As far as I'm concerned, Rick had the last one on this one as far as technical critique goes, so my critique will be much more interpretive.
Looking through the comments on this piece, I see words like "beautiful" and "peaceful." One person described it as uplifting. And lastly, the title itself indicates that it is supposed to be a vision of paradise.
I disagree with all of this. But that is not a bad thing.
Let's put it this way: there are a lot of beautiful fractals out there, but most of them are merely beautiful. Their beauty is the only thing they have going for them, and there is nothing beneath the surface.
I don't see traditional "beauty" here, but there is a LOT going on beneath the surface! "Beautiful" is too superficial to describe this fractal. This fractal is so much deeper than "beautiful."
For instance, the colors actually look sickly to me. Something about that yellow reminds me of jaundice, and something about that pink reminds me of fever-flush. The heat-hazy shapes would be at home on the surface of Venus, and the trees look wilted. The desaturation of the sky reminds me of smog and makes me long for a gas mask.
Just to be ultra clear: none of this is a bad thing and I really, really like this fractal.
The name and the rainbow are the cherry on top. This word has been used and abused a lot lately, but I'm going to say it anyway: They make the fractal ironic.
All the elements taken together spell out a message to me: that "paradise" is subjective, that perhaps this is a ruined paradise, that perhaps lots of so-called paradises are are nothing more than a label and flashy rainbow disguising something grotesque.
Can't really fault much of anything on this one - love it! I really like the composition and the color scheme is really cool. The rainbow is the only thing that bugs me a little bit. The distant "clouds" behind it are pretty sharp-edged and it might be nice to make a mask or rev- mask to see if they can't be softened where the rainbow crosses their edges. Might be tough to do with that formula/coloring - I've used something similar and the edges/shgapes usually just are what they are and they're either there or not - no in between.
That and maybe also take a stretched, oval mask and fade the far end - and maybe the near end, too - of the rainbow for a bit more depth/realism so it doesn't look sorta "pasted in". Sorta fade it into the mist and distance. Then again, that stuff is just my own preference - we all know how afflicted I am with the realism/3D bit when I create a fractal scene, so grains of sodium chloride might be in order.
Or - just for grins, maybe take out the nearest moon and see how that looks. Or maybe even better, make it a good bit bigger - maybe even sorta "frame" the tree with it? - and dim it some so it appears at once more imposing and yet more distant. If it was large enough to extend to the horizon and the bright clouds there to the right of the tree, it would again give another impression of depth along with a couple more clouds in front of it.
Dang, for something I like so much, I'm sure coming up with a lot of ideas. One last thought - Maybe take the rainbow and make it extend out of top of the picture a bit to the right of center and to the right of the more distant moon and don't show it coming back down. The effect would be of increasing sized circles from left to right and give movement as well as lead the eye on a nice stroll across this wonderland scene: (and, preferably, to the "By Print" button at the right - lol) The tree's "circle", then the near moon's - large enough to frame the tree by a decent bit and extend to the horizon to the tree's right, and then the rainbow's huge circle (both seen and implied) dwarfing them both. Sort of 'epic grandeur' or one of those other artsy-fartsy French words - lol
Just some ideas - never really did one of these critique thingies b4. As I read over it, it occurs to me that it probably isn't much of a critique from any real art "knowledge/rules" type basis and maybe just a list of what I, personally, might try and also - since this piece sure seemed to get me imagining (evocative(?) - maybe just throwing out ideas and seeing if any stick to the wall... c-ya! Rick
Looking through the comments on this piece, I see words like "beautiful" and "peaceful." One person described it as uplifting. And lastly, the title itself indicates that it is supposed to be a vision of paradise.
I disagree with all of this. But that is not a bad thing.
Let's put it this way: there are a lot of beautiful fractals out there, but most of them are merely beautiful. Their beauty is the only thing they have going for them, and there is nothing beneath the surface.
I don't see traditional "beauty" here, but there is a LOT going on beneath the surface! "Beautiful" is too superficial to describe this fractal. This fractal is so much deeper than "beautiful."
For instance, the colors actually look sickly to me. Something about that yellow reminds me of jaundice, and something about that pink reminds me of fever-flush. The heat-hazy shapes would be at home on the surface of Venus, and the trees look wilted. The desaturation of the sky reminds me of smog and makes me long for a gas mask.
Just to be ultra clear: none of this is a bad thing and I really, really like this fractal.
The name and the rainbow are the cherry on top. This word has been used and abused a lot lately, but I'm going to say it anyway: They make the fractal ironic.
All the elements taken together spell out a message to me: that "paradise" is subjective, that perhaps this is a ruined paradise, that perhaps lots of so-called paradises are are nothing more than a label and flashy rainbow disguising something grotesque.
Now, I'm 99% sure that you did not intend that to be the "meaning" of this fractal. But I have taken to many lit crit classes to bother much with authorial intent.
So, I don't think this fractal is beautiful. But it is meaningful, and that is much more important, and much rarer.
That and maybe also take a stretched, oval mask and fade the far end - and maybe the near end, too - of the rainbow for a bit more depth/realism so it doesn't look sorta "pasted in". Sorta fade it into the mist and distance. Then again, that stuff is just my own preference - we all know how afflicted I am with the realism/3D bit when I create a fractal scene, so grains of sodium chloride might be in order.
Or - just for grins, maybe take out the nearest moon and see how that looks. Or maybe even better, make it a good bit bigger - maybe even sorta "frame" the tree with it? - and dim it some so it appears at once more imposing and yet more distant. If it was large enough to extend to the horizon and the bright clouds there to the right of the tree, it would again give another impression of depth along with a couple more clouds in front of it.
Dang, for something I like so much, I'm sure coming up with a lot of ideas. One last thought - Maybe take the rainbow and make it extend out of top of the picture a bit to the right of center and to the right of the more distant moon and don't show it coming back down. The effect would be of increasing sized circles from left to right and give movement as well as lead the eye on a nice stroll across this wonderland scene: (and, preferably, to the "By Print" button at the right - lol) The tree's "circle", then the near moon's - large enough to frame the tree by a decent bit and extend to the horizon to the tree's right, and then the rainbow's huge circle (both seen and implied) dwarfing them both. Sort of 'epic grandeur' or one of those other artsy-fartsy French words - lol
Just some ideas - never really did one of these critique thingies b4. As I read over it, it occurs to me that it probably isn't much of a critique from any real art "knowledge/rules" type basis and maybe just a list of what I, personally, might try and also - since this piece sure seemed to get me imagining (evocative(?) - maybe just throwing out ideas and seeing if any stick to the wall...
c-ya!
Rick
The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork
Please sign up or login to post a critique.