For the first time in 12 years of working as a cultural studies expert, I've come across an ad for a model! Thank you, Ekaterina, for the amazing painting and your wonderful understanding of ethics!
The frame is aesthetically pleasing. But there are also some things I didn't like. 1. There's not enough air in the frame...read: too tight framing...even simply adding a frame noticeably adds volume to the frame. 2. The highlights on the model's face are lacking detail, turning her face into a flat, lifeless mask. The same goes for the hands. The result is too-sharp edges...no transitions between light and shadow. 3. The detailing at the bottom of the frame...the hand and the pattern on the dress distract from the main focus of the composition. 4. The NLU keys have noticeable X-rays. Overall, I liked the lighting...the chosen TS...the model's pose, which overall created an artistic image...it definitely came out right.
Alexander Zeonoff, are you sure that eliminating the "shortcomings" you listed won't kill the artistic imagery and expressiveness of the work?
babka.ru, I suspect it "won't kill"...but will add a bit of painterly quality and "air" to the work. Otherwise, why would I pay attention to these shortcomings? Here, as in everything, the decisive factor is Bryulovsky's "little bit"...it is the line separating the artist from the artisan. An opinion...one of many, nothing more. I could be wrong.
Alexander Zeonoff, but my experience tells me it will! It's quite foolish to judge original works by banal standards... I'll take your typical landscape artist's comment as an eloquent example of illiterate criticism... May I!?
Alexander Zeonoff, but my experience tells me it will kill! It's quite foolish to judge original works by banal standards... I'll take your typical landscape artist's comment as an eloquent example of illiterate criticism... May I!?
babka.ru, you just want to spam. I've expressed my opinion, and that's enough. It's up to the author to judge. For the rest, I'm sorry, but don't count me out.
The frame has an aesthetic appeal. But there are also some things I didn't like. 1. There's not enough air in the frame...read: too tight framing...even simply adding a frame noticeably adds volume to the frame. 2. The highlight details on the model's face are lost - they've turned her face into a flat, lifeless mask. The same goes for the hands. The result is too-sharp edges...no transitions between light and shadow. 3. The detailing at the bottom of the frame...the hand-pattern on the dress distracts from the composition's main focus. 4. The keys in the NLU have noticeable X-rays. Overall, I liked the lighting...the chosen TS...the model's pose, which overall created an artistic image...it definitely worked.
Alexander Zeonoff, Alexander, a look from the outside. You're starting to look like Kaledin. But Kaledin can't be fixed, and in your case, not all is lost. For some reason, you also try to criticize works you don't understand or don't feel. All those "killed or underdeveloped shadows," etc. There's no need to work on them; they don't need to be perfect, clear, or sharp. In photo stocks and glossy magazines, everything is clear and sharp, and the shadows are well-developed, but these photos somehow make me feel a little sick.
The frame has an aesthetic appeal. But there are also some things I didn't like. 1. There's not enough air in the frame...read: too tight framing...even simply adding a frame noticeably adds volume to the frame. 2. The highlight details on the model's face are lost - they've turned her face into a flat, lifeless mask. The same goes for the hands. The result is too-sharp edges...no transitions between light and shadow. 3. The detailing at the bottom of the frame...the hand-pattern on the dress distracts from the composition's main focus. 4. The keys in the NLU have noticeable X-rays. Overall, I liked the lighting...the chosen TS...the model's pose, which overall created an artistic image...it definitely worked. Alexander Zeonoff, Alexander, a look from the outside. You're starting to look like Kaledin. But Kaledin can't be fixed, and in your case, not all is lost. For some reason, you're also trying to criticize works you don't understand or don't feel. All these "killed or underdeveloped shadows," etc. There's no need to work on them; they don't need to be perfect, clear, and sharp. Everything on photo stocks and in glossy magazines is clear and sharp, and the shadows are well-developed, but these photos make me feel a little sick for some reason.
Vlad, Thanks for "not all is lost." Everything else is your opinion, and I heard it. Regarding "killed or underdeveloped shadows"... I didn't say such nonsense. I said the exact opposite... about the loss of detail in the highlights, as a result of which the face turned into a mask, and I really didn't like that. That's what I wrote about. Otherwise, I'm not going to argue with you.
on the loss of detail in the highlights, resulting in the face turning into a mask
Alexander Zeonoff, that's a good thing, it's precisely this (the absence of unnecessary details) that adds conventionality and symbolism. Conventionality and symbolism detract from the excessive realism of the presentation of the material (object), elevating the image to a new level.
