Purity

#1

Hello,

I tried to post this artwork in the gallery and it was rejected. And I don't know for which reason.
So comments and critics are welcome.

And the W.I.P :

#2

First of all, is the title suppose to be an oxymoron? Because it is at this point.

Overall, the image doesn’t really “read”. I don’t know what the “white stuff” wrapping around her lower half is suppose to represent…except to allude to eroticism.
Your rendering looks nice, but there seems to me, to be some issues with the anatomy of her body. Personally, I would also move the figure off of dead center to make a more interesting composition.

#3

It’s just not a well executed image, with some areas that are clumsily handled. For example, you have elements that look like you just painted on another layer on top of a photo, and the contour of the hair is badly handled, with the coloring on the additional layer going outside the crop of the photo you used. I can see exactly where the photo begins and where it ends. It’s fine that you are incorporating photos into a digital painting, but you need to have some finesse in the way you do it. If I can see clumsy “digital fingerprints” of your execution all over the place, then it’s not a good thing.

#4

Your color composition is nice, but all the other comments are correct. You also “cheated” by hiding her hands, which makes it very awkward. If you can’t draw hands well - then this is a good opportunity to learn how!

I’m betting the photographic elements that you can see are also why it was rejected. The overwhelming majority of pieces that are accepted are 100% original paintings, not mixed pieces like this.

It’s also not done - the hair especially. You have a very high level of detail, especially with the photographic elements, and then blocky smudges on top, which is a huge juxtaposition that jars the eye.

The lighting is pretty basic as well, since you took the multi-source lights of a posed photograph, instead of creating one for the painting. “Well lit” is good for photographs, but for paintings, it’s a vital part of the composition, and the entire piece feels flat, just like the lighting. You don’t have her in an environment, you have her against a white background with (most likely) two strobes, balanced out to minimize shadows. That’s photography, not art. You cut her out of a studio environment, and pasted it onto a background.

There’s a lot more, but I would look at the things everyone else has mentioned, and my comments. There’s no “wow” factor to it, and that’s what our comments are (hopefully) helping you find. If I were your teacher, and this was for class, I’d tell you to start over, and learn to draw and paint the figure from the photograph, not paint on top of it - you’ll learn 1000% more doing that - and I’d change the pose to show her hands, or at least one of them, and also tell you to work on the narrative more - who is she? Where is she? Why are we looking at her? Honestly, it’s hard to instruct someone on painting, when it’s rough just trying to figure out what parts are painted, and what parts are photo - that’s great if it’s an image editing class, but in a painting class, not so much.

Hope this helps!

#5

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.