|
Michael G. earlier alluded to the recently implemented process for vetting applicants who wish to post work for critique. This was responsive to a concern that too many fundamentally flawed pieces were showing up, and overtaxing critiquers' time and other members' interest levels. (Note: This is NOT in the nature of a "jurying" of individual pieces for critique.)
It is not an easy process, either philosophically or practically. We want to be able to provide valuable consideration of and instruction on a range of matters pertaining to high-quality portraiture, but it's not practicable to substitute this Forum for full-curriculum, hands-on art training all the way back to Day One. What we're generally hoping to see more of in the Critiques section is work that presents issues the discussion of which will be of the greatest benefit to the largest number of members, in addition to the more focused and sophisticated elements that may be of particular interest to the serious, working professional.
As pointed out, there's no use instructing on how to paint the "perfect eye" if we can see that you're trying to put it on a formless head. (If the head is formless, then it follows that you won't understand the form of the eye, either.) And more and more often now, when a fundamental problem such as the inability to express form is apparent, you're going to hear critiquers simply suggest the pursuit of training in those fundamentals with an able teacher in a classroom or workshop setting, or by reference to certain types of basic exercises and projects. This has to be done, though it's one of the areas that can generate the sorts of misgivings and hard feelings that are part of the subject of this thread, though that is never the intent.
The other side of the coin is that
|