Viking Duel Painting - Oils

[Phil Moss]

Hi all,
I've been working on this painting for a few weeks (click here (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=120731) to see work in progress in studies section) and I think I'd like to call it finished now before I go over time, and I'd like to move on to something new.
I'm actually quite pleased with this for a change, perhaps the first large colour oil that I have been. I made a deliberate effort to include a large natural background as my work so far consists of nothing but figures in most cases. I tried to leave it loose so as not to detract to much from the action which, at the end of the day, is what it's about.

333071
Note: Forgive the bad cropping, I'll edit in a better photograph tomorrow - it's going dark already so I've had to stop painting and photographing for the day

It's a portfolio piece with no function other than a layout of a book cover style image. I'm pretty sure all the kit is authentic, one could debate the short hair on the foremost guy, but I've never really given much credit to people who claim all people in one time period had the same haircut!! That's my excuse anyway!

I'll take all comments and critique as always, like I've said I'd like to call this finished, but still, critique will be helpful for the future, especially if there are mistakes I've made (I can spot a few unalterable ones myself, but perhaps it's not wise to highlight them from the start!!:D)

Cheers Chaps,

Phil.

[Elwell]

Now that it's done, I have to say I dislike the purple guy up top more than ever. Contrasts draws attention, and he has contrast of texture (brushy against smooth), value (dark against light), color (he's PURPLE!), and shape (humanoid against the vertical rhythm of the trees). Additionally, he's smack dab in the middle, with the diagonals of the hill and branches pointing straight at him. All of these combine to make him the undisputed focus of the composition, and the two main guys in the foreground become secondary.

[Jason Rainville]

Now that it's done, I have to say I dislike the purple guy up top more than ever. Contrasts draws attention, and he has contrast of texture (brushy against smooth), value (dark against light), color (he's PURPLE!), and shape (humanoid against the vertical rhythm of the trees). Additionally, he's smack dab in the middle, with the diagonals of the hill and branches pointing straight at him. All of these combine to make him the undisputed focus of the composition, and the two main guys in the foreground become secondary.

All valid and I of course don't disagree, but is it BAD that he is the centre of attention? The focus is on him for sure, but is there a reason why the background guy can't be what the image is about?

[Elwell]

All valid and I of course don't disagree, but is it BAD that he is the centre of attention? The focus is on him for sure, but is there a reason why the background guy can't be what the image is about?
1. I know from the WIP thread that that wasn't Phil's intention. ("I tried to leave it loose so as not to detract to much from the action which, at the end of the day, is what it's about.")
2. If he is meant to be the center of interest, he's sloppily painted.
3. Since this was worked up as a cover sample, the type would run right over him.

[kev ferrara]

PM, you made a real nice effort on this, so bravo!

Crit:

I think the biggest thing I see missing is that your main bit of action just sits on the bottom of the picture like posed dolls. You can't think of your pictures as people posing. The whole work of art is "posing". You have to think of your figures as part of the grand gesture of the piece, not as incidents in a landscape. The point is to create a total effect.

This relates to the graphic design problem in this piece. The most obvious silhouette is the secondary figure at the top. If you had made the silhouettes of the lower figures as strong, you would have had a better picture.

Bring every element of your picture into the action. Find the drama in everything. And do whatever it takes to convey the energy of the figures to the audience.

In my opinion, you must be more emotionally forceful and project yourself more into your scene. You must smell the blood and feel your own heart racing with the drama of the moment.

kev

[Elwell]

PM, you made a real nice effort on this, so bravo!

Agreed.

[Angroc]

I love the colours!

Nicely done;)

[NathanLong]

Good work, Phil.
I agree with Ewell's compositional crit. Here's a couple more.

1 - The main figures don't pop out of the background enough. Their edges get lost. The axe head of the man facing us is almost invisible. As is the raised glove of the man with his back to us.

2 - The man with his back to us is holding his axe at mid-haft. Someone trying to kill someone else with an axe would hold it as close to the end of the haft as possible for more leverage. This might be a compositional problem as, if he was holding it correctly, it would go off the edge of the picture.

[Phil Moss]

Firstly - Thanks all for comments so far!

Elwell, hit the nail on the head, I've re-jigged the hilltop chap - I can't remove him, or repaint the background without re-doing all the trees, but I've made him a bit less stark:

333154

I think this helps a little. It perhaps needs a sepia wash over the background, as it's a bit 'white' once johnny trumpet is dry.

Kev, thanks again for such a thorough critique, I have to admit your 'posing figures' comment is true, i focussed on getting figures with dynamic poses, then filled in the background, rather than judge the composition and dynamism of the entire painting

Jason - you're right, the guy at the back could well have been the centre character - however, I don't like to fib, this wasn't my intention!!! Bugger!! Though there's nothing wrong with changing the direction halway through, I did tell myself to do a book cover, but just got carried away.

Cheers all,
Phil

Edit: Nathan, sorry, missed your post. I had a lot of troubles with both the axe head and glove as youve said, I need to look at them more. Regards the axe, I could be pedantic and say this chaps hand axe is rather large for the period and having fought with such weapons, he's using it sensibley as holding an axe at its tip is rather unwieldy, HOWEVER your comment is just, as the viewer believes that what you've pointed out is the way it should look.
This is a case of me putting my factual head before my artistic head! Thanks for pointing it out.

