Would really appreciate feedback!

[swalroth]

I've been rejected from every school that I've heard back from, and I can't seem to get an answer from any of the departments as to why I was rejected or what I could improve on my application. My GPA from undergrad is 3.8 in a BFA program; I did really well on the GREs (some schools required them); the resumé I sent to the schools was much more extensive (the one on my website does not include student activities, internships, volunteerism, some teaching, etc.); and my recommendations were solid. I am also very confident in my statement of purpose.

I would really appreciate any feedback that anyone can give me on my work, what the reasons for my rejections could be, or what I could work on. I realize that it is more difficult to go to grad school straight out of undergrad without "life experience" and that everyone's having a tough time this year, but I applied to 14 schools and have gotten rejected from 9 - including my back-up schools. I am eager to continue to work and reapply again next year, but I am wondering if there are certain aspects of my application or portfolio that specifically need work.

My work is on my website: http://sarahwalroth.com

Thank you very much in advance for your help!

[stofo]

hello,

I'm no expert, I've been rejected from 3 schools, accepted to 1 and waiting for 1 more I am 4 years out of undergrad and this is my first year applying to mfa and figure painting is not my specialty, but here is my opinion:

If I had to guess, I'd say most schools are not interested in figure painters. I think there's another user on this site that is a figure painter, and they got accepted, I think the name is alizarin?? ask that person where they got in. I know cal state long beach has a figure painting department, separate from their contemporary painting practices department. Try applying there next time. that school teaches there grad students technical painting skills and their figure work is amazing! check out this figure painter who graduated from csulb: http://www.jonathanandersonpaintings.com/work/grounding/index.html

There seems to be a ton of girls painting themselves a)naked, or b)looking in a mirror.

Your statement is stating a lot of things the view can collect by viewing, especially in your painting 'skin deep' so perhaps the statement should say less about the subject of girls dealing with their dress size.

I think being right out of undergrad makes it hard to get accepted. Being out in the real world and having to make art while working full time to pay rent, etc. proves your ability to work independently and in a few years your work will change and get even better.

If you don't get in this year, it's ok. You have learned a lot from this application process and the paintings you do in 2010 will be even better.

[littlenova]

First off...grades, GRE scores and recommendations are pretty much only a small portion of the application process. It really is mostly about the work. My humble opinion...if we were sitting in a critique:

I think some of your pastel observations are really beautiful...but, I think the work on your website read as assignments or studies. There is a bit of a conceptual vein that is missing. If your concern is about body image...I think continuing to study Steven Assael is great. Also, I would look at Jenny Saville. Entirely different style, but her contributions---the way she composes an image---are really significant to those kinds of ideas about how we see our bodies. (I actually think photographer Jen Davis is amazing as well...Julie Rrap...there are a bunch...)

Ya know, maybe looking a bit deeper might help. Are there other ways to talk about size besides a tape measure? Are there other ways to talk about image besides a mirror? How do these concerns change when the figure is younger or older? Are her surroundings important? It's important to be aware of cliches and being too representational.

This kind of research, solidifying an original point of view, editing your work...It all takes time. I think undergrad is a time to learn technique...develop craftsmanship. Now, grad school will be a time to define how YOU paint...What YOU have to say that's different. Does that make sense? I would continue painting, making, researching and showing alot more. The good news is...you are just out of undergrad----you have a long, happy career ahead of you. It's not like some of the folks I know that have applied after painting for years and they are being rejected. You have time to work on your portfolio! That's awesome!

[CSanta]

Hi,

I know this process is super stressful and I am so sorry to hear that after so much hard work, you were rejected from the schools you wanted to attend. Waiting a few years out of my BFA not only made me a better artist, but my art changed and evolved dramatically in those years. (Graduated in 05' started working in museum ed, became a teacher, and kept painting the whole time)

I think your work is technically very good- you are a very skilled painter. I think the reasons you were not accepted to schools is 1. You are straight out of undergrad 2. I hate to sound harsh but the content of your work is pretty one dimensional for an MFA. By that I mean that there aren't many layers of meaning- I get what you are doing right off the bat and it doesn't draw me in to want to know more. I also think that some of your paintings look like they were done in school as studies or assignments in a figure painting class. This will be an automatic no for a lot of schools if they see something that looks like it was made as an assignment. (At the west coast National Portfolio Day, I actually overheard several professors criticize a work by saying it looked like it was done in a class)

I agree with stofo, your statement reiterates what I see in your work. I disagree, however that figure painting is out, I think it just has to be conceptually strong. Take a look at Jenny Saville, she blew up the london scene with her paintings in the 90s. My advise to you is go to a grad portfolio review next year if you can. Get some feedback, and keep painting! Your work will evolve and you will be glad you waited the extra year! Good luck to you! (and I hope I didn't come off too harsh- remember to keep painting!)

