Category: Critiques

This was a night where we could take some time to look at the work, talk about the exploration of art and discuss the struggles in finding ways of expressing our artistic scheme as a cohesive unit;  this was particularly Socratic since it was just Ron and I.

Ron brought two pieces that explored the contrary nature and inner dialog of shapes.  Within the motif lies a large wedge like structure contrasted against an organic flower like object.  This sets up a certain dialog against the two; one being hard versus the other being soft in nature.  The contrast of light is also very interesting which is well handled within the medium of watercolor.  The boldness of the piece is very attractive, yet the clear separation of the object is less attractive.  We talked about shifting some of the values and color consistencies to bring the objects together as much as possible.  All in all though, the expressive mark-making is excellent and adds to the expressive nature of the work.

The other painting looked like an explosion of some sort with plumes of smoke, orbits forming and jet streams of energy passing throughout the work.  The chaos of the work presupposes a unique problem of finding a thematic foundation for the work; what is it about?  The title of the work is ‘Universe 1’ which seems appropriate for such an astro-dynamic beginning (if this was the intent).  What stood out was the variety of technique, which I personally consider to be a big challenge in watercolor.  The lack of a clear un-ambiguous direction was not so well received, but as in any exploratory work, the ambiguity gives purpose to having to work the idea out.  Ron agrees that it could be a bit bolder like the previous watercolor, but the free nature of the work is what best sets this piece apart.

I showed my last work associated with the Shipley Center Spot 13.  It is a monoprint using plexiglass and a woodblock to create the work.  We spent a good amount of time talking about the background tree line and how the shifting of value from the foreground did much for creating depth in a realistic way.  The color did not have the same intensity or saturation that some of the other works from this series had (talked about in past critiques).  In addition, more separation of the objects could further enhance the interest of the work.  What didn’t need to be change was the mark-making in the monoprint technique, which we thought added a great amount of character to the piece.

Again, as in all these critiques, much was gained by sitting down and looking hard at our work.  This is something that anyone reading this blog should leave with the desire to do.  And as always, we look forward to increasing our circle of friends.  In order to join the critique, please review the front-page for the date and time of the next critique session and contact me at info@reekersart.com

Last critique was an interesting (and fun) time again, if not so much for the diversity of the work, but for the similarity in the art that was presented.  All the works are connected to the earth in some way, and each piece is more of an interpretation of the experience of nature that an actual rendering of the environment.

 

I was very excited to show my development of prints based on the Shipley Center Spot 13 series.  These are a combination of monoprints and woodblock prints either hand painted or printed over a monoprint.  I began the series with a quick set of monoprints, which I did not like.  The group liked the strangeness of the print, highlighting the freshness of the mark-making, but I guess my mind’s eye was more interested in reproducing the motif in a woodcut, so that is what I did.

Some of the prints are simple black ink on white paper; others are brown in on tan paper. I also painted some of the prints using watercolor paint, which ‘prettied’ up the prints quite a bit. (I found using Japanese colors seen in their prints work well).  The boldness of the black printed block is well received and a few suggested breaking up the block into separate colors, particularly cooling off and whitening the background trees which I can do this using a stencil.  Regarding the last monoprint, the colors were considered to be rich (which is good), but perhaps too saturated for the background.  I’ve concluded that I need to spend a little more time developing the background trees and sky colors, which should help finalize what I need to produce a good series of monoprints.

Ron brought in a strongly composed watercolor from the series of work critiqued in April.  The motif is composed of rock or mountain structures sitting on sand and water.  The emphasis is on the objects; their texture, color and presence.   The sand/water that the objects sit on is ethereal, and except for a modest shadow at the base of the objects, gives them a floating affect.  Unlike the previous piece these two objects are clearly separated by a gap, yet the arrow like shape of the bottom left object points to the upper right object thus creating a dialog between the two.  Since the negative space is such a dominate element of the composition it became a point of discussion.  The background space is composed of a clear cool versus warm gradation from top to bottom which gives interest to the space, but adding whisper type marks to that area, especially in the high value areas, would help define the space better. The two rocks are also very similar so adding cooler colors to the shaded surfaces would both define the planes more and give interest to the overall color play.  All in all though, the painting was very interesting and the details in the rocks are astounding, especially since they are entirely done with a small brush.  It was great that they were shown to the group.

