Combox Crit #1

I may live to regret this, but I had an idea that I haven't exactly seen done before, and thought I would give it a try.

Back in college, when I was working on my MFA, each semester was capped off with the Full Faculty Critique (or "crit"). This was when each of us post-grad students would show a selection of artwork from the last few months to be critiqued and commented upon by the full art faculty. One student described it to me as the equivalent of being attacked by a division of Panzers while armed with a fly swatter (this remark may have been more a matter of frightening the New Kid than anything else... I never found the experience that bad, but it was nerve-wracking).

I am now a member of a few area art groups where artists bring their latest work for viewing and critique, but everyone is either too timid or just to nice to really substantively critique anything. We're all artists, and the unwritten code is that you just don't ever tell another artist that you think their work, you know, stinks.

So, I thought I would see what might happen if I invited readers to offer combox critiques of certain of my paintings. You don't have to be an artist or a collector or anything, just offer an honest critique. The usual rules of combox etiquette apply, of course. Brevity is the soul of wit. Be as specific as possible. Give reasons for your response... "I don't like it" doesn't really help. If you just don't happen to like the kind of work I do, save it. This is about the merits of the individual piece.

Also, if you just really like a certain piece, or want to compliment my work in general, save that, too. Comments like "Wow, I can't even draw a stick man..." are appreciated, and all... just not for combox crits.

To kick things off, I am putting up my first foray into liturgical art, Immaculate Heart, above. One reason I chose this painting is that I don't feel it succeeded in doing exactly what I envisioned, and I would like to see what other people think about it. I'll keep my own thoughts to myself, for now, but it will be interesting to see how others' responses stack up to my own.

Sometimes artists can be so close to their own work that it can be hard for them to see with fresh eyes. I'd like to borrow your eyes, but I promise to give them back.

Comments

[Casey Truelove]

It's so hard to critique religious artwork because I feel almost compelled to like it because the creator is trying to honor God with his/her work. That being said, it's a wonderful idea to do so because we really need to get rid of a bunch of kitch artwork in the Church. It's hard not to like a painting of the Blessed Virgin Mary (I struggle with it in my own BVM painting, which remains unfinished), so I'll focus on specific pieces of this painting--which is what you were looking for anyway.

Intended or not, you used a classical triangular composition--popular (if I remember correctly) in Renaissance artwork--accented by Mary's veil--which doubles as an eye line that draws one's eye right to Mary's head. This is good and it evokes a trinitarian aspect to the piece, reminding us that Mary always leads us to Christ.

The thing that is perhaps least effective to me is her expression. It seems so devoid of emotion. When I think of Mary, I think of her as so incredibly loving that her gaze (even if just staring plainly at me) would penetrate me with a feeling of love. I don't get that feeling when I look at this painting.

The technical aspects of the painting are decent. The face, hands, clothing, and flowers are all well modeled, she is well done, but, to me, she doesn't quite come off as Our Blessed Mother--more like someone dressed up to look like her. The light source is dramatic enough to distinguish her features and it is working well. I think that the dark values in her skin tones and hair need to push to a darker value--especially the hair. It's not quite as convincing as the rest of the portrait. The contrast within the veil is so great that it competes for attention with her physical features. The same value contrast difficulty might be said for her Immaculate Heart. It is very high key compared to the rest of the painting. Combining that with the way it conforms to the contours of the cloth, it seems more like she's wearing a baggy Immaculate Heart sweatshirt than the Immaculate Heart actually belonging to her and showing through.

[jp]

Tim,

First, I think you're a great artist.

Here is an observation from someone with no artistic skill:

-There is something about the facial features that seem a little unfeminine to me. I'm not sure exactly why this is. She does comes across as a little burley with dazed eyes.

[Warren]

Too posed... Too much inviting to "look at me" instead of "feel with me". The "fiat" is absent as if this a found honor...

Sometimes we get too lofty about Our Lady (if that could be possible!) and forget her human-ness of which she was/is 100% That you have captured grounding her firmly in a cave! as opposed to the sky This madonna is of the earth and despite the transparency I don't get a sense having been Assumed. The crooked eyes don't fill me with confidence and are disturbing more than comforting and i can't figure out the symbolism of a cock-eyed madonna. Please explain eventually!
I'd have liked to see a greater contrast on the heart as it is overcome by the face...

Warren

[Foxfier]

Her eyes look like a guy's eyes, and a slightly drunk guy's at that. JP let me figure it out. ;^p

I also think the way that her headgear is laying makes her neck look way, way too big.

I do greatly enjoy realistic painting, and you are a very good artist. But people are really hard to get right, let alone explaining what's not quite right!

On a bit less physical side...she seems...well, kind of blank, or dazed, or something, not like I'd picture her at all. Sad, proud, faintly smiling through the pain...something. I'm sorry if that's not much help.

[Mary Kay]

Tim, since the first time I saw this, what's always bothered me were her eyes. I don't like the liddedness (if that's a word). That's the biggest thing that occurs to me. I would have thought more open-eyed.

A secondary one is her hands. I could see you going for lifting aside her veil and perhaps I'm spoiled because the only other image of Mary with hands and/or arms in the statue of Our Lady of Combermere of Madonna House. Her arms are open and outstretched, as if to embrace all her children. That may not be what you're going for, though.

I just went away to do something and looked back. What I saw first was dress and veil, then face then oh yeah, she has something on her chest. I just looked again and the brightest value is the Immaculate Heart, so that's what I saw first but that wasn't from a distance.

Your technique in itself is awesome but I don't feel an emotional connection.

[J.R. Stoodley]

I have no professional competence in art but at the same time do tend to form definite opinions on such things. Since my only value to you is as a casual observer I'm avoiding reading the other comments before I write this.

The first thing that strikes me is that Mary isn't very pretty, at all. I always picture Mary as extremely beautiful and perpetually young. This is more of an earthy, ordinary Mary (at first glance anyway), like the one in The Passion of the Christ. This has it's own value I suppose, giving a more domestic and humble idea of Mary, but it just isn't to my tastes in specifcally Marian images.

I also don't like the eyes. Is it that thing where one eye looks right at you and the other looks beyond you? I thought that was for Jesus, indicating he perceives you perfectly but will overlook your sins. But why would Mary be shown this way? In any case it confuses me and adds to the...not quite ugliness, but unloveliness of this Mary.

The heart is interesting. Sort of a classic, almost cartoonish image that doesn't seem to fit the realism of the rest of the painting. It is hard to decide if it just an image on her clothes or is shining through.

It took me a minute to realize Mary seems to be fadeing away at the bottom. It's interesting to first realize this. You realize this definitely isn't an image of her in her earthly life (as the earthy feel of most of the painting made me think at first)but shows a sort of apparition. On the other hand it calls to mind the idea of ghosts more than the blessed in heaven or the classic Marian apparitions.

The lillies in the background are interesting but look almost ominous especially once I made the ghost connection.

I guess in the end the image gives a sense of strenth and mystery, and you're not sure if the woman should scare or comfort you.

I'd say over all it is a very interesting piece. It provides plenty to think about. On the other hand I wouldn't be inclined to put it in a Church.

I think liturgical art, even if it may be complicated, should also give an immediate sense of the sacred, which this perhaps lacks. Also, you said you didn't want "I don't like realism" kinds of comments, but honestly while I like realism in general I'm not sure this kind is best for liturgical art. I prefer icons, classic stain glass windows, normal statues, etc.

I suppose it is similar to music. I like modern music, classical music, Indian sitar music, etc. but I don't think such things are appropriate for mass. Liturgical music needs a certain sense of sacredness and mystery and tradition. It shouldn't be a place for much innovation. I think the same is true of art and architecture for within the Church. I'm not sure this kind of mysterious realism is what churches need, even if it would be fine elsewhere.

[Ed Peters]

Tim, this is the only work of yours --and I've seen scads-- that I have never liked. She's too boney, her face os weird. How's that for precise critiques?

[Celeste]

Howdy.

OK, here's my crit. I am going to ignore completely the liturgical value of the piece and focus on the technical.

Technically, it's fine. It does all the right things. Anatomy is fine. The hands are fine. The composition is fine. And that's where it ends.

Two things work for me. One, her right hand is beautiful. It exhibits the most life of any part of the picture. The left is seems static to me. I like the structure of the face. It looks like a real person. The face is just asymmetric enough to be interesting. That said, it's dead. It feels like there is no life in the eyes, but that's not really it. If you divide the face at the cheekbones, the top half of the face almost works. The bottom half of the face almost works. But there is something that doesn't quite come together as a whole.

It looks like a great technical excercise.

The best advice I ever got from an art instructor was, "If you want it round, think round." So, when I look at this I can't tell what you were thinking. Where you thinking, "this is my first shot at this?" Maybe all that is needed here is a change in focus. Instead of painting a "liturgical" work, paint the love you feel for her, or her Son, instead. It's obvious you know the technical aspects. You probably can do them in your sleep.

Have you tried looking at this in a mirror? I do that to get a different perspective on a piece when I can't figure why something's not working the way I want it to. It's a left-side/right-side brain thing.

Another thing, tho. Instead of representing her immaculate heart with the traditional heart, how about showing it in her eyes? That I would like to see.

All this being said, I think you are incredibly brave to stick your ego and your work out there for everybody to take a shot at. It's bad enough to do it in front of people, but you stuck it out there on the 'net in front of God and everybody. I couldn't do it.

PS-- I wish I could paint half as well as you do.

[Lino]

Do you want me to be brutally honest? The painting is terrible. Almost nothing about it is right. I have not read all the comments, but I agree with many of the criticisms that I did see. I'll add a few more, hoping that they weren't mentioned in posts that I did not read. The human being is depicted in a realistic style, which clashes with the non-realistic background. The heart is circular, not "heart-shaped" (neither natural nor conventional). The white flowers around the heart are not traditional and don't "look right." The hands are great, but the head has problems. The face is too broad. Something about the "lighting" (perhaps the bright light and darkness around the chin) makes the head seem detached from the neck and almost protruding toward the viewer. The eyes are out of kilter and half-closed (as though in a drunken stupor). The corners of the mouth are too dark, which looks unnatural. (Our Lady is never depicted with a smirk.) In sum, the face has imperfections, which are not reconcilable with a woman who was immaculately conceived. I hope that all these criticisms (mine and others') do not leave you depressed. You have a lot of guts.

[Matt]

I'll echo that there is a lack of emotion in the eyes. What I can't decide is if that is bad or not. My suggestion would be this - there is a serenity in the face as it exists currently that would work very well if the heart conveyed all of the passion that's not in the face. Right now the heart is kind of a tattoo version existing on the clothes rather than in Mary. If you can make the heart convey the passion and really look as if there is a window into her heart then you will have succeeded for me.

Conversely, if the heart remains subtle as you've shown, then the face of Mary needs to convey the passion and be less serene.

That's all I have, the composition is great and the colors are quite beautiful!

[Mike Melendez]

I suspect you were going for tranquility in Mary's face. There is some of that, but there is also an edge of, "It doesn't really matter to me," or "I'll put up with this, because I have no choice." I like the translucency of her garments though I can't make out with is behind them on the bottom of the painting. Though those are very much secondary to her face, as you would expect.

[Elijah]

I also did not like the eyes and thought that they appeared dazed/drunk at first, but the more I look at it the less I feel that way. I think that this painting could grow on me if I looked at it more. So, while I think that the painting may give a bad first impression, there are aspects that I really like about it. For one, I like the fact that she looks as if she might be a Jewess. I don't have a problem with people of different colours and 'races' depicting Mary, or Jesus for that matter, as looking like them, since it's their hearts that we are supposed to identify with, but still there are a few too many blue-eyed, rosy-cheeked madonnas around for my taste. I also like the fact that she isn't particularly physically attractive as I don't believe we have any historical info regarding her physical beauty, and again, the beauty of that immaculate heart, afire with love, is what's important. So, all in all it seems a piece that may not inspire an immediate positive reaction, but may provoke some thought.

[Tim]

I like the subject matter far more than I like the execution. I guess my critiques echo many of the others: 1) She looks sleepy and bored. 2) The hands look like they aren't hers in two respects--they're a little mannish and they don't look like they're connected to her body. 3) I can't escape the impression that she's showing us her new Immaculate Heart T-Shirt.

[Kate B.]

I have to concur with most of the above comments: it's her expression. It almost looks as though she's saying, "Sigh... you want to see the heart again? Fine..." And yes, the heart looks disconnected from the rest of her.

On another note, I dislike the vague background. I know it's spiritual and all, but Mary is a real person, and when she acts in our lives, she does so in time and space. But I don't know where she is in this painting, and I like particularity in my liturgical art.

[joann]

I like the fact that you are trying to make Mary approachable and earthy, that is much needed in todays society I think. But like everyone else I see some technical issues with the painting. I'm not an artist, but here are the details I see askew: her wrists are too thick, the contrast of shadows on her face are too stark (shadows too dark compared to the brightness of the light) that gives her a rugged, mottled appearance, and her eyes look stoned or sleepy, also if the immaculate heart has any heat it would "glow". Instead of studying the painting maybe you should study live examples, Perhaps you could have someone model the emotion, not necessarily to model her face after her, but to study the expression you are trying to capture. Have a woman (or women) practice for you different ways of expressing your intended emotion until you see exactly what you want to convey, then study what makes that emotion come alive on her face. Or patiently watch people in the park--a nice relaxing atmosphere--until you see what you need to correct the expression. Concentrate not just on the eyes, but around the eyes and the corners of the mouth and the tilting of the head/face. Take pictures to help you remember the details. If we feel something whole-heartedly we express it whole bodily.

[Del]

Wow! I can't believe the number of people who don't like this painting. Let me know when it is de-valued enough that I can afford to buy it!

I sent you an email from Wisconsin, congratulating you on the new blog. I looked over your portfolio, and I mentioned that THIS MADONNA was my FAVORITE of all!

She is so gorgeously Jewish! Not perfectly composed, but very very natural. She looks like she was caught in a candid photo. Her hands have a perfectly natural clumsiness about them, like she's struggling with her veil a bit.

And yet... that heart! I've known a few saintly people. They are common people, not supernaturally beautiful. But their holiness is apparent, just like this.

The expression on her face is so perfectly maternal! Do you know what she just said? So nicely dressed in the mid-morning light?

I can hear it now: "Hurry up, Jesus. We're going to be late for the wedding!"

I will not tell you what She is saying to ME in this picture. Let's just say that I deserve it.

(Tim: Make me a deal on this piece, will ya?)
Del

[John Kasaian]

I like it because it is a fresh vesion. So many "Sacred Heart" pictures abound that the image has become, to non Catholics, a cliche. But this one is different. It took a while to for me to appreciate it (that could be because of the soreen size on the monitor) but after looking at it for a few minutes in the larger version it really grew on me. The face is what took the longest to get used to but that is what makes this picture unique and, well...fresh! I like it! Thanks!

[Skygor]

Line: Mostly thin verticle and high slope balanced diagonals from the folds int he cloth

Shape: not may basic shapes, oval for the face, iso or eq triangle for the face & habit

Form: basic human form, in portrait styles; both hands pulling the habit away, one active the other limp; eyes "sleepy"; mouth wry; "heart" seems the combination of a anatomically correct human heart and traditional "heart" shape

Value: piece looks lit with a soft light & shadows except neck shadow, darker in the background, but everything under the heart is overall dimmer

Color: soft realistic earth colors, cream vs. white, fade cloth blue very "dyed"; brown loamy background; slightly pigmented skin; only flowers and fire are brighter hued

Texture: can't tell much with low res picture, but skin and cloth seem realistic, leaves in back aren't detailed nor fuzzed out; heart et al. aren't crisp compared with human Form

Space: iso triangle on rectangle, flanked with plants; heart & face are balanced like foci of an elispe; more plants on left; longer hair right; extra hand fold right, left hand shows arm cloth; heart hump to right; right hand more horizontal; right eye higher than left; head nods slightly to left; more gold trim exposed right; light comes from right

Interpret: The artist is trying to portray a more natural, earthy Mary. Her divine aspect is soften with the blend of real & iconic heart and the ease/nonchalant way revealing it to the viewer. More attention is given to the face by light and balance (all that leaning to the right) rather than the heart. This is odd because the whole impression of the form is imposing. Her cloths take most of the portrait, Her body is slightly revealed or blended with her outfit. She almost looks like a walking tent.

Judgment: The painting is well done pictorially with the possible exception of extra darkness at the bottom portion, but seems to fail at the message. It seems that the artist wanted to show Mary's as a humanity/normal person with her divine grace and not have her divine aspect totally overshadow. (E.g. a flower given by stereotypically "tough guy".) It expression wasn't executed well while her Earthiness is apparent her Heavenliness is muddled. The lack of that divine intensity confuses the viewer rather than enlighten or inspire.

[Don]

My first thought is "I don't like it". Historically, Mary is portrayed as being very beatiful and this was a very big distraction for me when I first saw (she is not that pretty). I guess it comes down to your intent in doing the potrait in the first place. It definitely highlights her humaness. When I see a picture of Mary, I should always feel comforted. I don't feel that at all. The shadows on the face are also very distracting and the lack of a smile is also disconcerting. Not much else to add that hasn't already been said.

Your a big man for allowing the verbal abuse.
Best Wishes.

[Don]

Tim, thanks for the opportunity to critique your work.

I'll just throw out a few quick thoughts that come to me. I'd need to sit with the work a while to do anything more in depth.

First, it's very compelling and is worth taking a closer and longer look at.

The background brings to mind both Fatima and the flat backgrounds of Eastern iconography.

I wish I knew more about Immaculate Heart symbolism to be confident about this, but the absence of a sword leads me to view this as Mary before the crucifiction.

At the same time, the Easter Lily is part of the background, so there's a tension here for me between what I see as the pre-crucifiction Mary standing against the background of resurrection.

Then there's the roses around the heart. I assume those represent the rosary. If that's true, then this is the Mary of Fatima, and therefore the post-crucifiction Mary.

So I'm left wondering why this depiction of the Immaculate Heart, as well as some others, don't include the sword.

Which is a good thing, in my view. Because now I'm going to go and look at other treatments, and hopefully in turn will come to a better understanding of the underlying theology.

Which leads me to conclude that this is a successful work.

If one important purpose of religious art is to teach theology, then this particular painting adds something to the conversation.

Primarily, I think, because the type of face shown here is so atypical of the normal depiction.

She looks to me like a Jewish mother.

I think that makes the work more accessible to people who may not be Catholic or even Christian. In particular, I'm thinking of many women I know who are on a "spiritual journey" but want nothing to do with Catholic Christianity because of misunderstandings of the teachings and other prejudices.

This is a great piece to help possibly open some dialogue with such folks. I mean, what the heck does it mean when a Jewish mother is showing us her flaming heart!

OK, that's it I guess. I like it and want to see more. Thanks!

[Matthew S]

It is a well composed picture but I don't like it. Mary looks very distant. My wife almost described it non-chalantly as in she appears to be saying, "oh by the way, here is my Immaculate Heart". She just doesn't seem motherly or inviting or loving or caring...just distant or blank. Thats probably the big thing that hits me.

Under the Mercy,
Matthew S

[Beau]

Overall, I like this piece. I think it's because Mary is kind of plain looking. Typically, images of Mary are shown as a beautiful young woman, but I think Mary's beauty comes from within, rather than from her physical form.

There are a couple of things I don't like about this piece -

The first is her right hand. Try to put your elbow where hers is and then put your hand in the position that hers is in. It's possible, but very uncomfortable, so it doesn't look right in the painting. Also, her right fore-arm is a little "meaty" for a woman.

The second is that she is looking right at the viewer. When I look at this painting, I lock eyes with Mary, and I have to really make myself look at other parts of the painting. I don't know if that's a flaw compositionally per-se, or if that was by design.

I like the way the fabric folds and lays, and I like the way the light plays off of the fabric and her face quite a bit too. The only part of that I don't like is that her veil seems to become one with the rest of her clothing at around the level of her heart.

[Bill in Racine]

I think this is a very nice picture. I find that the features to be more representative of a middle-eastern woman. Her eyes look a little sorrowful, perhaps even world worn (considering she witnessed not only her son, but the living God crucified, I can imagine the pain and sorrow there).

But there is a slight smile to her lips. She knows that her son has risen and that the gates of heaven are now open. So while the devil may think he's won, she knows the truth.

She's open her veil a little to show her heart, the fire indicative of the pain she's suffered and the roses the joy she has in Christ.

I think those are lillies on either side - which always remind me of Easter and the resurrection.

Her right wrist does seem a little awkward, not sure what it is about it, but it just seems off.

Overall, a very nice picture - would you make it available as a large image to use as a desktop image?

Thanks!

[JohnD]

For what it's worth, I'm a former artist, and probably not nearly as talented as you, and it's been a long time.

The work shows a great deal of technical skill. Mary seems a bit drowsy. There's something about the mouth and nose that is a bit distracting, as if they don't seem delicate enough for my conception of Mary... and perhaps a little artificial, at least the mouth (always the toughest feature). The cheek bones seem to be a lacking in symmetry. Perhaps more time spent planning (model, pose, taking picutures, adjusting lighting) would make things fall into place easier.

It also seems like there is a discontinuity between the background and the subject, as if they were done by separate artists, and that the background was an afterthough. The burning heart could have a more dramatic effect if it influenced the lighting scheme a little more, instead of looking like a mere overlay.