[alizarin]

Hi there, I am facing the same thing. I am straight out of undergrad last year. My overall undergrad GPA is 3.83, I feel very confident with my statement, my recommendation letters, and my CV are solid. Having to support myself all throughout undergrad, I worked while in school, did volunteer work and an internship at a non-profit art org and got an award for it (community art fellowship). However, I feel like most adcoms probably don't even care about these things. I think they just mostly care about your portfolio. Isn't that the first thing they go through to eliminate applicants? It would be nice though if they actually read my supporting documents but I doubt they did that. To be honest, I just started painting in late 2006. I found out this passion very late. So while in undergrad, I had to work very hard and play a lot of catch-up. I also did a lot of research and tried to solidify my concept as well as the technical aspect. Given the time I had, I feel about 70-80% happy with my portfolio. Honestly, I'm not satisfied with my undergrad work (25% went into my portfolio anyway because I didn't have enough time to replace that with new work). 75% of my portfolio are work I did after graduation (which was May of last year)....I've been working my butt off but it still somehow feels not enough. I realize I probably just need more time, do more research, more experiments, gather more resource materials, etc. I have been rejected to 5 schools so far (I've only applied to 7). 2 of those schools were supposed to be my "back-up schools." Thinking about it now, I don't even really want to go to those "back-up" schools. I think I owe it to myself to strive for better schools than just to go to a school I consider a "back-up."

Anyway, I only have one thing going for me right now (an interview with RISD) next week. Even though I've been pretty depressed lately about my rejections, I finally started working again. I want to make my portfolio stronger. I also feel like I learned a lot from this application process. Rejections will only make us stronger..

I agree with littlenova about thinking deeper about your concept, and finding different ways of expressing it. Also exploring different media might help. I am an oil painter as well and most of the time I feel schools look down on this medium because it is more traditional..You can also keep editing your statement to make it stronger (I've edited mine for a year and a half..) Over time, your work changes and develops, so your statement should too. Unfortunately, the being out of undergrad plays as a disadvantage for us. I also think representational work is not "in fashion" right now. It's unfortunate but I think being "in fashion" affects the decisions we get. But I think the best thing to do is to stay true to ourselves, and never change our style to be "in fashion."

Edited March 17, 2010 by alizarin

[kewpies]

I've been rejected from every school that I've heard back from, and I can't seem to get an answer from any of the departments as to why I was rejected or what I could improve on my application. My GPA from undergrad is 3.8 in a BFA program; I did really well on the GREs (some schools required them); the resumé I sent to the schools was much more extensive (the one on my website does not include student activities, internships, volunteerism, some teaching, etc.); and my recommendations were solid. I am also very confident in my statement of purpose.

I would really appreciate any feedback that anyone can give me on my work, what the reasons for my rejections could be, or what I could work on. I realize that it is more difficult to go to grad school straight out of undergrad without "life experience" and that everyone's having a tough time this year, but I applied to 14 schools and have gotten rejected from 9 - including my back-up schools. I am eager to continue to work and reapply again next year, but I am wondering if there are certain aspects of my application or portfolio that specifically need work.

My work is on my website: http://sarahwalroth.com

Thank you very much in advance for your help!

Hey Sarah,

Just some first impressions/questions:

Are the pastels from life? and the paintings from photographs?

As a side note: There's always a lot of talk of painting being dead. I myself am a representational painter, so of course it is always disheartening to hear that. But you know, when it comes down to it, and all the talk is over, I think a lot of art issues can be resolved formally. You could probably gain a lot just by learning more about your medium, learning about color theory, looking at your compositions -- which are stronger/weaker etc. Look at a lot more painting, see what you like/don't like and who you are going to hold as your own personal 'teachers' (dead or living) Sorry if this is kind of preachy, I just had to say something, b/c I hate to think people would turn away from painting b/c it isn't fashionable. There are still painters out there! (apart from saville: peter doig, dana schutz, rosson crow, eric fischl, etc etc. maybe not your kind of painters, but just examples of painters who have 'made it')

Ok def. done ranting now....

[swalroth]

Thank you for all of your help, guys! This really gives me something to think about.