Thom brought some very interesting cubist work that bridged the gap between analytical and synthetic cubism, but most importantly post modern. As always the compositions are spot on and filled with interesting shapes, objects and textures to enjoy. The composition’s color values in the one are varied and complementary to each other, and the other’s values are mostly low in key and visually silent.  One seems a bit more complete than the other, so adding saturated colors in inactivated areas would also add interest to the one and may resolve the complementary colors within the motif.    I think, and I wasn’t alone, that some of Thom’s great work is best when it employs humor and witticisms.   The trees, found tootsie roll wrappers and painting balls in these painting are all loved ,and we appreciate Thom’s sense of humor and fun.

 

 

The climax (sorry about the expression) of the evening is Donna’s cliff drawing.  This is a hard fought drawing that for the spectators is well worth visually experiencing.  The care and love she put into it is really astounding.  Some works of art are epiphanous to ones artistic life; this drawing (along with the one show in November of last year) appears to be very important to Donna’s oeuvre.  These are wonderful drawings with many enjoyable gradations and color variations to see from afar, as well as the mark-making and object textures to focus on from up close.  As in all artwork there arelittle areas to critique, we mention a shadow like object on the rocks, and suggested introducing some additional color contrasts,  but other than that there is no need to work the drawing anymore.  We all hoped that this work will be showed publically; these are much too good to be stored away.

It is interesting that the earth subject occupied all ourwork; this may be due to each other’s influences, or due to the current crisis of our ecological environment, but whatever it is that drive us to create artwork about our world, it is clear that this subject will continue to be explored from a deep visceral place, and because of our need to express this it will continue to impact our everyday life as an Artist and a need to visualize it.

We missed some friends at this critique, people that couldn’t make it because of one reason or another, so we hope that you can make the next group critique and continue to bring interesting work, but ultimately increase our fellowship in art-making.

This is almost a year of doing these Art Critiques and upon reflection it appears to be more about how to intensely observe and take in a work of art.  Unlike a lot of art shows, or museum walks that one goes to, one rarely sits and observes a piece of artwork for any serious amount of time at all.  In our critique we afforded at least 15 minutes of intense observations of the artwork, and from that intense exercise come inspirations that warrant a response.  The artworks critiqued this evening was (for lack of a better word) modest, but as one observes them deeply a higher level of consciousness takes place and a richness of discussion that I rarely experience in any other way.

Thom was up first.  The painting was an addition to the Global Warming series and continued the theme of energy being exchanged between two bodies.  The texture of the painted surface is very interesting, and also added emphasis to the erratic nature of the motif.  But there are areas in the painting that are more or less interesting than the other objects in the motif.  For instance, we all agreed that the satellite type geometry at the bottom center of the painting was very interesting on its own, but did not play a major part in the allegory of the idea.  Similarly, the triangular wedge type shapes seem to demand attention on their own, but detracted from the global warming idea.   The excellence in this is the challenge Thom has imposed on himself to have strong compositional elements, but have them dance and comingle with each other with a specific message, and/or question.  With this said the colors are very interesting and just needed a bit more saturation (which is noted by the red and deep orange bars in the picture done after the critique).  There is this odd grey shape across the center of the work which works well within the chaos of the piece too; (this is an example of how an item like this works within the quirkiness of the painting as a whole).  It is very fun stuff.

Donna brought in two pieces which really warrants discussion on both.  The first was a dry-point etching that looked to me like a mezzotint.  It is a very small print, approximate 4 inches square, but the delicacy of the line work and the softness of the printed technique provided for a very intimate amalgamation of observational care and sensitivity.  The richness of the blacks was a testament to the great care in printing the plate, (which we Printmakers get very excited about).  We didn’t have any constructive criticism of the work since it seemed very finished; it was also difficult to suggest any type of follow-up.  It may just be one of those pieces that stands on its own and is best left alone as a work of art onto itself.

