I think it was only Elizabeth and Jane at this meeting, but other people have sent in work anyway, and that's great!
First of all, ELIZABETH said "The conversation (no. 1) I worked on using my imagination from the Kings Cross Sketch, Two drawings in the café and one of reflections in a display case. "
 |
| Elizabeth no. 1 |
 |
| Elizabeth no. 2 |
 |
| Elizabeth no. 3 |
 |
| Elizabeth no. 4 |
Elizabeth, all I can say is BRILLIANT! I really love the 'Conversation' (no.1). It has a feel of Karolina Larusdottir fused with Lonia Lawson. The clever counterchange of the light table in the darker half of the picture, and the listening head of the figure against the light are superb. If I had any suggestion, and it really is very minor, I would just say that the head on the left could have been more suggested, and just let the hands do the talking (literally!).
I am really so pleased with this one, because often when you work up something for a second time, you lose what you had originally, but this time you have vastly improved on the first version. Super.
Drawings no. 3 & 4 have the same qualities, and could be spun with magic in the same way. the only one I am less sure about is no. 2. I have to think about why. Visually, the flat red and pencil areas don't really go with the little scratchy bits of drawing. However, I think more than anything, it's because it doesn't draw me in to a story. the others are like eavesdropping on a conversation - you are compelled to look in. That's why I chose those two artists to liken them to, because they have the poetic, human narrative quality to their work.
So lovely Elizabeth. I think you can truly say that you have found 'you'.
Next up we have JANE, who was also at the V&A, but then went back to the Welcome Institute.
 |
| Jane drawings from V&A |
 |
| Jane - Wellcome stairs |
Well done Jane. This version of 'stairs' is looking promising! I think we are up against 'how precise' to be again. The very formal candy-stripe on the inside of the stairs is mesmerising, but just a bit too mechanical for the rest of the painting. The rest has a slightly organic look, as done by a human hand. You need to decide. If you think about Bridget Riley paintings, they are precise to the nth degree, and that's what makes them what they are. .Tthey wouldn't work if an area was done like we know them to be, and another area was more painterly. You need to decide. This is the tightrope you walk on, being a painter and a printmaker! Are your paintings going to be like prints, or like paintings? Both valid, but not intermingled so much!
having said all that, I like the 2D / 3D discourse that you're exploring in this piece - keep that up.
Your set of drawings looks interesting, and the comments above absolutely apply to whatever you go on and do with them. the little drawing on the bottom right looks especially promising. I can't say much more about these until we see what happens next.
STEPHANIE has sent in some work, saying "still on my painting course. Have been working more slowly, and making a lot of mistakes! Currently working on a New York city streetscene which is not going too well, but am having ideas for tackling it again next week. Here are a couple: the first, white landscape needs a little more work on the right foreground — it is quite big; the second is a fairly straightforward Canadian lake scene, the third a portrait in progress."
 |
| Stephanie no. 1 |
 |
| Stephanie no. 2 |
 |
| Stephanie no.3 |
It's great to see what you're up to! Image no. 1 has a lovely soft mystery to it. I like the blue in the bottom right corner - it's a nice spike against everything else. i think the only thing you need to change, actually, is that curve of blue, over the green splodge. If that wasn't there, and the blue was just in the corner, it would all work very nicely.
No. 2 - I am less convinced by at the moment, if I'm being honest! I love the courage of the colours on the right, but then it all goes a bit soggy and splodgy on the left. Again, it seriously does come back to 'what are you trying to express?'. Is it to show that you can do large conifer trees in oils, or is it about the rocks in the foreground, or is it something to do with the layers of colours and textures in the landscape? Even if you're just experimenting with a new(ish) medium, you need to just know where you're heading in each case.
No. 3 is very much more certain in it's direction, and I like the simple colouring and the brave, strong lighting. Those strong shadows are a great way to define form (of the head, in this case). I'm assuming this is from a photo? I do like the way you've worked the subtle shine on the skin, and really got a sense of the volume of the head.
Without knowing exactly what you are being asked to do on your course, I can't comment much more, because maybe you were aiming for something specific. It's looking exciting, but just remember - what's it about??????