My school's "BFA" program isn't much of a BFA program. You complete the requirements for a BA, and then take 2 extra classes in your concentration, 1 more art history, 1 more drawing class, and 1 more class in another medium.

I have only been working in this subject matter for 3 semesters. Although none of my work was assignment-based, I see now that my inexperience is obvious. I also completed these paintings with deadlines - 4 paintings every 15 weeks. And they're quite large. There is so much more I would have done with all of them if I had the time.

Kewpies - they are all painted from my own photographs. They don't offer any life drawing classes at my school, and I had no money to pay a model with. However, I think that my interest in paint over pastel is clear when looking at how unrefined the drawings look.

Thank you all so much for your help. I really believe that representational painting is NOT dead, and I'm going to stick with it. However, I see now that I need to spend a lot more time thinking and working in this coming year.

[chrjang]

it feels fairly obvious that you're painting from a photograph; and while using a photograph as a source isn't bad, you're not doing anything terribly interesting with paint itself either. there's also very little dialogue about space and composition. you kind of slam your figure in the foreground and then there's not much else to the painting. you seem to genuinely enjoy painting, but think of what interests you, what your aesthetics are, how to communicate your ideas in perhaps a less obvious way.

sorry if that's harsh

[littlenova]

I would totally second the notion that painting is very much "alive"... Eric Fischl is a GREAT suggestion... just great. His compositions are stunning...they look like scenes from a movie!

Edited March 17, 2010 by littlenova

[intelly]

I agree. You're work is technically really good, but it does look like it's made for classes. Also I think you should expieriment more with more subtle symbolism. Women seeing themselves as being too fat doesn't necessarily have to translate into an image of a skinny girl seeing a fat girl in the mirror. Maybe you should get some books on women's issues, anything by Jessica Valenti or Jennifer Baumbgardner (sp?). They might spark some inspiration.

Working from photographs can also hurt you, as some people view it as cutting corners. If you can't afford models, maybe it would help if you work with a combination of real life and photographs, or work from several photographs instead of just copying one. I remember my UG painting instructor (and advisor) occasionally used pictures, but he would basically use them as a reference to make sure things were scaled correctly, and then he would put the picture up so that he didn't feel the need to try and make his painting look exactly like the photograph.

Right now, I'm working with a lot of antique toys, and I try to buy as many as I can, but sometimes I find the perfect toy on Ebay, but it's $400, so when that is the case, I just steal images of it. But even then I try not to copy it verbatim. I just use the image as a guide.

Even if you don't get in this year, I wouldn't worry. Taking 2 years off was hands down the best thing I've done for my art. I think for my grad school portfolio, I only used 1 or 2 paintings from undergrad, and both were from independent study classes. My work is so so so much better than it was when I was a senior in college.

Good luck, and I hope that helps! You've got a lot of balls to post this thread, so props to you! I don't know if I could do it.

[grad_wannabe]

I agree with what most of the previous posters said, especially Littlenova. I don't think representational/figurative painting is dead at all, nor do I think it ever will be. People will always want to look at pictures of people. Elizabeth Peyton, for one, has blown up in the last couple years. If you love painting the figure, stick with it. It can go to beautiful and exciting places. Lucian Freud is a favorite of mine.

That being said, I think your conceptual framework could use some reworking. Most of your images are a bit one-note. Technically accomplished and well executed, yes, but intellectually flat. I see the girls, I see the mirrors, okay I get this is about women and their body images, and ... what else? Especially in your piece, "Distortion." It's all laid out right there on the surface. There is no nature of investigative inquiry. This is echoed in your statement, where you use your intro and concluding paragraphs to talk about skinny jeans - not painting.

Maybe think about the thrust of your investigations and WHY it is you're concerned and HOW your art is going to deconstruct and reframe those concerns into something higher, something new that no one has ever seen before. What is it, exactly, about body image that excites you to the point that you want to talk about it? Break it down as far as you possibly can, to its barest elements. What NEW point do you have to contribute to the discussion? Lots of women talk about body-image problems - how are you going to uniquely use your work to break down these questions into something awe-inspiring? While, at the same time, contributing to the dialogue that surrounds the practice and function of painting itself, which I don't really see being addressed here and which is (at least to me) of paramount importance.

I don't know if you applied here, but the Laguna College of Art and Design also has an MFA in Figurative Painting.