[chras]

Nice work

[Rune Rask]

also, this has nothing to do with the image, rather your claim to their dressings to be authentic.

first of all, if they are vikings, they would most likely not have the luxury of chain mails, at least not in the detail it is shown here. Vikings where are rather primitive (weapon and armor vise) civilization. These two characters represent, more or less the beginning of the mediavals 400-500AD. (yes the vikings did also flurish to a certain extend in this period) but it wasnt till the beginning of 700AD that europe got to feel that vikings, despite their technology, had a rather fierce approach. and it wasnt till around 980-1100AD that "vikings" had aquired more advanced armor, through looting and plundering the british islands and northen germanics. At this time the "vikings" had already entered a era of thralldom and kings, having control over, England, sweden and norway. The danish vikings slowly took to them alot of christian tradition, and in the beginning of 1200AD the first churches where build in Denmark and Sweden. A Bishop elected to help the danish king in his holy matters and so on. so actually these where not the "vikings" as we know them from history, but just mediaval danes, whose influence on the time was equal to the holy roman emprie and the french. The "true" vikings does as such only exist in a small loop in history, around 600-800, wich was a expanding/uniting period of the danish and swedish vikings (or tribes if you will.) It is true, that throughout history these Danes where considered vikings or at least to the extend of their name. But the fact is that during the "era of vikings" (call it what you want, really) the danes had entered a medieval society, with kings, churches and landlords. And really at this time, very few babarian tribes remained to resemble the look of a true viking, the "Pints" in scotland and some highlanders from norway, still weared crude armour and leather paddings into battle around this time, bur certainly not the "vikings"/danes. So my point is, that yes they could resemble Norse warriors from the beginning of the mediavals (1100-1600) but not vikings. Should it have been vikings, they would most likely wear : long dresses, leather paddings, and helmets. The shields and the axes are acceptable though ;)

through modern times, litterature, film and theatre the vikings have been idealized to this stereotype look, some of it is true and some of it is not.

not all armor stores that sell viking outfits, and not all documentaries on discovery show true outfits of the time, just the stereotype-image.

im sorry for the long post, but i just had to spill the crap.
Vikings where barbaric tribes, that sailed around in longships, ate mushrooms and plundered kingdoms! they did not have chainmail!

Rune

[Phil Moss]

100% correct - SAXONS, not vikings. Sorry!! I'm just using vikings as a catch all for people who only know a saxon as a bad band!! These chaps are supposed to be post hastings.

My error

[Pavel Sokov]

All valid and I of course don't disagree, but is it BAD that he is the centre of attention? The focus is on him for sure, but is there a reason why the background guy can't be what the image is about?

common we all know the artist wasn't trying to make a little purple sillouette the focus of attention when he has got 2 beatifully rendered vikings fighting at the front.

[Bruce Pluto]

Phil first of all I think you have a very nice work of art there and you’ve gotten some good advice from people on the forum. Second I do have a couple crits to pass along and mind you they aren’t biggies just small little things that may, as someone has said, help to sale the pic a bit more.

1) The guy in the foreground seems a bit posed but that’s ok ( like Kev said he needs to smell the blood) but I think it might help to have him holding the axe closer to the handle end instead of midway. That would show that his intent is to deliver a blow with force a little more. Like I said ain’t no big deal though.
2) The Viking facing the viewer in the foreground. His helmet kinda gets lost in the rock behind him. That’s something that can easily be looked into. Course it’s your picture so it’s up to you to choose what you want to do and what changes you’ll make.

Like I said earlier, I like this piece. It’s nice and interesting.

Bruce

[Eldilon]

Sorry to interrupt in the thread that mainly should be about the artwork. Which I for the most part liked, even though I think the foremost figure's posture is a bit stiff, and I agree on the earlier comments on the background figure grabbing a lot of attention.


However I would like to comment on some remarks made about 'Vikings' and history in this thread. First of all, history and pre-history are always subject to debate and clear 'truths' are seldom to be found. I would however strongly disagree with some of the opinions of Rune Rask.

It is true that the period called the Viking Age (usually considered to last from ca 750-1050 AD) are a difficult one in Scandinavia. Some things are however clear even if we accept this fact.

The level of weaponry in Scandinavia at the time was not very different from the continent and chain mails did most certainly exist! The first examples of chain mails in Denmark are dated to at least 350 BC, that is 1100 years earlier than the Viking Age. In one of these early Danish weapon sacrifices, the Hjortspring find, equipment from around 100 warriors where found, 10 of these were equipped with chain mail armour!

The first churches in Denmark were built at least as early as 850 AD (for example in Hedeby), and all of (non Sami) Scandinavia could be considered Christian sometime after 1100 AD.

I am pointing this out because I did find the picture to be good from an historical/archaeological point of view. But I do NOT think it would have been a (historically) good depiction of late (1100-1600 AD) medieval Norse warriors as was suggested!

It is important to remember how little we actually know about for example clothing (or as was pointed out, hair styles) in this time period, something that actually give illustrators quite a lot of artistic freedom!

Once again sorry to comment about this in this thread, and again compliment to the artwork!