View Full Version : *Mother and Child*

01 January 2004, 10:24 AM

+digitalphoto + handpainted ps7/elements + optic mouse+

i was told to draw a beautiful portrait and this is what happened ;0]

Fernanda and her son Rafael
Original Photo (

01 January 2004, 01:48 AM
Ummmm. This just looks like a simple photoshop job. The faces don't integrate with the rest at all. And it make me feel any emotion. Its just a photo thats been messed with a bit.

01 January 2004, 04:24 AM
I agree with DirtySkillet. The faces don't seem to have anything to do with the rest of it..I'm not feeling any emotion at all in this.

01 January 2004, 04:07 PM
I'm going to side with Dirtyskillet as well. When I looked at the original photo and compared both, a lot of the skin structure is lost in the painting and only after I looked at the original photo did I realize that it was a boy.
I don't know quite what it is but I can't see any evidence of the emotion displayed in a mother and son embrace like I do in the photo. Maybe if you included more of the arms cradling the son.

Hope that helps a little-

01 January 2004, 07:47 PM
@DirtySkillet: hello there,

i can see from your profile that u have 14
just entering high school right!
hmmm your interests being girls and cg,
.... yeep i can fully understand your ignorance!

anyways, to clarify a bit my intentions and emotions,
the image was generated to evoque the feeling of LOVE,
i used a lot of imagination that is my main tool of trade,
i used a lot of smudge and brush work indeed,
i have choosen colors and used transparencys a lot as well,
in the upper left the white organic smudges,
symbolizes, light and life energy,
the lower part of organic frame symbolizes,
earth, nature, roots that bloom into a new flower,
if u look well u will see as well,
that both heads are forming an only HEART,
her hands and arms are transformed in feathers,
this is love born and reborn and reborn endlessly,
i trully hope i could erase a bit of your blindness!

oh, and one other thing,
unless u have constructive critiques,
i would suggest u stop posting at my images,
i realy don't feel like bothering the Forum Admin!

01 January 2004, 05:14 PM
Oh, the kids a guy, sorry. My PM says its a girl. But read it anyway, because I think I justify my self a bit more. Also, it looks that the rest of the critiques here share my opinion. So I find it strange why U try to attack me, both in my opinion, and in just who I am.

01 January 2004, 05:51 PM
I really like your work. It has such a wondrous dreamlike, fairydust quality about it. Some of your images look like memories (where your mind can't fill in all of the details, so the things that you do remember are that much more precious and jewelled). I definitely can tell your pieces apart from other artist's work.

I do, however, agree with DirtySkillet and others in the opinion that this piece does not look as integrated as it could be.
This piece falls short of the standards you set with your other works (Chiaroscurro, Pearls, and especially SecretLandz).

We are fellow artists just trying to help each other with artistic growth. There's no need for personal attacks.

01 January 2004, 07:54 PM
personal attack?! where?!
trying to defend my feelings and emotions from ignorance ;0]

01 January 2004, 08:18 PM
ya it's the ignorance part that i feel is the personal attack! Please read the PM I sent you!

01 January 2004, 08:49 PM

i will just remind u of something realy simple,
this isn't the WIP forum, or Critique forum, or other more technical forum,
this is the EVOCATIVE forum,
the only thing i can expect from You or Other visitor,
is in first place to respect the Forum spirit!

Creating art is a very Personal Experience,
it is how we see the world or,
its how we want to see the world,
even an abstract image that we captured,
in a split-second decision it is a representation of us,
as individuals, as artists,
we are touching on our softer side,
which can be surprisingly vulnerable,
we are opening our world up for others.

a piece of advise,
next time u feel tempted to write down your critique,
strive to be a litle more careful on teh chosen words,
strive to learn and post more constructive critique,
if u don't feel your emotions touched by an artwork,
just click another it's as simple as that.

if u felt ofended in anyway, pls accept my apologize.

oh, and i'm a girl not a guy!

cheers, tania

01 January 2004, 09:12 PM
I accept your Apology. Alright, is this susposed to be a portrait? Like something to be put on a mantel peice? Or is it susposed to be art work? Because I was attempting to critique it as art. If that is not the intent, then i will have some more respect for this image. If it susposed to be art, please understand that it is our (myself and the other posters here) opinion that this peticular image does not stir any kind of emotion in us. Purely as an evocative image it does not work. But if it is a commisioned photo simply to show a mom and her child being happy, this works.

You said that you didn't want to accept any critisism involving anything exept the emotion. but i will say that this picture needs a run on the wip forum. There lots of things technicaly wrong with it.