Just my $0.02

PS I forgot to mention - I noticed that you listed your extracurriculars. For a painting MFA, they are going to look at one thing: the work. in a graduate adcom meeting, the first thing they do is throw the images up onto a wall or screen and discuss them. They will not proceed to looking at your statement and rec letters until they've decided they like the work, and I'm pretty sure they'll only glance at your extracurriculars list and won't even bother to look at your GPA. Make lots and lots of new work.

Edited March 17, 2010 by grad_wannabe

[nathancotephoto]

It seems like most posters are giving you great references. Researching writers, artists and technique. That is typically post grad work in my experience. When I was in undergrad i had little time to read anything that wasn't solely for class study. I learned more in my first year out of school than my 5.5 years in school.

My GPA was 2.8 and I did not go on for my BFA. I didn't really go to class my first two years and was not an art major(I also attended 3 different schools) and it doesnt matter. When I was asked in an interview why my GPA was so low i just stated although my work ethic wasnt very well developed (Lazy until my junior year). The board stated that they didnt understand why it was so low because from their perspective it was A quality work. I was accepted a day after the interview. Its about the work and the experience I gained after school(graduated 3 years ago).

Im not sure if anyone else mentioned Cindy Sherman. She is a photographer but another artist dealing with womens issues and identity. Gerhard Richter's early work from photographs was brilliant! He was dealing with completely different issues than you are but you would be able to learn from his work. The lighting, composition, depth of field and other components in your paintings reflect photography. -- thats from a photographers perspective anyway.

One other note: There really is nothing negative to say about your work. Schools and MFAs don't make artists. Maybe after some development, your going to have an even harder decision, which school to choose from. Posting this was a great idea, as you may need some fresh eyes to see your work and give you critical feedback.

Edited March 17, 2010 by nathancotephoto

[michaelwebster]

I also agree with the general perceptions mentioned by previous posters. The one thing I would like to add that is a little different, and I wish this was discussed more at the undergraduate level and is often completely ignored by artists and schools with medium specific concentrations, is... do the materials you are using make sense for your subject matter/conceptual intrests? Is painting the best way to communicate what you want to communicate?

I know most of us have or has had an intrest in a particular medium, for me it was painting as well. But at some point, I realized that painting had certain inherent associations in our culture that I didnt want a part of my artwork. I could make better artwork by changing materials.

For you, painting may be perfect, but I think its also important to question it.

Victor Burgin wrote an infamous critique of painting in the 70's, basically stating that painting references nothing in contemporary society except itself, whereas photography and video are a part of everyday culture and therefore people have the visual education to read photography. Painting requires an art history background to understand the act of painting.

I am not saying that Burgin or I am necessarily correct, just wanted to offer my own viewpoint, from someone who painted for 10 years only to give it up. Burgin was a painter as well, and became a photographer.

Edited March 17, 2010 by michaelwebster

[littlenova]

Thanks to those who continue to add to the conversation...This really feels like a critique! Fun...

Victor Burgin wrote an infamous critique of painting in the 70's, basically stating that painting references nothing in contemporary society except itself, whereas photography and video are a part of everyday culture and therefore people have the visual education to read photography. Painting requires an art history background to understand the act of painting.

Without getting all into Burgin's postmodern views on the semiotics of image making, I believe most of his ideas challenged the way painting as an institution was this autonomous practice for so long. Revered...marketable but, not relatable to the masses. Where my opinion sort of diverges is his socialist conclusion that smothers the importance of an original point of view or a special mark. While it is true that visual culture is evolving in the way we disseminate ideas and observe work, I don't necessarily think it means that classic forms of artmaking like painting or drawing will ever be irrelevant. I also don't buy that one needs an art history background to be evoked by a painting.

I found this to be true when I was looking at Hernan Bas's work recently. Here is this painter making statements about queer culture and I was literally fixated on the canvas and could not take my eyes away...Me...a female, heterosexual photographer who doesn't know the first thing about painting. He elevated his concerns, and for a moment, they became mine. The characteristics of the medium allowed for a certain measure of fantasy and manipulation that I don't think would have been possible in photography.

I guess, bottom line...A great piece of art will speak no matter what...ya know? But, all good points... It really makes you think.

