Roses

Leslie Ficcaglia · 02-12-2003, 04:49 PM

This is a completed painting done several years ago which I'd like some reactions to. I won't attempt to color responses by talking about what I was trying to do, but any feedback or pointers would be appreciated.

Peter Jochems · 02-12-2003, 05:44 PM

Hi Leslie,

I think the chid has a lively expression, compliments for that!

The thing which bothers me is how dominant the roses are. The colors and brightness of the roses are very similar to the those of the face of the little girl. I personally feel that painting them darker and smaller would have been better.

Peter

Leslie Ficcaglia · 02-12-2003, 05:53 PM

Thanks for your comment, Peter. Yes, that was one of my questions: how the roses work. But I'll hold my rationale until I see if there are any other responses.

I checked out your website; nice work! I liked your portraits.

Josef Sy · 02-12-2003, 06:13 PM

Hi Leslie,

I agree with Peter on the roses. They seem to be competing with the figure. I was wondering myself how could one make the roses more on the background? Do you mute the colors? Use different colors?

Tito Champena · 02-12-2003, 07:59 PM

I don't feel qualified to critique a painting better than mine, but it's easier to be objective with somebody else's painting than our own. Just let me say this:

1-Too many centers of interests in one canvas and

2- Too much green with too little variety of color.

Michele Rushworth · 02-12-2003, 10:08 PM

The piece has a charming decorative quality. By that I mean it seems like an illustration, very flat and pretty.

It doesn't seem like the child or the roses inhabit a real three-dimensional space. There are a number of reasons for that:

1. The roses seem to exist on the same plane as the child's face, because they have the same level of detail, color and edge sharpness.

2. The faint outlines around various areas of the figure add to the flatness of the form.

3. The flat frontal lighting on the child.

4. There is a narrow range of values.

Is this what you were trying to achieve? If so, I think it's a successful decorative piece, perfect for a lovely greeting card illustration. (Having done some greeting card illustration myself, I remember the kind of thing they asked for.)

Leslie Ficcaglia · 02-12-2003, 11:59 PM

The first jpeg may have made the picture appear flatter than the original looks; this one is truer although the flesh and flower tones are missing some of their warmth and pink hue. It was completed about five years ago. I saw the child against those roses and the similarity between the textures and colors of the skin and of the petals really grabbed me, so I painted it this way; the title "Roses" refers both to the flowers and the child and I actually meant them both to have the same importance. It's a rather Victorian conceit - it's very sentimental but then, it's my grandchild. I suspect that accounts for the "greeting card" feeling that Michele pointed out.

I posted this for a critique because someone suggested that the flowers shouldn't be as prominent as the face. It sounds like the consensus here is that they shouldn't be. The point about the flatness of the planes and narrow range of values is also well taken. Thanks for all your input!

Leslie

Leslie Ficcaglia · 02-13-2003, 12:12 AM

Whoops! Here it is. This is the third adjustment but the best yet. For some reason I can't do this well myself.

Peter Jochems · 02-13-2003, 03:40 PM

Hi Leslie,

I think it depends on what you are aiming for. You said you liked the similarity between the roses and the face of the child. Without knowing that, one would say the roses are too dominant. But when you want to create a piece in which there is a rhythm or a pattern in which the roses and the child are connected, one can think about taking this more to an extreme and exaggerate the similarities between them even more. But to do this you will probably go into a whole different area than what you regularly are aiming for in painting a portrait.

I saw your work on your website. I like the idea of doing portraits outdoors. I especially like 'Linda's Garden'. Beautiful atmosphere.

Greetings,
Peter

Leslie Ficcaglia · 02-13-2003, 04:47 PM

Peter,

This wasn't a standard portrait - more of a figurative work. But if the concept wasn't conveyed as I intended it then it failed, and I need to go back and rethink what I was trying to do. A piece should be able to stand on its own without explanation; that's why I didn't try to provide a rationale when I first posted it.

The latest scan is the closest one yet to the actual painting; it's brighter and there's more contrast than in the one at the top. I don't know whether that addresses any of Michele's concerns but I can see that there should be more tonal range anyway.

Thanks for the compliment on my work. I love portraying people in settings which are meaningful for them. It adds a lot to the statement about them.