The second piece was a sketch of Balboa Park in San Diego, where the Cabrillo Bridge crosses of the 163 freeway (we San Deigans affectionately call it ‘Suicide Bridge’).  The idea was to translate this into a larger drawing once the sketch was resolved.  Since the drawing isn’t done yet, there were a lot of suggestions on how to bring it all together.  The biggest challenged would be to resolve the perspective space.  Western Artist define space very differently that Asian Artist which the drawing has elements of both.  The typical Western landscape breaks up the depth with the three foreground/middle ground/background compositional elements.  The more classical approach to the landscape makes use of atmospheric perspective and the more defined use of deep value shifts between the grounds.  On the other, hand Japanese landscape prints show depth in space by partitioning many ground planes, not just three.  Depth is illustrated by positioning closer objects at the bottom of the motif and the far off objects high on the print.  This sketch hovered between both worlds.  Donna could separate the composition such that the background tree line stands separated from the bridge and the foreground foliage could be more suggestive than exactly articulated as in a Japanese print.  On the other hand, overlapping the various objects with a clear define one point perspective could unify the image as in classical Western landscape compositions.  All in all, it will be interesting to see it develop over time.

We were very excited to have Edythe join the critique this month.  She added greatly to the discussions and had a wealth of good ideas.  Her work concentrated on the fashion industry and the plasticity of the Models.  She created works that transformed the Models into garments standing stiffly posed and silhouetted around labels with terms like “Deformed, Abused and Rag Doll”.  We found the use of button eyes, and stitched lips, particularly visceral and strange, this also added to the dehumanizing of the Models.  The models are willowing away from dieting and dissolving into the space.  Edvard Munch prints often have both the isolated figure in the background and another figure starring out of the picture plan.  This method of layout confronts the viewer and is very successful in these pieces.  I’m not a big fan of putting words on the surface of a piece since I don’t want the viewer to read the words and forget the image, which often happens when words are added.  With the addition of stitching under the words it is even more obtrusive and directly focuses the viewer’s attention.  Others agreed and suggested a more subdued approach to the words may be warranted in order to concentrate on the figures alone.  But, all in all, these are interesting and provocative works done from a very meaningful Artist.

It was again a very pleasant evening with friends and colleagues sharing our work and ideas, which ultimately helps us with our body of work.

Thursday night’s critique was filled with interesting work, and great sidebar discussions.

We started off with Thom’s series of acrylic paintings focusing on global warming.  These consist more of a visceral idea of the phenomenon, than a political statement of this condition; though science is always present in the work.  They provoke ones emotive response to color and the since of order created through line.  We thought these were wonderfully thought provoking pieces, which requires a deeper look in the mark-making and color variety present in the motif.  The ‘G’ was concerning due to its dominant size.  Thom thought that the ‘G’, along with the title, will provide the viewer an insight to the series’ theme.  We could see that, but the formal introduction of the ‘G’ into the space needs similar texture and color in order to harmonize within the whole of the painting.  We also suggested to taking a look at the overall color theme.  We all have had color theory training and the discussion on color was very interesting (and fun).  The image you see was worked on since the critique; the dominance of the yellow and high key value of the negative space adds force and impact to the motif.  [DISCLAIMER: critiques are opinions; Artists are at their full discretion whether to accept or reject suggestions, which is why I often use the term ‘suggestion’.]  In conclusion, the work is provocative on a social level and interesting on an aesthetic level.

Ron is a new member to the group and he brought in a watercolor that used the Seal Beach Jetty as the subject.  We were all astonished by the detail of the cliff (or jetty) objects.  These objects were very interesting from afar and up close too.  This is a great achievement for any piece of artwork, but personally I was amazed that he achieved this in watercolors.   In my opinion, often watercolors are very interesting when viewed up close, but lack in any profound interest from afar.  This is not bad; it adds intimacy to the media and delicacy to the subject.  In this case, we sat there for a while, and just looked, one finds themselves stepping up to the work and stepping back.  The following critique was more geared to both learning of Ron’s work and, for a lack of a better term, “nitpicking “at little details.  We thought that the cliffs appear to float over the foreground.  There is a hard line at the bottom of the cliffs which separate the middle ground to the foreground, so adding passages from cliff to sand, and drawing in more of the sand color to the cliff will help the eye move from the two spaces.  The warm and cool space in the foreground is almost split in half, so perhaps changing that relationship would be helpful.  All in all, we are honored that he brought the work and are glad for the discussion that came from such a wonderful piece.