Edited March 18, 2010 by littlenova

[ATumble]

you should try to find some life drawing classes/informal sessions. sometimes the more informal ones are really cheap. artists just pool money to pay for the model. you already have some impressive skills but i think you could benefit a lot from drawing from life. for example, i noticed the skin color on your figures are the same. if you work from life, you'll see that the color on the belly is different from say..the hand or face etc. also, your work has the same smooth surface all around. the texture of hair vs. skin vs. jeans. could really be varied. there is so much you can do with oil paint and i just feel that you could definitely explore a lot more. one of my undergrad professors is a wonderful figure painter: ann gale http://www.hackettfreedman.com/templates/artist.jsp?id=GAL you can also google her name for images. anyways, best of luck and don't give up!

[michaelwebster]

Thanks to those who continue to add to the conversation...This really feels like a critique! Fun...

Without getting all into Burgin's postmodern views on the semiotics of image making, I believe most of his ideas challenged the way painting as an institution was this autonomous practice for so long. Revered...marketable but, not relatable to the masses. Where my opinion sort of diverges is his socialist conclusion that smothers the importance of an original point of view or a special mark. While it is true that visual culture is evolving in the way we disseminate ideas and observe work, I don't necessarily think it means that classic forms of artmaking like painting or drawing will ever be irrelevant. I also don't buy that one needs an art history background to be evoked by a painting.

I found this to be true when I was looking at Hernan Bas's work recently. Here is this painter making statements about queer culture and I was literally fixated on the canvas and could not take my eyes away...Me...a female, heterosexual photographer who doesn't know the first thing about painting. He elevated his concerns, and for a moment, they became mine. The characteristics of the medium allowed for a certain measure of fantasy and manipulation that I don't think would have been possible in photography.

I guess, bottom line...A great piece of art will speak no matter what...ya know? But, all good points... It really makes you think.

Sorry that we are getting a little off topic here, I am interested in where this is going.

I agree with you that the importance of what I would call "the individual" was smothered by Burgin unfortunately. But I do think that most of what is considered important in painting to those in the art world is irrelevant to those with little art history background. The element I believe you are referencing that Bas has that would not come across in a photo is the human/individualistic/gestural element. Where the brushwork adds a personal touch. If you place most people in front of a "abstract" painting with the same brushwork, I believe most of them would not be very interested in it. If you were to construct a photo that had the same composition, arrangement of figures, and surreal elements in it, the average person would still be interested in it. Essentially, the brushwork alone adds little to the peice for most people. To the art history trained viewer, the abstract work may be just as or more interesting than the photo.

What I am trying to get at is that the essential element in painting is not likely as relevant to the average person as it is to the trained viewer. From my experience, most people enjoy realism over expressionism, unless they consider themselves artsy or cultured, and then their level of education in the arts allows for more enjoyment looking at more painterly, and then conceptual artworks. I work as a stockboy at a grocery store, so I have discussed artmaking with everyone from truckdrivers, to fellow stockers, managers, and customers within the last few months.

[kewpies]

"Essentially, the brushwork alone adds little to the peice for most people. To the art history trained viewer, the abstract work may be just as or more interesting than the photo.

What I am trying to get at is that the essential element in painting is not likely as relevant to the average person as it is to the trained viewer."

1. the most popular art exhibits are always shows on impressionist paintings. most people like them (they are on journals, calendars etc) i think most people can appreciate the color/brushwork. i can't imagine those paintings ever being photos.

2. i just have to say, i don't think you need to have art history training to get something from painting. you might have to have a kind of visual sensitivity (analogy: like people who can just play music by ear). for instance, my mom & sister sometimes give me the best formal critiques of my work, they just judge things intuitively.

3. last thing: i think its interesting that people say that painting is no longer relevant to ''everyday people'' as a critique. in my experience more people understand how to access paintings than other work in museums/galleries. i think if the goal is to be in the ''average person's'' life (i still can't really picture who this is) i'd imagine wanting to work in TV shows, hollywood, youtube etc (ie. Lynch's Twin Peaks)

like others have already said, this is going on a tangent. i just felt i had to add something not only b/c i paint, but because i was also once ''untrained'' but i still managed to love painting. And oddly enough it was because of the brush strokes. I remember my first trip to a museum, looking at old paintings, flipping out because the brush strokes looked alive and fresh, and they were made 50-100-hundreds of years ago. I guess i am saying you can't really assume what an ''average person'' is getting from a work

Ok, now that i'm done, I feel like I just reiterated what littlenova said, but there you go...

[chrjang]

if you're interested in painting in a photo realistic style, tim eitel, one of the leipzig painters, might be someone to look at. he also works with slick reflective surfaces - maybe not so much in his recent, gloomy paintings. here and here. his painting style looks purposeful and fits in with his cool, impersonal aesthetics. so yeah, painting in a certain style is fine as long as you make it look intentional.

