 |
02-15-2005, 03:09 PM
|
#1
|
Approved Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,730
|
I also like the cool simplicity and elegance of it.
I went back to my latest nascent oeuvre and after seeing yours; mine looks like a Degas pastiche as envisioned by Mary Poppins of Shirley Temple.
|
|
|
02-15-2005, 03:28 PM
|
#2
|
SOG & FORUM OWNER
Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Posts: 2,129
|
At the moment, we do have a Nudes Critiques section Linda. As you choose.
|
|
|
02-15-2005, 03:32 PM
|
#3
|
Juried Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 671
|
Everything works here. Beautifully done, composition, pose, model, colors etc.!
__________________
"Lord, grant that I may always desire more than I can accomplish"-Michelangelo
jimmie arroyo
www.jgarroyo.com
|
|
|
02-15-2005, 04:39 PM
|
#4
|
Juried Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: 8543-dk Hornslet, Denmark
Posts: 1,642
|
Beautiful blond colors. Everything is fine.
Reminds me about Turners late pictures, that I
|
|
|
02-15-2005, 05:24 PM
|
#5
|
Juried Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 328
|
I love this Linda. I went to your website to see the whole thing back when you posted the head in Unveilings. I've gone back to view it often. I really like how relaxed and comfortable the subject looks. I also really like the other seated nude you have on your site.
I am very interested in hearing about those "pitfalls" you mentioned above. Could you explain further what pits you fell into?
Thanks,
__________________
Janel Maples
|
|
|
02-15-2005, 05:52 PM
|
#6
|
SENIOR MODERATOR SOG Member FT Professional, Author '03 Finalist, PSofATL '02 Finalist, PSofATL '02 1st Place, WCSPA '01 Honors, WCSPA Featured in Artists Mag.
Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,481
|
Gorgeous!
I am lucky enough to have seen this original, and the color is both lush and subtle, not so easy to co-exist. Can youpost more detaiils?
Thanks for this great contribution to the new section.
|
|
|
02-15-2005, 07:28 PM
|
#7
|
Juried Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,734
|
Cynthia, I don't need as much help with this one - it's been done for a while and I can't stand the thought of going back to it - as I do with my next one.
Sharon, your current project sounds intriging but I'll bet you're wrong about the Shirley Temple allusion.
Janel, it seems to me that you have to have a certain amount of either passivity or detachment in the nude's manner in order for he/she to be "presentable". So it seems to me, on one hand, that you have to turn the gaze or the face, or both, away from the viewer. (Look how much trouble Manet got into with "Olympia".) Additionally you have to subdue the painterly line and emphasize the volume (Ingres) or emphasize the painterly line and subdue the volume (give me a minute to think about this one). If you have an energetic line and lush volume you get something that borders on vulgar, or at least something that makes people uncomfortable.
It's okay to make people uncomfortable, or at least it's okay with me for art to make people uncomfortable, but that's not within the scope of "classic nude", and anyway I'm not trying to make people uncomfortable.
That's my first problem. The second problem is that this painting is just too large and demands too much attention.
My third problem is that I started painting nudes to learn anatomy and the most interesting part for me so far has been painting skin, which is different from painting "anatomy".
Jimmie, Allan and Chris, thank you for your kind comments!
|
|
|
02-15-2005, 08:02 PM
|
#8
|
SOG Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Southboro, MA
Posts: 1,028
|
Just beautiful Linda! The colors, the subtlety of the flesh tones, everything. I especially like how you captured the warm pink, almost translucentness of her fingers. . . and the natural relaxed-ness of her pose.
Was this painted from life?
|
|
|
02-15-2005, 08:27 PM
|
#9
|
Juried Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Portland, ME
Posts: 197
|
Yep, it's sure a lot more skin than your regular head-and-hands portrait.
Linda, you already know how much I like this piece. The "sensuous line", as it were, need not be provocative as much as evocative. Here, the sense of "languor" is certainly evoked. As I'd mentioned to you before - the most sensual aspect in this piece stems from what is not revealed as opposed to what is. The piano shawl itself is a sensual, flowing object, and is an integral part of this work, as opposed to a mere prop.
I've only seen a few Sanden and Schmid nudes, but they seem to fall into the more painterly/less volume category (off the top of my head). Shanks' nudes are very engaging: direct gazes with energetic lines & very volumetric - but to me they convey more of a sense of character along the lines of a portrait. But then you have to keep in mind that this is what I've tried to go for in my figurative work, so it's really in the eye of the beholder.
I don't think there's a standard formula for an "inoffensive nude", meaning that, if someone wants to find something offensive in it, they will find it no matter how conservative the piece. Don't be put off by those who may have hangups about the human body, or piano shawls for that matter
__________________
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."
- J.R.R. Tolkien
[COLOR=Green]Sl
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing this Topic: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 PM.
|