Results 1 to 4 of 4
June 18th, 2004 #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Vancouver, WA
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Watercolor sketches (vague nudity etcetera)
These are more or less some watercolor sketches I've done, to improve my coloring ability, which was previously (very) lacking.
The first three are/were for a school project, and I don't have the originals with me, only the prints I made. So, they look worse as a picture from a print, but whatever...you get the general idea. We had to title them to. I hate titling things. Almost as much as I hate watercolors (and suck at them). So anyways, the quality (of the pictures, but especially the pictures of them, is very shaky). 1st is goauche with colored pencils, 2nd and 3rd are watercolor with colored pencils over them.
1. The Baby-Doll is Mine.
2. Texas Madonna
Ok. Good. Now I don't have to name them, and will just post sketches with watercolors (+colored pencil over them).
She was originally having sex, vaguely, but I decided that since I did it during school (art) it probably wasn't a good idea. so anyways. whatever.
Anyways, yeah. I'm still developing, obviously. Just turned 16. This site makes me depressed. Still...
Anyways, of course, critiques are really appreciated (as in, tear me up / kill my crits please)
~.cfb, proud member of the Middle Class.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberJune 18th, 2004 #2
I'm not much of a personal fan of watercolors, either. When I put paint down, I want it to stay there and not run around the paper. But that's more of a problem with my technique than with watercolors. There are some watercolor artist who do amazing work, so it can be done.
Anyway, you've got a great artistic ability. It's easy to see. You have a sense of proportion and design which is the foundation of good art, regardless of the medium. You have the vision and you make it look effortless. That's good.
The paintings are a little muddy, but you can see that already. That's the first part of getting better as an artist: seeing what's wrong. The second part is making it right. Making it right, in your case, is just technique, and that's easy to fix with patience and practice.
Don't get too frustrated with your work. You've got the talent, you just need to focus your craft. Work on your skills. I'm afraid there's no solution to that but heads-down, finger-blistering work, but if you love what you're doing, it's not work at all.
June 18th, 2004 #3
edit: I posted this reply after just looking and not reading what you had to say .cfb.
Nice. Those first three are intensely awesome. I looks like you used some sort of non-white paper for these, is that correct? And did you use watercolor pencils in part?
Well, what stands out in "baby-doll' is the blocky-ness of her hair. It looks like you used the same flat brush on the whole pic. In fact it looks like you let the width of your brush determine shadow weight instead the intensity of the light source in the pic, and speaking of which, the lighting on the doll's face is different than the lighting in the rest of the pic. From the way the star is set up in this peice you can't see the fifth point -- i.e. tell it's a star and not part of her head -- but I think you got around that quite well with the color of the star. It separates the figure from the star.
On "Texas" I thought the halo was a sombrero at first. The halo shouldn't have a gap of gold in the middle. I don't know what's up with her arm and it looks like she's pregnant. Which she very well could be -- I realize you may have intended that for your "Madonna" -- lastly, her wrist is too small. Again, could be intended so I apologize if this is the case. What I love about this piece is the color work here. A definite step above the first. It also looks like you didn't worry about letting the colors flow out of the body at the bottom. I like that.
"mist", in my opinion up until here your work is getting better and better. What separtes this from the first two watercolors is the absence of the black lines. I can't see if you used a pencil sketch to start this one or not, but I like that all I can see is water color (and or watercolor pencil). I can see waves in her hair and the structure of her body. What separates this one from the two below it is the more sophisticated color choice -- the last two watercolors get murky. Blend too well. Also, one of the technical considerations of using watercolor, that is, crap, how do I say this... Master watercolorists use as few brush strokes as possible and let the paper come through the color. The last two watercolors cover the whole page with color; "mist" leaves portions of the page untouched. This really makes the work that much better in my opinion.
Keep with it dude, and don't let my crits discourage you. Honestly I think you can sell these. Lord knows the coffee houses down here try and sell local artists work that is way crappy in comparison to yours, for $200 a picture no less. So...
edit: hey, .cfb, thanks for posting this because my reply just made me a "swordsman"... which does not sound better than "veteran" in retrospect...
"Cowboys Never Quit" -Hank Gritt
July 21st, 2004 #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
the 3rd-5th i like...these show the most promise with the waterclrs (they say, hey, i don't suck at this...) i'm biased, cause i like pictures of unfrocked women...but the 3rd one i like the best...that's damn cool...i'm almost positive these three would sell like hotcakes in bulk if you got the right venue...very "hiplike"....neat imp: