I think one of the principle characteristics of Nevelson's work has gone missing from your concept - which is that sense of surfaces being complex and comprised of lots of sections. This looks too smooth and singular in terms of those surfaces - and I'm wondering if you're allowing your sense of 'how to model' to eclipse a more appropriate response to Nevelson's work? My other issue is that I think you need to look at the ambition of your matte painting. Remember it's about 'set extension' and it's there to challenge you in regards to matching the texturing and lighting of your models with the lighting and texturing of your matte painting. It does seem a bit defeatist to make the matte painting about a plain blue sky? What about the rest of this place?
In short, I think you need to give a much stronger impression that your elements are constructed from smaller components and I think you need to look to the role of your matte painting - and up your ambition for it.
30/11/2016
ReplyDeleteHi Jack,
I think one of the principle characteristics of Nevelson's work has gone missing from your concept - which is that sense of surfaces being complex and comprised of lots of sections. This looks too smooth and singular in terms of those surfaces - and I'm wondering if you're allowing your sense of 'how to model' to eclipse a more appropriate response to Nevelson's work? My other issue is that I think you need to look at the ambition of your matte painting. Remember it's about 'set extension' and it's there to challenge you in regards to matching the texturing and lighting of your models with the lighting and texturing of your matte painting. It does seem a bit defeatist to make the matte painting about a plain blue sky? What about the rest of this place?
In short, I think you need to give a much stronger impression that your elements are constructed from smaller components and I think you need to look to the role of your matte painting - and up your ambition for it.