FA+
Shop
10390
Views
Views
889
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Traditional) / All
Species Wolf
Size 900 x 574
File Size 85.6 kB
Report this content
More from DarkNatasha
My contribution for the werewolf Calendar 2011. I had the cover and decided to come up with something in a wooded area with a lake.
For more information follow this link. http://www.werewolfcalendar.com/
Original is mixed media
For more information follow this link. http://www.werewolfcalendar.com/
Original is mixed media
Category Artwork (Traditional) / All
Species Wolf
Size 900 x 574px
File Size 85.6 kB
This is both a comparatively subjective, as well a purely objective critique. Dark Natasha is an artist who is among the top in the furry fandom. My critique herein is with the utmost respect for her body of work, and admiration for her as an artist.
This piece lacks the usual passion of Dark Natasha that I have become familiar with over the years. I can think of many reasons why this is the case, but will narrow it down to two logical possibilities: that the care and dedication shown in her past work is not here because the passion is gone; or because the passion is still in Dark Natasha but not given to us because the fandom has not earned it.
I personally find it hard to believe that someone like Dark Natasha could lose her passion for art. But I find it quite easy to see why passion may exist, but not have been applied to this piece. For one, this is a piece for a publication. A "routine" piece if you will. A commercial venture to benefit the buyers and more importantly the publishers' pocketbooks.
Is the lack of passion justified? Most certainly. This is troll central, where people seek brownie points by fluffing up a piece that deserves only a glance, and give as much passion to these dedicated artists as they give money. "Ooh, I fav'ed a Dark Natasha piece" is the cry of the furry fanboys today. Real appreciation comes with purchases, with admiration, and most importantly, with honesty. I wouldn't be commenting here if I didn't admire Dark Natasha's work, would I?
So how does a critic like me see a lack of passion? What objective features demonstrate the commercial quality of this piece over one with Dark Natasha's previous verve? Allow me to enlighten you, as well as Dark Natasha:
The piece is flat, period. Not just in color, but in construct and dimension. The foreground is just as dim as the background. The focus doesn't change, only the level of detail. The colors too are chosen probably because they were aplenty, and applied with conservation of medium in mind. The strokes are applied haphazardly, and thus belie a lack of passion in and of themselves. The water speaks volumes. It is a two-dimensional object of almost no depth. Where are the careful reflections? Where are the contrasts which would present a shimmering body of water in what is obviously a moonlit piece? The sky too is as pale as the water.
And the figure, the subject, lacks any sense of being real, or abstracted from real for that matter. The face is so obviously from a reference, or familiar strokes, and is pasted onto, rather than part of, a body that is far too unbelievable in stature. I cannot see this figure standing up and walking, not without being set off balance and plunging into the water (no worries there, given the water is not real either.) The proportions are off - leg and arm lengths are wrong, fur doesn't build on the lanky structure, and the fur on the head is winter coat with summer coat legs - or at least, that's what I can guess. If this figure were abstracted from reality to portray fantasy, then the background should be further abstracted from reality to make the figure more alive and real.
I have never been a fan of the "wet fur" look, but Dark Natasha has always made it work in her past pieces. It is her style, and it can be appreciated. But it falls flat here.
This will not be added to my gallery of favorites. It is not an example I would care to look at again.
What needs to happen to restore Dark Natasha's passion? Well, I personally think the fandom has a lot of growing up to do. I think the fandom doesn't earn its keep, doesn't give these artists the respect they deserve, nor they money they deserve for that matter.
But I am not fool enough to believe that this is a piece of artwork. It is a commercial venture. An illustration. But as a critic, I must clarify that for those who unable to discern this fact for themselves. But even as a piece of commercial art, I cannot see this as a reason to buy the collection, the calendar. As a cover, it won't encourage true fans to buy it. But again, it is quite appropriate. People will buy anything for its name, for the claim that they too own one. As such, the piece accomplishes the goal. As a work of art, it doesn't begin to cut the mustard.
Responses will be ignored. Consider me as inaccessible as a critic for the Los Angeles Times. I am in my ivory tower, and cannot year you.
For those who appreciate my candor, you are quite welcome.
This piece lacks the usual passion of Dark Natasha that I have become familiar with over the years. I can think of many reasons why this is the case, but will narrow it down to two logical possibilities: that the care and dedication shown in her past work is not here because the passion is gone; or because the passion is still in Dark Natasha but not given to us because the fandom has not earned it.
I personally find it hard to believe that someone like Dark Natasha could lose her passion for art. But I find it quite easy to see why passion may exist, but not have been applied to this piece. For one, this is a piece for a publication. A "routine" piece if you will. A commercial venture to benefit the buyers and more importantly the publishers' pocketbooks.
Is the lack of passion justified? Most certainly. This is troll central, where people seek brownie points by fluffing up a piece that deserves only a glance, and give as much passion to these dedicated artists as they give money. "Ooh, I fav'ed a Dark Natasha piece" is the cry of the furry fanboys today. Real appreciation comes with purchases, with admiration, and most importantly, with honesty. I wouldn't be commenting here if I didn't admire Dark Natasha's work, would I?
So how does a critic like me see a lack of passion? What objective features demonstrate the commercial quality of this piece over one with Dark Natasha's previous verve? Allow me to enlighten you, as well as Dark Natasha:
The piece is flat, period. Not just in color, but in construct and dimension. The foreground is just as dim as the background. The focus doesn't change, only the level of detail. The colors too are chosen probably because they were aplenty, and applied with conservation of medium in mind. The strokes are applied haphazardly, and thus belie a lack of passion in and of themselves. The water speaks volumes. It is a two-dimensional object of almost no depth. Where are the careful reflections? Where are the contrasts which would present a shimmering body of water in what is obviously a moonlit piece? The sky too is as pale as the water.
