|
Wow, feet to the fire. You're a serious student, and I feel terribly unworthy to counsel you. You realize, of course, that I'm not a real doctor, I only play one on TV. (I don't even have a Master's! -- Dr. Science and I just hang out. I wish.)
Let me say merely that upon first viewing the initial post, my 'composition" thoughts were that the mother's and baby's postures -- spines, if you will -- were parallel, both riding hard across the same angles of the piece. Even with the relief of the mother's hand, it wasn't much relief. Mom's head to baby's head to Mom's hand is only at a slightly different angle of the same line, running hard out of the picture. It's like streaks of shooting stars through the night sky.
Mom's hair drops straight down our left side, almost a hard frame -- but that's not what you want. (Some of the variation that you obviously searched for in the hair-to-cheek contact might have been sought in the left (ours) of the hair mass.)
All I can say is that some kind of circular or roundabout visual track would serve you well. It's hard to say how the constellations might have been better arranged to suit the zodiac. But I think a turn, with more of Mom and less of child, might have been a place to start.
If I were a computer whiz, I'd 3D turn this to focus on Mom's expression and less on the baby's full-on expression. Let's face it -- except to dads, grandmas, other interested parties -- babies kind of look alike, from any angle. I think that this is a portrait of Mom, with infant. (Yes, okay, maybe a Madonna and Child, as long as we're not talking about THAT Madonna and THAT child.) I'd give the infant less importance, artistically.
But I only practice medicine on TV, and art-talk here. Did I say that? (All pros reading who would like to consult, now is the time.)
P.S. I knew about your greeting card reference. I was goofing.
|