Fighting for Survival

[Snuzin Susan]

MY IMAGE(S):



GENERAL INFORMATION:
Title: Fighting for Survival (Please Move to Structured)
Year Created:
Medium: Etching
Surface: Board
Dimension: 9''x12''
Allow digital alterations?: Yes!

MY COMMENTS:
This is my latest piece that took my about five months of on again off again work to complete. I will be sending it off to Colorado in January for a Scratchboard art show. It was done on Ampersand board with primarily a scalpel blade. I already know the claws on the one bear are missing, and I will work to try to get those back in there. The piece is based off of a reference photo taken by Mark Bowman here http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_bowman/2600212692/ and it is the first piece I've done that has any real action to it.

MY QUESTIONS FOR THE GROUP:
I'm interested to know that does the fact that the eyes of either animal aren't a major player in the composition effect the piece negatively? Considering its a medium shot of the animals I wasn't sure if that lack of real eye contact looses any sort of impact or emotion the viewer might have?

[KD Art]

Hi Susan - for me the focus of this work in the absence of eyes becomes the 'duelling paws' - a powerful enough focus in my opinion. The texture of the fur also adds to the dynamic action of the bears and I think the pose is very natural, as taken from its reference. Good luck with show! Kat

[mkillough]

The paw of the bear on my left is pointing straight toward the eyes of the bear on my right; which draws me to them...
and his eyes are in direct contact with the other bear; as they should be. He's in a fight for his life! I can feel the awesome power of the two.

Maryq

[Dana Design]

Copied to Structured.

[LarrySeiler]

Susan...

I try not to look where a piece is going...or its purpose per se. I'm interested to see an artist challenged, to grow stronger as an artist.

I did wildlife art professionally for about 20 years, nothing else. I still do works for organizations like Ruffed Grouse Society, Ducks Unlimited, and some state stamp competitions...but I opted to get out of the studio (indoors) after 17 years of it realizing I was indoors painting about what I loved being "outdoors"

Took me awhile to see the dichotomy, but thing is...painting from life taught me to see qualities about "light" itself, and to think thru other issues.

For example...I've seen artists with tremendous time put into painting a large hawk or owl, or birds in general...content they captured the detail of vermiculation, but missing the most important detail of the bird which is "softness"

Stopping at literal visual detail but missing softness of fur, or feathers...is missing a critical crucial pertinent fact.

Secondly...the issue that identifies problems about 90% of the time is that related to values. Something not quite right tends to fall on things not being light enough, dark enough...and so forth.

Here is your piece blurred...as I would squint my eyes to often see and judge things like values-



Having the values appear at their full possibility...you should definitely feel masses coming forward toward the eye, masses that are going back into space. It should sense to pop. If things appear muddled or confusing...then the values would require IMO greater work or tweaking.

That being said...I can't feel the forward arms or paws projecting forward nor the snout of the bear on the right...any nearer to my eye than those parts of say the head on the bear of the left that should be farther back from the eye.

My suggestion then would be to increase the lighter values of the paws or parts nearer except where each bear may cast a shadow upon the other.

It is better that light depict near and far and the "softness" of the fur, losing some detail of the clumps from wet fur...at least, that's my opinion anyway.

take care