01 January 2004, 10:21 PM
I would remind those with open minds...

Art communicates and it is the responsability of the comunicator to be understood, not for the the viewer to understand. Any response you get, if honest is valid and valuable feedback. Writing off responses you dont like as ignorent is not helpful to your growth as a student.

The artist who pleases themselves most likely starve, the ones who please the masses are rewarded.


01 January 2004, 10:54 PM
hmmmmmm. Well pretty much all the great artists of all times had about 2 cents. And starved their asses off. So I don't agree with that, although its a completely valid opnion.

My opinion is that a true peice of art has every bit of meaning that it has to express in it. Every emotion of the artist should be poured into the picture untill its all there. So often the meaning is still in the artists head, not in the art they produce.

01 January 2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by DirtySkillet
hmmmmmm. Well pretty much all the great artists of all times had about 2 cents. And starved their asses off. So I don't agree with that, although its a completely valid opnion.

Thats not true. Most of the great artists were considdered popular in thier life times.

There are a few notable exceptions but I don't expect to win the lottery so I dont play. The odds are silly.

In my opinion it's silly and selfish to expect others to pay for ones self indulgence. While one who focuses providing for the enjoyment of others is rewarded for providing a service.

One might not see it this way but you will find that it is generally how the world works.


01 January 2004, 01:03 AM
true, true

01 January 2004, 05:08 AM
Well the thread is certainly evocative..

I do understand your sense of love coming from the white, surrounding the family and forming the heart. But it is interupted by the abruptness of the photo. I think what ppl are getting at is that the addition of the photo, is a contrast to the dreamy sense of the white soft graphics. The mediums and color and tonal value's feel too far apart to make the image feel unified. Even though when viewed seperately, they both may emote love.

Another idea for future creations.. when I think of a photo which emotes love.. I see the subject focused intensly on the object of his/her love. It could be a lot more dramatic if the love is so strong, there is no thought given to the audience. The way the family is looking at camera, makes me see them as simply happy.. not love. Like someone who is so in love, they don't notice we are there. The inclusion of a mother and daughter does not automatically emote love, I can't see it in their faces. Anybody follow me? If you have any control over the photo, try a shot where they are looking into each others eyes, or one person is looking at the other (who in turn, doesn't know they're being watched) etc...

One last thought.. an interesting challenge for you might be to try emote love without using a cliche like a heart. It's almost too easy for the viewer. The heart is too well known.

I really like what you did with the white tenticles. Very creative, just think the photo takes away from it.


01 January 2004, 10:03 PM
Ripley: thank you very much;0]
i think it's one of the things that makes painting interesting,
painting something and putting a lot of feeling and heart into it,
and then realising that a lot of people will find it emotionless,
while others might find what i wanted them to see!
or something else entirely it's ... fascinating :0]

01 January 2004, 02:48 PM
Very interesting thread

I can't even see the photos, so I won't comment on whether or not they evoke emotion, but the posts after no.4 have nothing to with that anyway.

Dreamz, on one post you list your intentions and emotions by giving all the tools and reasons why you used them. That's fine and dandy, but it dosn't mean it works, or works for everyone. What you think looks amazing and is the most heartfelt thing in the world, can look like kitsch to someone else, and that should be fine. (Ever see those porcelein figurine adds in magazines? They're supposed to be endearing but they make me want to hurl)

Everyone has the right to express an opinion. As long as you are happy with the work, and it's honest, and you feel the emotion, then that's what should count. Art is a selfish thing, you do it for yourself, as part of yourself, as an expression of yourself, and if others like it, feel the samthing you feel, then it's a bonus.

But be warned, just because you and your mom like it, dosn't force everyone else to. And if you post on a public forum like CGTalk, then you should be ready to get crits, what evokes emotion in you, won't in others. If you don't like opinions that are different from your own, keep your work private.

"White organic smudges" may evoke "light, life and energy" for you, but for others, they may just be white smudges.

01 January 2004, 11:26 PM
the thing i enjoy the most in this gallery, besides the exposed art, is to read viewers perceptions on my work, some of it's positive, some of it's not, but just knowing that the artwork has made some emotional impact or connection makes everything worthwhile ;0]

02 February 2004, 02:30 PM
As a neutral and open minded viewer, I can't say I really get the emotion here. Love can be communicated in sensitive and sophisticated ways. I'm not sure if the heart shaped fluffy smudgy stuff works. It seems a little too literal as apposed to a metaphorical portrayal of love, light etc. You can evoke an emotional response from the viewer through the portrayal of relationships, expression, colour use and composition as long as the viewer connects to it in some way through their own experience as a human being.

I think love would be implied more effectively if the subjects were looking into eachother's eyes. This would be a far more powerful moment, and one we could identify with.. the moment when we make contact for that electric moment and felt the love bubble over inside us. All it takes is a look.