And the figure, the subject, lacks any sense of being real, or abstracted from real for that matter. The face is so obviously from a reference, or familiar strokes, and is pasted onto, rather than part of, a body that is far too unbelievable in stature. I cannot see this figure standing up and walking, not without being set off balance and plunging into the water (no worries there, given the water is not real either.) The proportions are off - leg and arm lengths are wrong, fur doesn't build on the lanky structure, and the fur on the head is winter coat with summer coat legs - or at least, that's what I can guess. If this figure were abstracted from reality to portray fantasy, then the background should be further abstracted from reality to make the figure more alive and real.
I have never been a fan of the "wet fur" look, but Dark Natasha has always made it work in her past pieces. It is her style, and it can be appreciated. But it falls flat here.
This will not be added to my gallery of favorites. It is not an example I would care to look at again.
What needs to happen to restore Dark Natasha's passion? Well, I personally think the fandom has a lot of growing up to do. I think the fandom doesn't earn its keep, doesn't give these artists the respect they deserve, nor they money they deserve for that matter.
But I am not fool enough to believe that this is a piece of artwork. It is a commercial venture. An illustration. But as a critic, I must clarify that for those who unable to discern this fact for themselves. But even as a piece of commercial art, I cannot see this as a reason to buy the collection, the calendar. As a cover, it won't encourage true fans to buy it. But again, it is quite appropriate. People will buy anything for its name, for the claim that they too own one. As such, the piece accomplishes the goal. As a work of art, it doesn't begin to cut the mustard.
Responses will be ignored. Consider me as inaccessible as a critic for the Los Angeles Times. I am in my ivory tower, and cannot year you.
For those who appreciate my candor, you are quite welcome.
I have no negative words for Natasha or her art, and I understand your theory. An artist like Natasha has alot of demand and not enough thank yous. It has always been my pleasure to give an artist more then what they ask for. For example, 10 dollar commissions for a beautiful work of art? No, more like twenty five, thirty. You can't go on the street and buy this stuff. It's personal, it's a piece of the artist.
What ever is going on in Natasha's life is her business, but I understand how closed out she can get to the constant swarm of people that demand the impossible. She is an artist, but she is human.
I own alot of her prints as well, a t-shirt, and some other things. So, just to let you know, there are fans who do not mind emptying their wallets on what they love. :)
Let it be known that Natasha is a wonderful person to match her art. I remember her comission and the words she wrote with it. I remember meeting her, and I hope she never loses that spark.
She, like many others here are a great example of passion out to a medium. Let us hope she dosnt suffer the same curse that media and medical industry faces.
What ever is going on in Natasha's life is her business, but I understand how closed out she can get to the constant swarm of people that demand the impossible. She is an artist, but she is human.
I own alot of her prints as well, a t-shirt, and some other things. So, just to let you know, there are fans who do not mind emptying their wallets on what they love. :)
Let it be known that Natasha is a wonderful person to match her art. I remember her comission and the words she wrote with it. I remember meeting her, and I hope she never loses that spark.
She, like many others here are a great example of passion out to a medium. Let us hope she dosnt suffer the same curse that media and medical industry faces.
You know, I really appreciate seeing someone go against the grain and dare to critique art in an arena where such honesty of opinion is often shunned, repressed, and labeled as "lack of acceptance" or other terminology to demonize anyone who says they don't care for a certain art/artist for whatever reasons, even if carefully drafted.
Now can we as a community rise to that standard and push little of that candor downhill where it's needed most? I mean really, they're getting away with murder down there. There's "art" being made by well respected artists who don't know what a human or animal body looks like, with subject matter that is just ludicrously terrible, and yet nobody dares say a word of anything even remotely close to advice, much less critique or opinion, so no development or improvement is made on the part of the artist.
That's my ivory tower opinion. As for this piece? It's okay, I think for a piece that focuses on a setting, I would have liked more realism/emphasis on the landscape, which despite showing a great deal of work, feels a little flat. To be constructive, I would have made the water's edge much more reflective, and interacting more subtly with the shore. That's probably the most important thing that jumps out at me, and otherwise, perhaps darken the back layers of the forest to more abstract, almost geometric silhouettes, making the foreground jump out more. That's all, otherwise a fine piece and I remain a fan of DN always.
All that being said, if I were to stumble on this guy in the woods, I would probably shriek like a girl and run.
Now can we as a community rise to that standard and push little of that candor downhill where it's needed most? I mean really, they're getting away with murder down there. There's "art" being made by well respected artists who don't know what a human or animal body looks like, with subject matter that is just ludicrously terrible, and yet nobody dares say a word of anything even remotely close to advice, much less critique or opinion, so no development or improvement is made on the part of the artist.
That's my ivory tower opinion. As for this piece? It's okay, I think for a piece that focuses on a setting, I would have liked more realism/emphasis on the landscape, which despite showing a great deal of work, feels a little flat. To be constructive, I would have made the water's edge much more reflective, and interacting more subtly with the shore. That's probably the most important thing that jumps out at me, and otherwise, perhaps darken the back layers of the forest to more abstract, almost geometric silhouettes, making the foreground jump out more. That's all, otherwise a fine piece and I remain a fan of DN always.
All that being said, if I were to stumble on this guy in the woods, I would probably shriek like a girl and run.
Comments