Lucy

[Eraethil]

Thanks for the critique Henrik. The size is 24" x 48".

[dgford]

I've found the figure !! How could I have missed it? Then I thought about the title --- could this be the early human ancestor of the Rift Valley? If so, are there hidden meanings to the linked circles/discs/plates? Does the varying size, chroma and placement of these have any significance as a message of human development and historical dispersal ? She has "eyes" to see the path forward; a heart (soul?) to give life; a spot on her inner right elbow to mark the spot for blood sampling; a hefty left knee for the groins of amorous prehistoric males! Then the penny dropped!

It's a fun thing. Enjoy it as a very competent and skilfully painted "doodle". Now I can look at it dispassionately. For me the links and spots are too dominant --- but then I must take into account that I am looking at a screen and I am seeing light, not pigment. So I must make a print of it. Now that looks totally different.
I like the treatments of the upper and lower backgrounds but would prefer the negative space between her legs to be more of a link in its colour. The interplay of the cool and warmer colours in her body are achieved very skilfully. It doesn't attract me but I can appreciate the thought, skill and effort that produced it.
Geoff

[Eraethil]

Thanks Geoff,

Appreciate your thoughtful comments and critique. Lucy indeed was neither inspired by that ancestral Lucy, nor in fact any other Lucy. She was originally drawn from life in Vancouver and not named Lucy at all. What I hoped to achieve with this painting was a non-representational abstract composition that still conveyed the model's beauty and complexity. While she was physically beautiful, it was her spark of personality and the professional way that she facilitated the open drawing session that struck me as more intriguing than her physicality.

The name of the painting was derived from the classic Beatles tune. I prefer relatively vague titles that don't put too much of a box around the work. The viewer should be able to box the work in their own personal context.

BTW, that small negative space you mention was the source of some consternation in the middle stages of the work. I left that passage alone and pulled the rest of the background toward it somewhat. Thanks for your thoughts about that particular colour relationship.

[crafor]

My comments are probably possibly off point and maybe should be placed in the CAFE section or the debate section.
I'm not a fan of abstract art usually, but LUCY immediately caught my eye, probably because seconds before seeing it, I was reading an esoteric text (I think that's the word ) about humans being in denial of who/what they are, that we deny our true identity.

And then, seconds later, I turn and see your work. (I rarely come into the crit forums.)

I had to go past the energy form (linked spheres) to see the (human) form. I'm seeing this as a representation, a reminder of what we are--energy-- encased (by denial) in a solid form.

I like the "linkage" of the energy spheres, like the colors, the shape. The colors of the human form are wonderful, dark, heavy, mysterious, counter to the light energy. I MIGHT like to see some value changes of the spheres, but looking more closely there are several that have different hues and shifts in them, They're enough, and add to the mystery.

I can't quite read the graphics in the corner, but they add to the story here, esp if (one) says what I think it does.
I agree with most of what dgford (post 17 said, except that it DOES attract me.
I like everything about it, the colorful "rainbow-like" energy filled background, the dark "clay" of the human form "under" the Light Being. The colors of the CLAY remind me of the choices we have, the paths we might--or HAVE--taken.

You said that "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."

Of course you will, but I'd love to see more in this vein.


This is a wonderful piece, to me, more than paint on cloth.
Well, it's possibly an inappropriate crit, as it's not a crit at all, but a response to your work.
It's wonderful.
Ella

[crafor]

Sorry, I see I shouldn't have posted here as I'm not registered. Please delete.
Ella

[cabbage1]

It depends I guess a lot on subjectivity...I wasn't keen about the mechanical looking linkages which seemed to be of a single plane.. but then my mind associated 'Lucy' to the fossilised famous ancestor from Africa and I could see that in the background and the links became more chemical than mechanical and the there/not there aspect of the figure also evoked that 'missing link' mystery connection ..... doesn't matter what you do really does it???

[Bevahlee]

I like the color and the bits and pieces, however I think it would work better (for me) if the figure were not as isolated as it is and that the blue and pink of the background (dominance) were integrated more. I was just playing around with it but thought you might find it interesting to see what photoshop could do with (render difference clouds). lol.

[Eraethil]

Thanks cabbage1 and Beverly for taking a look and commenting on Lucy!

I think I agree with you cabbage1 - every painting depends a lot on subjectivity. There are lots of things you can do as a painter to make your work more or less appealing, but the viewer still decides whether they like it or relate to it in the end.

Beverly, I also really enjoy what ps can do. Thanks for showing the results of your play time with Lucy. I normally integrate my subject and background more, but this time I obscured Lucy without unifying wash or limiting palette. Thanks for the observations,