Quote:
|
I will be going over it again, particularly the field since that is bothering me, and all suggestions are welcome.
|
Hi Hanna,
I rarely comment on your work, simply because it is so extraordinary that I can rarely find any fault, and anyway I no longer work in pastel. I do think the "red pants" problem was there and has been very nicely resolved through advices you've said came from a Forum professional, Chris Saper. Many who haven't worked with pastel don't appreciate that things can be "fixed up" in that medium, just as they can in oils, and sometimes much more easily. It depends on the tooth of the paper you're using, of course, and how much you've asked of it.
One of my instructor's paintings, which I wish I'd been in a financial position to purchase at the time, included a field similar to yours. (His was full of the highlight of a U.S. midwestern flower known as coneflower, named for its shape, in various colors. I have several in my sketchbooks from summers past.) Since you've wondered what you might do with this, my only suggestion has to do with detail (based on the painting I'm thinking of). I think you've carried detail too far into the background. Every viewer will gladly "give" you all the grass stems and flowers in the distant background, and even in the mid-background. Don't work hard to carry that detail quite so far back. It's actually counterproductive, in that it attracts attention away from the figure, who is your focus.
To the same effect, soften that horizon line. Toss some greens up into the near sky, and some sky blues into a reflection in the grass. Keep it subtle, but soften the transition.
You've never posted anything here that wasn't just very very good and a pleasure for us to have a look at.