Silent Machine wrote:
Below is my latest creation. It's completely freehand without reference material and it's not too bad. That said, I'm looking for a pretty harsh critique. What did I do wrong, and how do I do it better?
The basic composition is strong. You did a nice job of creating a foreground, middle ground and background. However, how you separated those areas and the shapes you chose could be stronger. For example, the flower on the left side is awkwardly placed. The edges of the petals meet but do not overlap the edges of the trees, creating tangents. The shape of the flower is also not particularly interesting — strengthen the overall silhouette and bring some joy and interest into these secondary pieces of the composition. The trees, flowers and grass can be stylized but should still be interesting to look at.
Your color palette isn't bad either, but you could make the piece more interesting by ignoring the local color of the objects — tree bark doesn't have to be brown. Also look to create shadows using hue shifts instead of value shifts and things will start to pop a bit more. And as the trees recede into the distance, they should become less saturated. It's the same reason why you made the sky lighter as it reaches the horizon — the atmosphere bleaches everything out. The most saturated/contrasty objects should be those closest to us.
Lastly, be careful of using "childish" iconography. Look at your clouds. We all have these symbols that we learned as children that we must unlearn as adults — real clouds don't generally look as you drew them. I mean, I'm not advocating relentless realism, but the shapes you've created are not that interesting to look at so you might study real clouds and come up with a better shorthand for how to handle them in your art.