Lucy

Eraethil · #1 03-26-2012, 03:34 AM

MY IMAGE(S):

GENERAL INFORMATION:
Title: Lucy
Year Created:
Medium: Acrylic
Surface: Canvas
Dimension: 24
Allow digital alterations?: Yes!

MY COMMENTS:
Hi everyone,

This painting is part of a series of works that begin as realistic figures, which are deconstructed into abstract compositions. I am exploring the boundary between representation and abstraction and also the perception boundary between people who prefer one over the other. (and that sounds more art-speak hoity-toity than usual for me LOL)

The painting itself is somewhat dimensional, with fairly heavy use of acrylic gels.

MY QUESTIONS FOR THE GROUP:
I am interested in your perception of the work. Does it convey anything to you?

I am also interested in critique regarding the composition of the painting.

Thanks very much!

tgsloth · #2 03-26-2012, 07:38 AM

Well, an artsey fartsey painting deserves a hoity toity interpretation. After about 30 seconds, I spotted the woman and I thought, wow. This is really special. The paint, as well, is applied with a lot of skill. Critiquing an abstract (well this is sorta abstract) is always rather subjective. My only contribution is that the light blue tones are perhaps too high in value; they grab too much attention and if they were darker, the painting could be more integrated. I do love the center of interest at her knee and think, if anything, it could be emphasized more.

totsy · #3 03-26-2012, 02:21 PM

TG is good, only 30 seconds to see Lucy..

Rick, I'm not realy qualified to C&C this, but it is interesting and different and thus merit detailed examination.

Eraethil · #4 03-26-2012, 09:09 PM

Thanks Bob and Lynette,

Appreciate your thoughtful critique and comment. I am glad that it takes a while to spot the figure. I had trouble determining whether she had disappeared into the composition. My colleagues at the studio, like me, had seen the figure from the start, so couldn't help but continue to see her. Appreciate your critique regarding the integration of the geometric pattern as well!

p.s. I forgot to tag the post for the structured critique forum. Should I flag the post for one of the mods?

Eraethil · #5 04-07-2012, 11:55 AM

Back in the studio I realized that the light blue is actually not quite as overpowering in reality, so I was going to use photoshop to shift the colour back a bit. But my skills with Photoshop are not strong enough, I couldn't figure out a way to adjust the high value intensity down a bit without losing the transparency and colour of the lower value areas of the painting.

Sorry gang, you'll have to imagine that the very light phthalo circles and lines are not quite so bright.

Thanks again for the critiques so far!

Eraethil · #6 04-25-2012, 03:38 AM

Wow - participation has really fallen off here. There hasn't been a single critique of this work since it was moved to structured critiques forum. Is it because the painting is abstracted?

dgford · #7 04-25-2012, 07:18 AM

I am still looking for Lucy. Until I find her I don't what is relevant or not !!!
Geoff

Eraethil · #8 05-16-2012, 02:40 AM

I guess that is a yes dgford?

song_bird · #9 05-20-2012, 12:59 AM

I would abstract Lucy more. I would probably prefer the painting without the robotic chain links. Something about the links bothers me, they seem superimposed, not really a part of the same painting. Maybe vary intensity and values, break the chain, a bit sketchier than so perfect?

I need a stronger coi.

Wish I could see the painting without the links. I like the colors and layout of positive and negative space.

Eraethil · #10 06-05-2012, 12:14 AM

Thanks for the critique song bird. Your comments are much appreciated!

(sorry to be so long responding - I'd given up checking this forum for replies)

Keith Russell · #11 06-06-2012, 01:23 AM

So you were going to use PhotoShop to adjust the values? How much of this is digital? (Just curious.)

I saw the figure rather quickly, but still wonder why there's a figure here at all. The non- representational bits don't seem to relate to the figure in any conceptual sense; so rather than blurring the lines between representational and non-representational, in this piece, the non-representational parts seem to simply be covering up the representational parts.

And, since covering the figure seems to be the only purpose for them to be there, the piece starts to seem too clever for its own good...

Eraethil · #12 06-12-2012, 06:46 PM

Hi Keith,

None of the image has been either designed or painted digitally. It is all acrylic on canvas just as stated.

I really appreciate your comment, because this series started off with an image where the figure was used only as a ground upon which to base the non-representational image. The second in the series retained a distinct hand and there was a certain mystery to it that was quite appealing. This one obscured the figure but allowed it to remain recognizable - well, to about 50% of the viewers anyway.

While I generally get very positive responses from other artists, I haven't entirely convinced myself to leave the figure visible in the next works in this series. Well, I guess I'll just have to react to how they evolve.

Thanks again,
Rick.

markshirar · #13 06-18-2012, 10:55 PM

I saw the figure right off but I think that may be because of the "nude" icon before I even clicked the link. I love the collage patterns in the background and really love the graphics over the figure. I'm not a big fan of human form type art similar to this so I think the figure looks well drawn and has an interesting texture it doesn't do much for me. I also tend to think that the blue of the graphics in the foreground are a little too bold. I like the treatment of them that you have on the circles on the figures hip as well as the shoulder. I like the blue but think I'd like to see it washed out a bit more. I think it may tie the piece together a bit more.

overall I like the piece. there are lots of positives and look forward to seeing more of the series.

Eraethil · #14 06-19-2012, 05:45 PM

Thanks very much Mark. Appreciate your critique.
Rick.

henrik · #15 07-09-2012, 06:23 PM

Like it because it looks appealing at first sight and then has hidden things. I wonder what it looks like up close. It says dimensions "24" I guess that is one of the edges in inches

- if it is the height it is big enough to have some smaller details that are only revealed when looking real close (not that it matters, but it is always fun to find things like that when stepping closer to a piece at a gallery/museum). It works well when viewed at the "viewing size" it is posted at.

Salute to our Partners