CRITIQUE REVISITED

More on that troublesome painting. After posting my first revision, I get another critique, one that addresses my feeling of the clouds being too solid. I feel that I should do something about it. I want to do something. I go to the studio to see if the paint is still wet. It is, just. I can still fix it. But something makes me delay, and I go downstairs and spend two hours studying Spanish. After which there is no more time....
Okay, clearly I am avoiding the issue. Is this fear of digging into the painting, or am I avoiding changing what is really fine? I send this question out, and put it from my mind. Within a half hour, thinking no more about the problem, it is clear that the image on the canvas is keeping me from seeing what might be.
I get up the next morning (it is still wet... whew!) and scrape the troublesome cloud down. The ghosted first version retains my base design, while giving me clear space to apply fresh color and paint with a fresh mind.
This constructive/destructive/reconstructive process is something I rarely do, but it is surprisingly freeing

RESPONDING TO CRITIQUE

Every once in a while, every artist runs across a painting with some element that’s just not quite right. This happens more often when you’re just beginning, and less and less over time. It still happens to me.

There tricks for getting a fresh look at your work– turn it upside down, let it sit for a week, and so on. When they all fail, sometimes an outside opinion helps. And sometimes it doesn’t.

I meet regularly with a group of professional artists for critique. These folks are really good at spotting composition problems. So when I was stumped over the painting currently on my easel (above), I took the problem to my meeting. I also got critiques from some other folks. Here is what people said about it (paraphrased, filtered and interpreted):
*The land and the lower clouds are really peaceful, but the swooping shapes in the upper sky are distracting. Take them out and the whole thing will be really peaceful.
*The sky is great. Leave it alone. On the land, the large dark shape is too busy and makes a big M. Maybe take it down a notch, or break it up some.

At first glance, these two comments look like they conflict. Someone must be wrong. Unless you put this in a greater context. The strong values and shapes in the lower land conflict with the strong shapes in the sky. One has to be the star. What should I do? I go back to my original intent: to express the movement of the large sky and relative insignificance of the land. The sky stays. I break up the dark shape and soften some of its edges. I lose a little of the depth in the landscape, but gain emphasis in the sky.

Then I punch some air into the middle bank of clouds and make them more irregular... the thing that was bothering me in the first place, which no one commented on.

So how do you respond to critique? Ask yourself how it fits with your original intent. Do you want to go in a new direction, suggested by the painting, or hold to your first idea? Knowing what your painting is about, that is key.