mischa Milosevic · 06-19-2007, 08:31 AM

Dianne a Grate job so far!

I second Alex on the out with the roses. I would think about bringing some light to the dark clothes. the face is looking good but it would look better if the different planes were restated and a better representation of form acheaved. She has a womans face but the neck does not align well. It seems to thick at the base. What do you think?

Dianne Gardner · 06-20-2007, 10:51 AM

Thank you Alex and Mischa for your comments. I am considering doing away with the roses however I wonder what then would I replace them with? I am hesitant to make just a plain dark background for her. Its true I should have put her in the garden to get the light right and I will probably not try this again without doing so. As far as the neck goes, there is a possiblity that it is too thick although I did measure. She is hunched over slightly which is probably not good for a portrait because it does make her look less feminine. I agree about the plains of the face. The indefinition was bothering me also but I wasn't sure how to deal with that. And now I no longer have the reference as the cd was returned to the owner. I will probably just keep it as is and keep this critique for future reference.

I am finding that one of my struggles in this and other portraits is getting a clean shadow mixture and getting it dark enough to define the bone structure better without mixing mud. Shadows such as around the eyes for instance which may be what you are speaking about Mischa-so that the nose is more defined. What do you think?

Chris Saper · 06-20-2007, 03:04 PM

Dear Diane,

I second Alex's observations about the quality of your work - I have enjoyed everything you have posted and must apologize for being so reclusive in responding online for past number of months. I find this to be an excellent piece of work.

For my two cents worth, I would lose the roses in the upper left, and revise the roses in the SE quadrant. I like the use the roses as a foreground element to set the figure in space and to break the expanse of what would otherwise be a somewhat monotonous space

With regard to your source material for future commission work, I do agree that the hunched forward pose is tough to articulate as a graceful 3-d shape. When you drop in background elements you just want to be sure that your light color and direction are consistent with the light on your subject.

That being said, I think that this is a lovely painting, and certainly worthy of submitting to a figurative or portrait competition ( once you decide what to do about those roses!)

Aren't you glad that we are not all in your studio standing over your shoulder

Dianne Gardner · 06-20-2007, 03:34 PM

Thank you Chris, I really appreciate the support.
I had to laugh about your comment of looking over my shoulder. I have friends that paint with me and none of them give the critique I am asking for, they are all too kind.

I have decided to change the shape of the foreground roses so that they are not uniform. I may fade the background roses into the distance but I like the way they break up the space. I will post again with the finished piece.

Thank you for encourging me to submit to a competiton also. I have been rather intimidated by all the beautiful work I see here and have not felt like I should submit anything I have done. You've made my day just by suggesting it.

Best regards,
Dianne

Mischa Milosevic · 06-20-2007, 06:25 PM

I hope you do not mind but being that you do not have the reference, I have made some hints to suggest possibilities. Mind you these are just ideas that you can use or disregard and you can do much better with a brush than I can with photoshop.

Dianne Gardner · 06-21-2007, 01:20 AM

Thank you for taking the time to do this Mischa. I see the point you are trying to make and will in fact incorporate some of this especially the background.

The corrections of her face are pleasing however, they don't really read the woman the way I had. There is something about the somewhat harshness in her face that attracted me to paint it, something that tells a story about the woman of that time. Not so much that she is a soft and beautiful person, but that she is, like the rose, lovely but not as approachable as one would like. The difficulty of being a woman of those days is reflected in her face, yet she is strong and persevering. Maybe I'm just going off on a tangent here, but I thought about these things while painting this picture. Just me rambling now I think.

Thank you.