Circle of life

Latest oil painting on panel 16 x 12 inches,  maybe I should take it along to the Cop 26.
ArtGal

Comments

  • those emerald greens are really stunning! I hope you don’t mind a little critique; I would say to add a little bit of that color to the shadow areas of the lions, to make it a bit more uniform ☺️
  • those emerald greens are really stunning! I hope you don’t mind a little critique; I would say to add a little bit of that color to the shadow areas of the lions, to make it a bit more uniform ☺️
    Thanks Tinafigarist, no I don't mind I will add more colour to those areas,  many thanks .
  • Did you take the photo yourself?
    I get the feeling you have made a good start, but have more to do to make these animals realistic. If you were aiming for a flat, poster effect, I do apologise.    At the moment, they give me a blocked in look that has a flat feel to it.   Do these animals have a musculoskeletal system?  As a viewer, I am looking for signs these shapes are representing realistic animals.  Bones and tendons in the feet and legs, lovely curves and shadows in the planes of the face, the spine and ribs creating depth, the skin tight where it is stretched over the stifle and wrinkling in places it would do naturally etc...
      
    I think wild animals are harder than pets and humans.    Because we are intimately familiar with humans and pets, we see them daily from all angles, run our hands over them and appreciate them as real 3D beings.   Animals from photographs, or wild animals where the anatomy is not as well known to us, can be extremely difficult to do well.    I think this is why the anatomy of humans and birds and other animals was so important to many of the great masters from history.

    It is difficult sometimes for viewers to know where the artist is heading with a painting and it does help if a little bit of background accompanies the photograph of the work when posted.

  • toujours said:
    Did you take the photo yourself?
    I get the feeling you have made a good start, but have more to do to make these animals realistic. If you were aiming for a flat, poster effect, I do apologise.    At the moment, they give me a blocked in look that has a flat feel to it.   Do these animals have a musculoskeletal system?  As a viewer, I am looking for signs these shapes are representing realistic animals.  Bones and tendons in the feet and legs, lovely curves and shadows in the planes of the face, the spine and ribs creating depth, the skin tight where it is stretched over the stifle and wrinkling in places it would do naturally etc...
      
    I think wild animals are harder than pets and humans.    Because we are intimately familiar with humans and pets, we see them daily from all angles, run our hands over them and appreciate them as real 3D beings.   Animals from photographs, or wild animals where the anatomy is not as well known to us, can be extremely difficult to do well.    I think this is why the anatomy of humans and birds and other animals was so important to many of the great masters from history.

    It is difficult sometimes for viewers to know where the artist is heading with a painting and it does help if a little bit of background accompanies the photograph of the work when posted.

    Thanks, it was painted from a photograph, I have said in the past postings about my poor photograph skills when I take photos of my paintings to be posted on this forum that it becomes like an excuse, when I look at my painting then look at the photo that I have taken of it I can see the photo omits certain fur details especially in the male lions mane and also the background doesn't show up as well, still thanks for your comments they are valuable. 
  • cbor47 said
    Thanks, it was painted from a photograph, I have said in the past postings about my poor photograph skills when I take photos of my paintings to be posted on this forum that it becomes like an excuse, when I look at my painting then look at the photo that I have taken of it I can see the photo omits certain fur details especially in the male lions mane and also the background doesn't show up as well, still thanks for your comments they are valuable. 
    Yes, lots of us have difficulty photographing paintings.   It is never a complete representation of the original. 
     However, were this mine, I would not worry about the mane not being depicted correctly.   I think the more basic anatomy of each animal needs more clear depiction before focusing on the fluff of the mane.   I think you will be amazed at the difference if you do an anatomical study of your subjects and translate it to the canvas in paint.
  • this is the  photo I painted from, thanks for your comments much appreciated. 
  • I can see the attraction, a delightful photo.   Interesting that their focus is each somewhere different.
    cbor47
Sign In or Register to comment.