I showed my ‘finished’ studio Shipley Center painting (see Art Critique March 2012) where I had further developed the landscape structural line work and heighted the key along the foreground bushes.  Everyone is very encouraging and have only a few minor suggestions which I will implement.  They suggested warming up the ground much like the background; this would tie in the foreground to the middle ground more affectively.  There are suggestions in creating more variety in the background trees to avoid any flattening out of space; this can be achieved by modulating values (gradations) and warm versus cool colors.  Some people wanted more sky and others less, so I believe I’m good there.  These are all good suggestions that will help finish the painting.

Again, this was a great evening where a lot of interesting subjects and discussions took place.  We even had a talk about signatures on work and what that means.  In any case, I hope you enjoy reading these blogs, and we all look forward to meeting you all next art critique.  (Every 3rd Thursday evening we meet at 6:30pm to 9:30pm)

 

We had another good time at the March critique.  The evening can be best described as an evening of art as a dialog for content, scheme and composition.

We started with my large painting (3’ X 4’) of the Shipley Center spot thirteen.  This is a studio painting based on photos and the en plein air paintings I did last year (see Series Description and/or Gallery).  The group liked the variety of colors and textures of the applied paint, and was particularly interested in the deep areas of shadow.  Some work needs to be addressed in the way the high key light areas contrast against the shadows, and how to keep the eye within the painting.  Some compositional problems were discussed such as the foreground bottom left plant creates a strong diagonal that causes rapid movement of the eye, but if read from right to left may cause the viewer to leave the painting.  I thought it insightful the suggestion to darken the left side of the foreground plant to avoid this compositional flaw.  If I do this I believe it would allow the eye to move upward to the yellow tree and keep the viewer within elliptical composition of the work.  As far as a start of the painting, the critique was very encouraging, the group liked the rendering of the plant, and they gave me a lot to think about.

Thom’s is prolific as ever and brought in three paintings.  All these paintings are very smart and engaged the viewer both aesthetically and intellectually.  The first painting has a very interesting division in space starting with a pyramid type structure in the background and a bridge type structure in the foreground.  The middle ground is in most part and pure composition of yellows and greens, with a strong textural wall that moves diagonally across the field (it appeared to me to be like fields of corn).  The painting looked as though it was telling a story, but any since of an allegory was missing.  This ignited a discussion on content versus structure since it seems that the painting is teetering on the verge of the two.  It was suggested to add figures to the work to enhance a dialog within the content of the piece and/or to explore more passages between the background/middle ground/foreground space to elevate the structural cubist nature of the composition and alleviate the narrative.  But all in all, the color and value structure of the painting is wonderful to look at.

His next pieces were synthetic cubist architectural plan that is deconstructed and reassembled in a graphic layout.  As always with Thom’s work, the compositional layout was spot on; there is a beautiful balance from shape to shape, and a harmonious use of value.  There was some suggestion of enhancing the color scheme or developing more color saturation against the grey fields to add energy to the work.  It was also difficult to assess the origin of the pre-deconstructed architecture.  It was perhaps too far away from the source and re-constructed without any previous reference to the baseline object, i.e. the architectural plan.  Therefore, one would have to ask, ‘when using cubist techniques and sensibilities, is it important to refer back to the source of the cubist structure?’  This is an interesting discussion that seems to come up when viewing Thom’s work.  In any case, these are very thought provoking pieces and obviously well done.

Donna has continued to work on her Devil’s Postpile and the rendering of the cliff, tree line and rock pile.   The most obvious change was the array of rocks place through the tree line; this added greatly to the movement of the eye from background to foreground (see February Critique blog).  There is also a greater variety of marks that add interest to the work when observed up close.  The critique focused on the grouping of the major objects into well defined large shapes and discussed why that would add interest to the various ground planes (the picture shows some of that work in progress).  There is quite a bit of color, but no specific color scheme; that is to say, there is no definitive warmness or coolness in the work.  We suggested enhancing the warmth in the background rock ridges and further accenting the coolness of the shadows in the foreground to remedy the ambiguity.  But all in all, it is exciting for all of us to see her development of this drawing, we are all anxious to see it next month.

Scott came to a previous the critique, but the blog was not active then.  In any case, we were excited to have an additional participate to the critiques.  Scott’s piece is best described (I think) as a post modern dialog of textures, material and imagery.  His pieces are often cityscapes in motif with a good dose of surrealism mainly developed by a Freudian disassociation and displacement/ambiguity of space.  The piece he brought was no exception.  It is a beautiful painting that excites one from a distance and draws you in due to the material used, the individual rendering of the objects and the techniques employed to apply the paint.  The allegory within the piece was a bit ambiguous; there is an ‘Our Lady of Guadalupe’ image on the right side of the painting and diagonally down on the left was a black hole type image.  A discussion of the reason for these two elements is interesting since this appeared to be the reason for the painting’s existence.  It is not clear that there needs to be within the motif a dialog between the various compositional elements, but some reevaluating is warranted if that ambiguity is to be clarified.  Also, since the space is post-modern there really isn’t any defined space to critique, but that fact did not deter us from suggesting Scott look at creating a more defined foreground and passages to a defined background.  In conclusion, we all agree that this is a wonderful painting and we appreciate him sharing it with us.

As always there is a good time to have by all, and we look forward to seeing each other’s further development in their work.  This has proved to be a valuable experience to us all, but most of all get great joy in increasing our circle of friends.

Sometimes sitting down with a friend and talking about art and inspiration with an occasional focus into current art production makes for an interesting and joyful evening.  This is what happened at the February critique.  I was expecting a bunch of people given some conversations I’ve had lately, the interest in the critique group and an element of winter/spring enthusiasm, but alas (and to my delight) ‘all’ that showed up was Thom.  He brought two of his latest works that were deriviatives of the one painting he brought in for the February critique.

The subject matter is Global Warming for both paintings which place the piece within the fold of a narrative.  The narrative focuses on the affect from the Global Warming phenomenon on the human figure.  The figures are acted upon by an array of external forces graphically described with lines, and geometric shapes.  Since it was ‘just’ Thom and me, I will speak from the first person, I liked the division of space very much.  Both positive and negative space was well resolved thus leaving room for more or less emphasis with the context of the work.  There is a dialog between the figures and the geometry of the motif that still needs to be resolved to have a fully harmonist image. My suggestion was to either make the figures more dominant, or pushing the geometric partitioning of space more; the former would be preferred.  Greater emphasis on the saturation of color and building up of paint could add additional impact to the eye of the viewer.  Also, paying close attention to the values of the lines will harmonize the whole of the image by provide greater emphasis on the large shapes.  There is an interesting textural quality of the mark making that should not be lost with further working of the painting.

The second Global warming painting, though less developed than the first one, is beautifully laid out.  It has been worked on since the critique, so I was pleasantly surprised by the image that he sent and how it has developed beyond his first showing of the painting.  When Thom sent me the pics he wrote, “The second one is more developed from painting today, but still at stage 2.”]  I look forward to future stages, but for now there is greater distinction between the figure and the shapes than the first one.  This adds clarity to the theme and at the same time leaving some ambiguity that will challenge the viewer.  It will be interesting to see how it will develop in character, motif and color scheme from the first one.

I’ve been repainting the Shipley En Plein Air series as a preparation for a larger painting of the same Subject.  I try hard not to change the painting colors and/or values in any way, just add volume to the applied paint and clarity to the image.  When repainting an en plein air painting it is difficult to be exact, but in many cases the ‘muddied’ painted areas need clarification, with that in mind, I allow for some additional interpretation of the motif extracted from my memory and attempt to repaint from that memory.  In any case, Thom likes the repaints (I completed all 12 of them) and he is particularly interested in the deep shadows.  As a technical note, I prefer to use alizarin crimson and phalo green for my darker shadows and I modulate the warmth, and tones, by using cadmium red and/or ultramarine blue.  In addition, a large variety of mark making is lacking from the surface treatment which flattens the space between background, middle ground and foreground, alternately there does exists enough values shifts from those partitioned spaces to elude to the illusion of depth.

Many things are discussed at this particular critique, as two friends will do when the wine begins to flow freely; we covered subjects from painting techniques to spiritual development to healing through the arts, but all in all it was a great time.  We look forward to your comments and perhaps attending the next critique.

A friend of mine and I attended the Art Walk in San Pedro last Thursday night (2/2/2012) and I was compelled to write this blog.  I write this not because of the Artwalk itself; though it was an eclectic mix of contemporary, folk and decorative arts was worth the effort.  I’m not writing because of the rich cultural diversity of the art where combinations of Latino, Asian and European art can be found if searched for, and oh yes, I’m not writing about a lifestyle that was inspiring to see as Artist make their way in the art-world through loft living, studio working spaces and commitment to their vision.  What I’m writing about is this gem of an Artist whose use of mixed media materials are above all interesting and whose skill in three-dimensional work is admired by my friend and me.  The Artist’s name is Hiroko, and her Gallery is at 382 W. 7^th St, San Pedro www.hiroko.us.com .  In my eyes she is a deeply visceral Artist whose human figures exemplify our contemporary angst.  The elegance of the figure’s posture as it iseither fighting to free itself from some known or unknown constraint, or introverting within as the figure is burdened by an object’s weight or rope, speaks volumes for our times.  I’m embarrassed to say that this is the first San Pedro Artwalk for my friend and I, but after this discovery (and many other) it will not be our last.

We had another very successful evening of good art, conversation and critiques.

We started with my Still-Life tribute the Renoir’s nude.  This painting is now finished and I was looking forward to some input from the group.  The discussion was very encouraging; there were no suggestion of necessary chances or dislikes.  The group was particularly impressed with the detail in the flowers and the feeling of depth in the background objects.  I spent a lot of time rendering a color relationship between the Renoir photograph figure and the left side leaves;  I’m interested in sustaining a dialog between the two objects, and that did not go without notice.

This painting is finished, so two more to go to finish off the series.

Donna brought a large drawing of Devil’s Postpile which is still in progress.  We collectively agreed that this drawing, like the previous one, has tremendous potential.  The under-drawing is complete and the overdrawing is beginning to define the objects better.  The drawing has a very strong rhythmic quality due the vertical rock formations; thinner more delicate rocks have a very high visual key where the broader more robust vertical rocks have a slower lower key feeling.  I thought one should be cautious about the tree line cutting the drawing in half between the vertical rocks above and the broken rocks below, so I suggested some techniques regarding passage such as placing some rocks within the trees.  There was also some discussion about keeping the colors in balance and paying particularly close attention to values that could enhance the motif.

It will be interesting to see the development and progress in the piece at future critiques.

Thom has been very prolific lately and brought in a bunch of work.  For brevity I placed two of them in the blog.

The first was another painting of Linda’s that Thom is finishing.  This is a very sweat painting and has a lot of merit to the development of the subject.  The color scheme is very attractive and adds a sense of calm and focus to the motif. We felt that some of the drawing of the hands needs to be better defined and the structure in the back (an opened book) doesn’t necessarily read as a book.  There seems to be a lack of definition on the left hand and the fingers seemed large in respect to the face.  We suggested reducing the emphasis on the background book; this would help the figure stand out, but changes to the face should not be made; it was quite wonderful.

The second piece, I thought, was more identifiably Thom.  It is an interesting hieroglyph of a domineering female figure, a subordinate male figure and two groups of figures on a concave and convex arc.   Thom agreed that there is a lot of work that still needs to be done on this painting.  The dominate female is the most resolved object and has some very interesting cubist features.  The groups of figures are the least resolved and need work to either push it further into the background or flatten it into the forward space as a hieroglyph would do; currently it is a bit indecisive and ambiguous.  Suggestions circled around the drawing and rendering nature of the people and not on any color or tonal qualities.  This would have been too premature in its development to add any comments.

