Can I get a critique on this painting I made?

>>2689729
Not bad, but the shapes are all very sloppy. I think if you want that flat opaque painting look, then check out someone like Alberto Mielgo and see how he controls his shapes to be very clean and precise and convey the information well. If you want a rougher look, then maybe someone like Lucian Freud is better to look at.

he giving a handy to ghost, op?

>>2689729
looks unfinished

File: CmIPJOcUgAEUnY_.jpg (34KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x480px

>>2689729
It's headed in the right direction, but you can do a lot to improve. The background and model platform, for example, can be used to help the figure. Hard and soft edges are really important, hard edges are where you want things to come forward, so do you really want the edge of that model stand to be so hard edged? It should be really soft. Same goes for portions of the figure that recede into the darkness, don't be afraid to kill a lot of the stuff in the shadow portion of the figure. I would black out the majority of the stuff you have there in violet, like around the abs/butt/bottom of the leg and just show very, very subtle bits of the reflected light.

Image I attached is just random from a google search, but look at the way that the majority of the figure in shadow just stays completely in shadow and the eye/mind of the viewer fills in the rest of the information.

Don't be afraid to design the background either. If the background shape is going to help the figure in the composition, do it, even if it's not what is really there.

>>2689809
>thinking detail = finished

The mark of a pleb.

>>2689729
If you squint you can see holes open up in the silhouette where your darkest values are, I would try bring the values together within the figure to unify the shape. Then either bring the relative value up against the background, or bring it down and lightened the background.

>>2690254
that's great advice, not OP but thanks for pointing that out