Feel free to share a thought. Both paintings are based on pencil drawings by Lars kramh°ft. Time; one hour each
The second one is a bit big for the screen but generally, they both look okay. I'm no expert though so take my comments with a pinch of salt.
I don't know. They just seem a bit flat and bland. The first one works better because it heads more towards abstraction with the colours and shapes, but the second one reads off somehow. Like a broken down cartoon? I don't know, that's the only way I can describe it.
Maybe for the next ones, concentrate a bit more in getting life into them and bringing them together as a whole painting rather than placed patches and strokes of colour.
Anyway, no idea if that makes sense, and others with more experience might disagree, but I hope it helps a little.
Will somebody please tell me the point of speed painting? I mean, I get if you're awesome at it and that's how you do all your work. And I get if you do it to quickly rough out some ideas that you then don't show anybody. But as a genre of painting, I'm stumped. So you did this thing really, really fast. Um, yay?
Okay. Never mind. Rant over. Nothing personal on your images, AndHus. I'm going to pretend these are quick preliminary drawings you're going to flesh out. In which case, these are a good start.
Big, chunky, opaque blocks of more or less the right color in more or less the right place, these would be a good foundation to build off. Too much painting (including mine) starts off with little widdly stringy uncertain scribbles and dabs.
I was once on the receiving end of a critique so savagely nasty, I marched straight out of class to the office and changed my major (sketchbook).
Speed paintings are more or less just the painting equivilent of a rough charcoal sketch. They're great in a professional production environment because speed is king and t hey convey the general idea and mood well. Also sometimes you have an idea that you like enough to paint, but not enough to spend 20 hrs on.