This painting is the perfect vehicle for what we are trying to do here, help each other grow in our work as a community of Artist with the goal of enhancing the experience and results of art making.

Hope you enjoyed reading this overview and look forward to any comments you might have.

Ron

A new member joined the group and brought in a wonderful painting of a figure transposed onto a black doorway.  It appeared to be a transcendental figure that seemed to float out of the picture frame; (I thought of Munch’s work when I first saw it.)  The light in the painting is ethereal and wonderful, accented by a strange candle like light to the right.  (My apologize to the Artist(s) for the lack in quality of the photo) There wasn’t much to add to the piece, we agreed that it was a fine work of art and a highlight image for the evening.

 

 

The next painting was a fairly large square painting of handball courts at Goldenwest College. The color structure within the work was very interesting and worked very well as complementary colors.  The mark making held the painting plain together as a cohesive image.  There was some polarity in the objects that drew the eye back and forth from court to court which suggest a need to add passages in the negative space that might lead one away from this visual trap.  It was really good to see how much work the artist is doing now and we all look forward to future work.

The next pieces were two prints that had bits of other print glued onto the surfaces.  These were organic and earthy in nature, with a whimsical approach to the space making for a interesting set of monotypes.  Some comments were made regarding the undefined background space which could perhaps be brought into focus by some additions or value shifts.  There also was talk of more overlapping of the foreground images, but nothing was conclusive.

I showed my latest still life which is still in progress.  I felt good about the background, but the critique mentioned that I needed to relook at the magazine edges on the top right.  There were also comments regarding the edge of the black cloth near the vertical center of the composition.  A softening up of these edges was help avoid the pittfall of taking interest away from the centeral subject.  I was encouraged by the comments regarding the details of the painting and the impasto use of paint.  A few more hours and I can wrap this painting up.

It was a fun night again of sharing our art and opinions.  We are always encouraged and inspired by eachother and look forward to what 2012 will bring.  Please feel free to comment and/or contact me for any additional information.

The highlight of the evening was Donnas’ large dessert scene, 48″ X 72″ that she had worked on for a few months.  It was agreed that there was nothing more to say other than ‘congratulation’.  It is a beautiful drawing with transitions of color and marks that give you the sense of the scene along with the appreciation of the piece as a work of Fine Art.

 

 

She shared her new drawing, roughly same size as the other, which is at its foundational drawing stage, so composition is critical. It was a view of a mountain side with vertical slates of rock that created a pile of rubble at the base of the mountain.   Given the drawing layout and the past drawing’s success we are all looking forward to discussing this new drawing’s growth.

 

 

Thom had been very busy creating a variety of artwork.   Posted here are these small mixed media works, approx. 14″ X 16″, which are whimsical and brilliant in color.  We discussed the difficulty of painting on such a small format and the necessity of keeping the composition balanced.   Some of these paintings were painted over a previous painting, but with the idea of keeping the under-painting as the general motif.  This adds complexity to the attempt to resolve the two styles; the original painted fruit and the over-painted table.  This is particularly apparent with the painting of persimmons.   We discussed how the three dimensional representation of the fruit somehow clashed with the cubist nature of the table.  All in all, we thought the transitions of light, the mark making and color composition made for a nice painting.

 

I showed both the October and November Shipley Nature Center pleinaire paintings, 14″ X 18″.  I had some good comments regarding the need to balance the color over the whole motif.   They were encouraging from the stand point of developing the series (see series Description ‘A Year at Shipley Center’) further (One more to go).

 

 

 

 

I also presented a painting in-work that continued with the compositional still life series (will add a series description soon) The painting is at stage two (basic values and color structure) of development, and the group liked what they saw, is 36″ X 48″.  Some attention will need to be made to the object’s edges.  This provided me with enough input help develop the painting further.

 

These critiques are not meant to give each other a ‘pat on the back’, but to give honest criticism, avoid ‘niceties’ and help to develop us all as Artist; I believe this was achieved.

If you are an Artist, and live within the Orange County area, please feel free to contact me and discuss attending the critique.  We enjoy growing our circle of friends.