Needs a point of interest. A cowboy on a horse leading a pack horse, slightly off center heading for the gap in the hills. If he’s in the middle distance you don’t even have to be good at figures and horses. Would turn an anonymous ‘landscape’ into a little adventure and you have a winner.
Jim

Nice work. I like the color contrast between the foreground and the sky. Gary

A good looking tree may suffice to anchor the eye. Tho not the Bob Rossie
dab-dab stroke that we all know and love. The sky is certainly great – love that
along with the colour contrast as was mentioned by others. A good desert
oak might be good to go into a desert setting perhaps. Mr google will come up
with some good examples to get the pattern of the tree. It has the basis of a
really good painting. If it were my painting I would try for a single tree. Still
tho that’s just me.

What is it that ‘landscapers’ (on WC) have against people in paintings.? I suggested a cowboy and horse. Immediately ‘it doesn’t have to be a figure’ of course it doesn’t. As for a tree, good idea, a big one would certainly draw your eye, but would simply be another tree, and probably look out of place with all the other stunted ones around. I personally would rather paint a figure and horses in the middle distance than what would have to be a pretty good tree as a feature. Trees are not the easiest things to paint convincingly. It all depends on what you feel comfortable with.
Jim

I don’t think landscapers (WC) feel that way at all! Adding another option/opinion is nothing more than another way to look at things. Not everyone prescribes to the theory that a painting must have a figure, animal, or structure to provide a focal point or add “life” to a painting. I think light, color, movement also adds life, energy and creates a mood to a landscape. The landscape is full of life, with or without adding anything and letting the imagination of the viewer fill in the scene. Nothing wrong with a figure and horse either – I’m a big fan of your paintings and they always have something in them – but I’m also a fan of other artists on here who have different styles too. Just all opinions and options that the artist(poster) can take away and think on – that’s all.

I totally agree, please disregard my suggestions for adding ‘my type of life’ to landscapes. It was the first thing that came into my head. As you say light, colour, movement does it all already, but remember to add a point of interest. Meanwhile I’ll keep adding the odd puff of smoke to a chimney. Kids dropping stones from a bridge into a river. Or a derelict Conestoga Waggon in a desert one like this. When I paint my landscapes.
My problem is, I’m an inveterate story teller.
Looking forward to the result of the advice given
Jim

Jim, I’m not sure what to say. But I appreciate all the ideas from everyone. I’m kind of confused, so I’m putting the painting on the back burner.
Rob

Rob I’m sorry if we, me in particular, have caused you confusion. Remember advice is only the opinion of the giver. If I were you. I’d say thanks, but I’ll do my own thing. Art is personal. This is one painting. Right or wrong, it’s time for the next one. The more you do the better you will get. As for advice, well, it is only that and is not mandatory. The most comprehensive Art encyclopaedia in the world is just a click away.
Good luck
Jim

I like the emptiness here – it conveys that sense of “miles from anywhere” well. Those rocks are amazing, the colors are realistic, and I like the clouds, too.