Rainstorm

From the artist:

I also desperately need help with my scenery. I always imagine great things-- but feel like I constantly fall short on patience and effort.

I guess it frustrates me to see the artist not being able to see their own work. It is common though, and it is a good thing that they are doubting themselves, because it is showing me that they are still learning, and still expressing humility in their works.

Of course, being a new artist, and having new watchers since the last critique, we must remind them that the lower the vision score, the better.

I wanted to do this, and at the same time I did not, because of the advertising in it, but maybe because this is a new artist, I can explain why I had a problem deciding whether or not to do it, and maybe the artist can decide if attention whoring is suitable in art.

The vision here started a 1 1/2, but because a website advertisement cluttered it, a solid one star blast was assessed. Her sister score (impact) will suffer my wrath for this as well, but worse.

What a magnificent vision, almost worthy of one star, seeing as a half-star could not be achieved because of the artists inability to recognize they were on the right track, and there was never a reason to doubt.

"But wait, YOU SAID that the artist WAS on the right track because the were questioning their work. WTF?"

She is. She has not reached the point of combining humility with confidence and skill, as we have seen with those on my "tout list" of artists. She is a work in progress, ergo her growth is as much a liability as it is an asset.

We see rain, we see lights, darkness, a hurried individual in the trees, a complete story, yet so incomplete, so vague. This image leaves the viewer with the ability to insert the backstory, as well as the current dialogue. Is she in trouble? Is that trouble real or imagined? Is that trouble paranormal, or everyday? Or is she just plain old trying to stay out of the rain? The ambiguity of the vision gives us a moment to sit/stand and stare, as opposed to what could have been just a glance and a "meh".

Time to ask ourselves... "Is this work original"?

You bet it is, but again, the website advertisement takes the originality away by a full star. pulling it down from a rare 5 to a 4.
A crushing loss because of advertisements.

Go back to the vision, and you will see the originality. Because of the wonderful opportunities for viewer interaction, this baby is well worthy of that oh so rare 5th star. I have seen no other image like it, especially with the ability to breathe so much life into it.

As for technique, I am going to spare the full star punishment that vision and originality suffered, and carry all three down to impact.

The technique here is damn near flawless. Damn near.

Look at the picture in full size. Look at the woman, her gait, her anatomy, her face, her clothing, the rain, the lighthouse, the lights on the pier, the pier, the bridge in the far background, the trees, the ground, everything is damn near is perfect harmony. Not a step missed.

But why not a 5? Because the artist was so far off on doubting her scenery, that she takes just a small hit, not recognizing that her technique is not something that MUST take decades to go from mind, to hand, to medium. She thinks she lacked patience here, that her great things were not realized, and that she has fallen short, but that is just not the case. You just need to create the work, then step away and release it unto the world. Let it go, set it free. Why think that you need infinite patience to create? That is reserved for deity alone.

Just do it!

Welcome to impact. Welcome to a full 3 star hit.

Vision and originality lost a star, and I refused to take one from technique, ergo impact will suffer for the punishment of its sister and two brother scores.

1 1/2 for impact here is quite gracious, it should be a half-star of death, but that would be unfair, because the artist was never aware of my critique theory, and had never agreed to me critiquing it prior to its creation, so it starts at a perfect 5 loses 3 full stars as mentioned earlier, then a half star for the artists humility in not recognizing her great things coming to their fruition.

I was so struck by this image, I was so sucked into it.

I am from Southern California, so ocean water, piers, lighthouses, boats and the like, automatically engage me. I was blown away, and I loved every minute I spent immersing myself in it.

But why exactly do I need your website URL shoved down my throat? I know, its the same old stale excuse the majority of the time, "I don't want people stealing it" and if it isn't, then it is just plain old attention whoring and social networking/advertising. Neither of which have a legitimate place in "art".

I tell the "I don't want people stealing it whiners" that they don't have a right to call it art, if the money or attention that others get from it is more important than the creative expression being shared with the human race in the hopes of bettering mankind through the arts.

I tell the "I am advertising my website" people to go make ad banners, and stop insulting the art world with cheap self-promotion.

Overall this is a solid 4 1/2 image that was as close to a 5 as it could possibly get, sans the advertisement.

This artist has great technique, a great imagination, and a wonderful ability to transfer those great thoughts to the medium, and is indeed worthy of you folks giving her gallery a look, and see if she is someone you would like to watch. To watch grow, to watch mature in both skill and wisdom.

Cheers on the work, Jeers on the shameless self promotion.

This critique also appears here: www.guyvestal.com/home/2014/09…