Below Cut
For my painting major this year, we have been asked to paint "landscapes" (three paintings). We can stick as close to or verge as far from landscape painting conventions as we wish.
I chose to paint aerial landscapes, because there is a lot of room for involvement with the audience. There is no Horizon line, which immediately makes the subject matter ambiguous.
However, I have received mixed reviews from what I have so far, and I myself am not sure what I think about it. I have a crit session in the morning, but I wanted to ask others on what they think, and what I could do.
Firstly, my first colour rough:
Now my most recent:
(Crap crap lighting and too much contrast I am sorry)
I originally set out to paint this from a photo, but ended up throwing the photograph away. I did not want my paintings to be "static" and "representational" (why don't I just take a photo If I wanted that) and decided to see where the paint would lead me.
I am worried that my painting is not looking in top form because I started with a photograph.
I have squinted and turned the painting upside down. Right now It seems to be screaming water on a plateau, the darker parts being an indented cliff-face.
Anyways. Opinions please. I would really
really appreciate any critique.
It just feels so
flat.
Also. For context.
the reference photo 
"There is no Horizon line,
Very good insight! I like this a lot, especially because it will make your series a landscape but not just trees and hills and ect.
When I look at your painting, to be entirely frank, what I am looking at is not clear. I think this is due to a few things:
-Aerial landscapes tend to be very abstract, they are anti-detail. Colors and forms are the main players.
-You say it looks flat, but that isn't necessarily bad. If you look at a collection of aerial photos they have a certain flat quality, due to the extremely high viewpoint, all but the highest forms appear relatively flat.
-Building off my previous point, your painting is far more defined and has a lot more depth than your reference. The water looks like it is one angle (moving out towards the viewer, as you wanted) but because you have shaded your ground differently, it looks like it is a vertical cliff, contradictory to your water.
Your WIP picture of the piece reads more as an aerial landscape, perhaps look back at that stage of the piece.
Basically: I think you need to go back to your research and look at the differences between aerial landscapes and traditional landscapes again more closely. These differences will help you choose which techniques can be omitted from your piece (for example the flatness issues I talked about before; detailed shading doesn't need to be included).
Sorry this critique is sort of disjointed, morning is not my best thinking time! >_<
This is how I see it, sorry
This is how I see it, sorry =D
Like the tree on the cliff and godrays out of the clouds. So I like it in that shape.
And my
And it's still a good piece of art.
@ Tera: Thankyou for
Yeah, that is the second time I have been told it is not entirely clear.
I think one of the main troublesome factors is that tree-like dark spot. Im not entirely sure, it seems to throw me off, and I keep going to stare at it but not knowing what it /is/.
It is not disjoined at all <3 It has helped a lot. I need all I can get C:
Hopefully I will be able to rectify the issue with some researching and re-defining.
@ POOH2004: Certainly an interesting view, I have been told that it looks like a tree C:
Yeah (Also hello 50 australian cents) It seems to me that the landscape is hard to define. I think its on a border of abstraction and realism and cannot seem to decide where it wants to go xD
Thankyou very much!
Having a second look, I think