03 March 2004, 01:25 PM
I saw emotion and felt it when I watched this picture!
But it didn't have anything to do with those smudges!
In photo there is a mother and child that is enough to wake emotions!

You have nice frames for digitalphoto but I thing thats all!

This is only a my opinion and I don't want to insult anyone!
But I thing piece of shit can be art if People consider it is art!!!!
So listen what people are saying!!

03 March 2004, 03:26 PM
I can appreciate your wanting comments restricted only to the feelings generated by the image, but it's impossible to completely remove technical considerations from the mix because, often, technique is what enhances or interferes with fully communicating your intent to the viewer.

I, too, find the contrast between the photographic faces and the painterly framing a bit jarring, and the feeling it generates in me is slight amusement because the expressions on the people are a bit unnatural and the image is further removed from reality by the lack of integration between the photos and the rest of the image. The overall feeling (to me) is a bit farcical. Sorry.

Maybe painting the faces, as opposed to compositing photos, would strengthen the image.

03 March 2004, 09:56 AM
i just keep thinking about those things in the mall where they take you pic and put them on a mug.

you shouldn't be so defensive when posting in a critique forum, imho.

03 March 2004, 02:21 AM
but what soft ware do you use for dose it ?

04 April 2004, 07:08 PM

I'd first like to say that your ability as a 2D artist has surpassed mine own so this is coming from somone who can't yet take his own advice yet sees room for improvement.

The swirls are a nice touch, but they seem to take away from the true focus of the picture- the mother and daughter.

Also, I understand the white as purity surrounding the two, but in sticking to one main color, creates a sort of contrast between the origional and the additions. I'd blend in some sublte transision coloring to make an truley awsome blend.

Last, dispite the creative details to the top portion of the picture, the bottom right part is very much dull. A suggestion is to crop that bottom area out or to place a symbolic addition to really give the picture dimention.

Keep on painting,
- I look foward to seeing more of your creations!

04 April 2004, 12:51 AM
Yeah, I don't get much from this either. Your defense of it is strong and I believe your definition of it is what you had in mind, but I just don't see it nor does it evoke any sort of emotion for me. It looks, to me, like you simply painted over a photo of the faces and then didn't use much 'creativity' with the rest of it since it's just mainly black and white. Seems to me that someone with the ability to render such photorealistic faces should have put more effort into the rest of the image. But then that's just my opinion.

I would also like to note that maybe you shouldn't take what people say personally. Seems to me that unless someone had something positive to say about this piece, you weren't very happy with it and let them know. Resorting to name calling because someone doesn't agree with you is childish. That kid might just be 14, but that doesn't mean his opinion isn't any less valuable than anyone elses.

05 May 2004, 07:59 PM
I think you just need to either make the swirls closer to the color of the faces, or give the faces some kind of a gradient that is similar to the swirls.

The coments people are makeing about it are right on. There is a fundamental shift in feel between the faces and the other elements. The contrast between the real world photo feel of the faces and the etheral swirling stuff is to harsh, and needs to be adressed. Some kind of abstraction in the faces needs to happen to make the thing gel.

05 May 2004, 12:48 AM
I personally don't get any emotion out of this either. Plain and simple, it's the photo element and the drawn element not working together.

The photo element has a real human warmth type of emotion to it. The drawn part has an ethereal, almost cold (but not to say it isn't loving) feel to it. It is also very abstract whereas the photo is very real. These two forms of expression aren't working together at all, and in fact, they completely offset each other.

I must say too, and this is not a personal attack, that the image isn't that creative, which really hurts the image. For me, the intertwining element is almost to the point of cliche, unless it is done in a most creative and brilliant way. The fact that it intertwines to a heart just gives it all the more of a generic feeling to me. To be honest, it reminds of those booths where you go in with your friends, select a border (for example, a heart) and a caption, it takes your picture, and a minute later it prints it out. Sure, your's is a little more "complicated", but I still get the same feeling (or lack of) of the photo booth example.

The emotion of love is already expressed in the faces in the photo, and the rest of the image that is supposed to convey love simply can't be as powerful as the facial expressions unless it is extremely creative and evocative. And on the topic of the photo, while I couldn't view the original, someone mentioned it is a boy. I completely thought it was a girl. That then also works against the image, as the mother-son bond is different than the mother-daughter bond. Sure, some people might think it's a boy and some a girl, but I would hope it'd be a little bit more clear.

I sincerly apologize at this point that I haven't given any constructive criticism (that is, I didn't give any suggestions to improve it), but I feel the image and idea, at this stage are fundamentally flawed.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 02:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.