Edited March 18, 2010 by chrjang

[corner cafe]

Dear Swalroth,

I am also a representational figurative painter. It is true that it is not “hot” right now. But many people fail to realize its resurgence. People who claim painting is irrelevant usually have no vision in the medium themselves, and fail to see all of the incredible work (the likes of which haven’t been done/properly exposed to the public before) being created everywhere. There are tons of amazing figurative painters doing all different kinds of work right now.

That being said, I was in a very similar place as you, when I graduated undergrad. You have the building blocks of a talented painter, but still have much to learn in terms of technique and concept. If painting is the be-all-end-all for you, keep at it. Painting from photographs will always hinder your work. Use yourself, willing friends, family, etc. Paint from life in order to learn how to paint poetically. There is a difference between painting what you know is there, and painting what you actually see. Composition is also essential. When I left undergrad I went and studied personally under painters who I admired and knew I would learn a lot from. Many living prosperous painters have assistants, residencies, people who go and study with them for a period of time. Steven Assael does workshops in NYC, LA, and I imagine other places. I haven’t studied with him myself, but I know people who have and found it to be very transforming.

In addition to others’ suggestions, here are some people you should look at just to have an idea of what is happening right now and the many different ways your work could grow.

Look at:

Antonio Lopez Garcia

Alex Kanevsky - http://www.somepaintings.net/Alex.html

Sangram Majumdar - www.sangrammajumdar.com

Odd Nerdrum - http://www.nerdrum.com/works/index.php?id=132

Paul Fenniak - http://paulfenniak.com/

Fabian Jean - http://www.flickr.com/photos/30317999@N04/

Sophie Jodoin - http://www.sophiejodoin.com/

Israel Hershberg

Rita Natarova - www.ritanatarova.com

Paula Rego

John Currin

Vincent Desiderio

Tina Newberry - http://missioncreep.com/newberry/index.html

Dead, largely unknown, and amazing:

Euan Uglow

Vilhelm Hammershoi

Eugene Carriere

Antonio Mancini

Edwin Dickinson

Harriet Backer

[brianmc]

I wanted to throw a name in there too if you are looking for inspiration in figurative painting. Check out Raoul Middleman. He is a real painters painter. I envy him. His paintings are so fresh and amazing. Sometimes he can finish a large canvas in just an hour or two. It can take him 5-6 hours to set up his palette though. Not at all how I work, but I have always admired him. I took a class with him at MICA. He's nuts...in a mostly good way. He would make us draw behind our backs, with the lights out, all sorts of crazy stuff. The best part of his class was when he would take us to the library and talk about old narrative paintings and point out the quirky symbolism.

http://www.raoulmiddleman.com/gallery.html

Remember, don't stress out too much. It looks to me like you have some real talent. Just keep developing your voice. Imagery will start to pile up and you will someday have too many weapons to choose from when you feel like you want to tell a story. Keep a journal about what things could mean and how certain symbols could be mobile and take on multiple meanings. Sometimes jotting down some ideas in a journal is better than a sketch book. And sometimes you'll write stuff that will make you feel like a hypocrite when you read it a month later. You'll find that being out of school will force you to find out what is really important to you when you have limited time to work. It is also good for clearing your head of all of the influence of your instructors.

[alizarin]

I would like to add that the way you paint hair and eyes are really beautiful. To me, these parts don't look like it's from a photo. But the skin tone looks monochromatic, so I would suggest exploring color a lot more. Do many experiments organizing your palette and mixing colors. The skin has different colors, and there's also reflective light. I commend you for painting the piece with the figure looking into broken pieces of a mirror. That is very ambitious. I actually like this piece. It could mean many different things, especially if the hands were more interactive with the mirror, instead of just placed there. You could show some tension just by curling the fingers or making the hands grasp something. I think the hands and the fabrics (clothing) need a lot more work. Your foreshortening could also use more work, the sense of space and depth. The way you use color will fix this. I understand your paintings are really monumental, maybe it doesn't need to be that large. You can pick a focal point in your piece and make that more rendered/contrasted than the other parts. If you work on these more, the image could be more believable. I would also suggest adding a lot of tension to your images to really grasp the viewers and evoke some feelings from them.

[shebaslc]

I would suggest checking out Marilyn Minter. Her representational work pokes at the concept of beauty and fashion. Additionally, she is a representational painter who uses photographs as source material or at least as a starting point.