what up.
Hey, whats going on? 23/female.. come chat with me on this website CLICK HERE

--
"Cynics always say no. But saying yes begins things. Saying yes is how things grow. Saying yes leads to knowledge. "Yes" is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say yes."

-Stephen Colbert addressing the students at Knox College

thanks for the !!
=]

--
*My Gallery: [link] *
member of ~RealismClub ; *Traditional-Artists ; *painters ; =PortraitPencilArt ; *ThePencilClub

Toast,

Don't know if you got this, and I promised, so here it is again, just in case....

"THE GIRLS"...

The clearest skill you demonstrate is the ability to very closely re-produce what you see. From the shapes, and their relationships, to the colors, you clearly can get on the substrate what you see with your eyes.

This is extremely important, especially for the kind of work in your gallery, and you do it very well.

Your skill level effects the control of detail in your work.

It seems clear that, the closer you approach illustrating something with which you are not familiar, or are not sure how to execute, the less you actually are doing, at this stage, to correctly re-produce what you see.

Faces, hands, flowers, etc... all are areas you avoid putting high detail into (compared to the level of detail in other areas), and the more intricate the object being illustrated, the more it seems you shy away from it.

Remember, detail does not just refer to tiny, focused detail... it can also refer to the accurate re-production of reference, or maintaining the same level of detail throughout a piece.

If you agree this is true, then the very tendency itself is showing you where to practice in order to improve your work. In other words, if you work specifically on improving in the areas you feel uncomfortable with, your work will improve.

"LADYBUG"...

A really nice piece, toaster. I love the semi-stipple technique you used to texture-ize the bug's carapace. Lovely coloring. Good use of light and shadow.

My biggest problem with this piece is the composition. Within the boundaries of the composition as it is, your balance is good. In my opinion, the focus is too tight. A composition where the bug filled perhaps 40% of the working area, instead of the 70% it currently does, would have provided a more aesthetically pleasing composition, as well as one easier to "read"... in my opinion.

This is a typical mistake artists who are not professionally trained make. And one that is difficult to correct, if the artist cannot, on their own, intuit that their compositions are too tightly focused on the main subject.

It's a matter of how the viewer relates to the work, toaster. When you "zoom in" so close to an object like you did, it is harder for the mind to process the object as the point of primary interest. By backing off, and expanding the area of visual information around the object of main interest, you increase the ability of the viewer to "locate" the object you want them to notice, and maintain visual focus on it.

To more precisely relate this to the piece, let me suggest that a typical viewer will look at it, and their mind will attempt to determine a point of interest which is smaller than the entire bug. Perhaps they will focus on it's head, or possibly the highlight on the carapace. If this was your intent, then feel free to disregard these comments. If it was not, then perhaps pulling back from the subject a bit and opening up your composition the next time you do a similar work might be the answer.

Clearly, this is not a case where one can easily determine the precisely correct parameters by any technical means. There are examples in every field of illustration where extremes of close-up and far view are not only correct for the composition in question, but also, owing to the clever construction of the piece, actually enhance the focus on the main subject of the work.

Likewise, if you work within more general guidelines, there is still a rather wide range of what might be considered "correct".

However, and again generally speaking, compositions of this type are viewed by lay persons as "better", if the view is backed off somewhat from where you have it now. If, for example, the bug is now one or two inches from the eye of the viewer, backing off to a point where it is maybe 10, or even 12 inches away might be better for the piece. The bug would decrease in size in the composition, but be "easier" to see and focus on, and therefor draw more attention to itself, not less.

A very nicely done piece, in any case, toaster. One of my favorites in your gallery.

--
Glad to say that "keeping up with the joneses" no longer means it's time to go see my dealer...
________________________________________________

Napkins? Heh, heh... Napkins? We don' need no stinkin' napkins!

thanks for the fav

thanks for the fav 0_0/

--
★ 空から天使を摘み取って ★

hey there, thanks for the watch!

--
___

Ooh! Thank you for the watch! ^^ *watches back*

--
There's an old Italian saying: you f*** up once, you lose two teeth.

Thanks for the fave!~

hi emma! i'm maddy (i was at the crazy party the other day). I just thought i needed to say hi instead of creepily friending you without identifying myself.