Alexander Zeonoff, that's good, that's precisely what (the absence of unnecessary details) adds to the conventionality and symbolism. Conventionality and symbolism detract from the excessive realism of the presentation of the material (object), elevating the image to a new level.
Marina Glebova, I won't argue, because there's no accounting for taste. The methods for achieving artistic expression vary, and why not... I'm talking about "conventionality and symbolism." I'm speaking for my own perception. And I wrote honestly. Why should I deceive myself? This isn't an attempt to impose my opinion on the forum, but simply the exercise of the opportunity provided by the rules to express it. Whether someone likes this opinion or not is a personal matter for the reader. Let's proceed from there.
Alexander Zeonoff, I wasn't characterizing your opinion. It's just a dialogue. You express your opinion, I'll express mine.
As for tastes, that's a different matter. Let's say I like or dislike a certain image, but (!) regardless, I can determine whether the author has crossed the line separating artistic imagery from the everyday depiction of an object. That's the point. It's a certain degree of conventionality (symbolism) that elevates an image to the level of artistic representation. This conventionality can be achieved through various methods and to varying degrees, but without it, any image will remain merely a realistic depiction of the object.
Alexander Zeonoff, I wasn't characterizing your opinion. It's just a dialogue. You have your opinion, I'll have mine.
As for tastes, that's a different matter. Let's say I like or dislike an image, but (!) regardless, I can determine whether the author has crossed the line separating artistic imagery from the everyday depiction of an object. That's the point. It's a certain degree of conventionality (symbolism) that elevates an image to the level of artistic representation. This conventionality can be achieved through different methods and to varying degrees, but without it, any image will remain merely a realistic depiction of the object.
Marina Glebova, I understand what you're saying. The goal is the same—the methods for achieving an artistic image are different. To be consistent in my assessment of this work, I view it from the perspective of its painterly style... It's closer to a linear style, meaning a graphic quality predominates, especially in those moments where light and shadow define the line. This essentially deprives the work of its painterly quality and relegates it to a poster-like quality, essentially approaching a playbill (roughly speaking). I don't know if I've explained my point accurately.
In this work, it's closer to a linear style, meaning the graphic element predominates, especially in those moments where light and shadow draw the line. This essentially deprives the work of its painterly quality and relegates it to a poster-like style, essentially a playbill.
Alexander Zeonoff, I agree about the graphic element. Graphic elements are certainly worth mentioning here, since watercolor, ink, and pastel are all considered graphic mediums, not paintings. But I don't see any poster-like quality here, much less a playbill.
Playcast "~~~ TWO SOULS ~~~"
http://www.playcast.ru/view/9956617/6cf13570830595d503cf4d1369732f14bff273b1pl
http://www.stihi.ru/2016/06/16/2286
1. There's not enough air in the frame...read: too tight framing...even simply adding a frame noticeably adds volume to the frame.
2. The highlights on the model's face are lacking detail, turning her face into a flat, lifeless mask. The same goes for the hands. The result is too-sharp edges...no transitions between light and shadow.
3. The detailing at the bottom of the frame...the hand and the pattern on the dress distract from the main focus of the composition.
4. The NLU keys have noticeable X-rays.
Overall, I liked the lighting...the chosen TS...the model's pose, which overall created an artistic image...it definitely came out right.
Otherwise, why would I pay attention to these shortcomings? Here, as in everything, the decisive factor is Bryulovsky's "little bit"...it is the line separating the artist from the artisan. An opinion...one of many, nothing more. I could be wrong.
It's quite foolish to judge original works by banal standards...
I'll take your typical landscape artist's comment as an eloquent example of illiterate criticism... May I!?
You express your opinion, I'll express mine.
As for tastes, that's a different matter. Let's say I like or dislike a certain image, but (!) regardless, I can determine whether the author has crossed the line separating artistic imagery from the everyday depiction of an object. That's the point. It's a certain degree of conventionality (symbolism) that elevates an image to the level of artistic representation. This conventionality can be achieved through various methods and to varying degrees, but without it, any image will remain merely a realistic depiction of the object.