Things I love: Stylization of the neck and features, using leaves as an element of symbolism, color scheme, reflection in the water, and pose.Things that should be fixed or added: That hand is much to small (it should be 20% larger), you should add alittle more contrast to the features like her right arm which is to flat and add a smidge more punch to the reflective lighting to give it some ahh to it, add more detail to her shirt like a stitch or that lump thinger on the ends of those kinds or shirt or a pattern because it feels alittle to generic right now (Its a simple image and needs alittle more to leave it stand on its own opposed to a 15 figure piece which the kind of detail you have would have been ok), and lastly I know she is in the water but she could feel alittle more in water (this could be resolved with alittle more motion in the water opposed to her being in a abstract solid with a weird reflective surface)I hope I wasn't to harsh on you or nit picky. Its a nice piece but it needs just alittle more attention I think to make it a fantastic piece. Good luck!
I'm okay with the size and stylization of it, the blood pool looks fantastic to me. The hearts almost look like raw chickens, which is kind of disturbing, but I like!
fish, it seems odd to me that you would be giving out criticism about hands when you refused to fix the ones in your own pieces when alex pointed them outI dig kyles work (and this piece) and the tiny hand is obviously a stylization rather than a flaw with anatomy
honestly i think the only thing that i would really worry about is the tiny hand. i totally believe it was a stylistic choice but i think it's not 100% clear that it's intentional, and it did strike me as too small when i first saw the piece. it's a really cool image though! i love the blooming heart-branch and it's a way dark take on the theme which i think is awesome. and yes, the light is really nice, especially on the face.
WHOAAAAAAH! It's getting rowdy in here.My Two Cents:I think this is a pretty boss painting, I just gotta say the hand is the only real chink in the armor for me, stylization or no, I think it might look a tad small. I personally don't have any real qualms with the water or clothing. I could read she was in water, and didn't think she was like, in jello or anything...the only real pause was the hand for moi. Great painting.
I'm a bit confused, Fish. How can you love the stylization but then comment on the stylization of the hand? It doesn't need to be a realistic proportion if it's stylized. I agree with SM. I agree that a few parts could use a little more attention though, some detail work would really push it forward, but that's a personal preference. I don't know if he was looking to keep it more simple or not but I think your critique comes off a little mandatory rather than suggestive. I don't think that should be the case.On a different note, I think the quality of light in this is pretty nice. On the hair, on the skin, it's convincing. A lot of your edges look good too. Nice job, keep pushing.
One last note about stylization vs realism, I think once you find out which way you're looking to lean more, you'll be golden. It's when you get caught in the middle where problems arise (in my experience). But again, you seem to have a pretty good grasp on the medium and once you figure those things out, you shouldn't have any issues. Again, nice job!
When an artist on this blog, any blog/forum, in email, or in person asks what an other artist thinks or for suggestions or constructive criticism on how to improve a work of art work it is considered a critic. Critics are common as a take it or leave it on how someone precedes a work of art work. Whenever I or another artist gives a critic of a piece of artwork I see it as helpful suggestions with all of the best intentions to improve a piece based on their experiences, and perceptions of what makes a great piece of art. You could read my critic and think I am completely wrong and I would be fine with that. It is ok to disagree with what is said in a critic. Put 100 artist in a room and you will probably end up with 100 views of a piece of art. My critic of the artwork is based on my own experience and understanding of art. If you are going to draw in a way that is flat and naive then draw like that and make it look intentional. If you are going to draw and paint images that work in some form of realism, it has to look right. All nit picking aside with lighting and making the figure look more natural in the water and detail of clothing, the biggest problem with the work is the hand as others have also pointed out. This is not a caricature or a sophisticated adolescent realism painting, this is something more than that. I pointed out what I thought would make it a better painting.I am sorry if the artist or other artist feel I am placing some sort of authority that it needs to be fixed like this or that. I never meant it to be that way. I was only pointing out areas that I thought would make it a more beautiful painting than it already is.
OK, OK, everyone. I have been watching this debate all day. And lovin it. But! Mr. Fishel you ended it, sadly. This is what "art" blogs should be about. All responses to each other's comments were valid responses. All relevant, critical and non-insulting to the artist or each other. I encouage this type of dialogue between each of us. (When feed back is requested.) What's funny to me is that, during my college days I had friends whom stopped speaking to each other, including me, because of these passionate critics/debates. The classmates who did not partake in the debates aren't in the industry any more. So, type it! and stand behind it. I speak to both artist and critic, know the bold line between critism and insult and don't confuse them. If someone is obviously insulting someone else, take it with a grain of salt. They are either jealous or just haters.
I'm just going to be an ass and point out that when Daniel Fishel said he was performing a 'critic', I believe he meant 'critique'But that does change how one reads the comment, no?
I just want to say that I know I've come to this "debate" late, and that the drama is over, but my god. There's a lot of pettiness being thrown about here. I know that artists are free to disagree and such, but pulling in personal arguments is just plain childish. I would hate to think that every time someone should make a critique, they should be judged by how much or how little they followed the critique of one of their own pieces. It's up to the artist alone to decide what they should change or not, and just because they don't follow someone's personal opinion on a piece, does not mean they are wrong.Grow up ladies and gents! Now, on to the beautiful piece at hand.I love how this piece looks from far away, and the hand doesn't really bother me until I get up close and personal with it. I can see both sides of the argument, it being for the sake of stylization, but also that it looks odd. The tiny hand makes me think of new gothic iconic paintings, with the small hands and feet in comparison to rather large heads, but the whole figure in those was stylized, and therefor it was suited. I think with how beautifully and realistically you rendered the face, it seems a bit odd to have such a small hand, almost as if she's holding a puppets hand, or the hand is an extension of some sort of mask (think victorian masquerade?). The bleeding hearts are well done, and I love the color scheme. The pink bleeding into her is nice as well, like it's seeping into her and staining her, trying to overtake her form.
Basically all I was saying is that, in fish's work, he sees the value of leaving certain things as they are, i.e. the hands in his last piece, regardless of distortions. And that I think it's odd that he wouldn't see how kyle could do that in his own work.Anyway, I thought I think kyle was going for a more Chris Buzelli type thing in this piece,http://www.chrisbuzelli.com/images/DNA.jpgtiny hands, not really a big deal
"Anyway, I thought I think kyle was going for a more Chris Buzelli type thing in this piece,http://www.chrisbuzelli.com/images/DNA.jpgtiny hands, not really a big deal"Regarding this comment, I think it works in that picture because the arms are visible, you can see the stylization moving from the enlarged head down to the much smaller hands. I think it works much better in that sort of way, because there's a tapering effect, rather than a "large head here"-"small hands here" pasted on.In the end, it's really up to K. Wiz. I'm just interested to see any changes, if any are made.I also feel like people are REALLY defending those tiny hands. Does everyone really really like them there, or are they just arguing devil's advocate for the sake of critique? Personally, I LOVE the bleeding hearts, love the pool of liquid, love her face, but those hands, no, I'm not so sold.I see a lot of debate, but not so much passion behind it. Heated, yes, but not passionate about the work itself. Isn't that what this is all about?
hah hah hah hah, you retards. kyle, awesome piece. coincidentally, my dicentra (bleeding hearts) are blooming in my back yard right now. Love the whole thing. The hand is perfect, adds a sort of off-kilter unease to the painting, almost as if there is far more going on below the surface, if I wasn't a pauper, I'd buy this in a heart beat. students laying down a critique on a successful painter/ painting teacher...this shit cracks me up.
Post a Comment