I didn't read the other comments yet. I hope my comments are constructive. May your love and devotion shine forth in your work.

[Marcel LeJeune]

As the son of an artist (and someone who has looked at art his entire life) I can say I like the piece.

Your use of light is well done. There is also nice depth and movement to it. The one criticism I have, though slight, is the background is unimpressive. Overall, I like it a lot and because art is so subjective, that is the point, is it not?

[RC]

By the way, you do know you two look related, right?

[Memphis Aggie]

OK, Here goes and please don't take this personally.

First let me say you have great talent because the level of detail is great. I think I've seen some of your work at Monastery icons, is that right? I almost bought one like this once.

However, Mary's facial expression completely looses me. Her eyes droop, lids are too heavy. Her mouth and lips look puffy and I especially dislike the strong shadow that masks her mouth.

I also don't like the lilies or the dark brown background over her head. I'd prefer an arch treatment if lilies are your preference over stars etc. But they're scunched in, the placement is what I don't like.

Still you're very very talented Tim.

[Foxfier]

So, dear host, are you sorry yet?

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the folks here *do* like your art-- I know that I do.(have you considered making some of them available for computer backgrounds? I'd love to have Strawberries & Cream....)

Just didn't want you to read this and start getting down on yourself. :^)

[iClaudius]

Tim,

Boy, are you brave.

I can't help thinking that she looks like she has a bad head cold.

[Pauli]

It looks like someone at the local parish, Mrs. Jones, was picked to play the Blessed Mother in a play about Marian apparitions. The play was a smash hit with the parish folk. After the last performance Mrs. Jones, unaccustomed to the rigors of acting, was physically exhausted and emotionally drained, nevertheless she dutifully posed for a picture for the parish newsletter.

I can imagine the Blessed Mother looking a little frazzled like this living among us sinners in hac lacrimarum valle. I'm not sure I'd hang a picture of her in one of those moments. I know my wife wouldn't appreciate it if I did that to her. Theologically, it would seem that this picture is legitimate. I don’t like the picture very much, but that’s a taste thing and maybe Our Lady wanted to reveal that side of her life, I don’t know.

[Pauli]

Tim, I wrote the preceding completely forgetting that your name is "Jones". Please understand I didn't mean in my example to suggest that this image resembled anyone in your family. I just absent-mindedly used a common surname.

[whimsy]

Our Lady looks very tired. I think "merciful" was the intended look.

[A. Williams]

Tim,
All the componant parts are well done, but it seems like you first started to paint her face,which protrudes out quite a bit, and continued with the rest of her body/clothes afterwards. In this, she appears to be hunching over, her posture doesn't seem correct, and more like Our Lady of Sorrows.. she looks very tired.

Also, her hands, though well done, are quite masculine looking. They look like my hands! And also, she is portrayed as rather European, and somewhat of a 'dirty blond', kind of like my family, but not what I vision to be the image of Our Lady.
Also, she doesnt' seem to have any spiritual "glow"..no sense of 'halo'.
The glow, I think, is best seen in a photo of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Sort of light emminating from her cheeks..pretty incredible.
However, I really like your ability to portray your subjects in great detail, and realistically!

[Mark Johnson]

I love the way you did the sheen on the veil and the leaves in the background. Overall though, it doesn't really grab me in a positive way. I think mainly it's the expression on Our Lady's face. The face itself is very realistically done, which I like. Although, there seems to be kind of a plasticky sheen to it, sort of like you see on characters in computer-generated movies. That could have to do with the reduced size of the image though, and not seeing it in person.

Maybe what it is, though, is that you are mixing two styles: You make the skin very, very smooth and luminous, which is sort of idealistic-looking (if that's the right word). Yet you combine that with tired-looking eyes and rather saggy cheeks.

Maybe you need to make up your mind whether you're being nitty-gritty with the appearance of the face -- realistic to the point of showing every wrinkle and flaw -- or idealistic, showing perfectly smooth and radiant skin and a fresh, beautiful face, masking imperfections.

Hope that helps! Hope it doesn't hurt! : )

You're a brave man to do this, or maybe just thicker-skinned than I am.

[Bill Q]

I really hate saying this, but makes me think of Alfred E. Newman in a Mary costume.

[Catholic Bibliophagist]

You've had so many perceptive commments that I don't know how much mine are worth, but here goes:

The heart kind of looks like it's painted on her clothing.

Something is wrong about the face, particularly about the eyes.

[Eileen R]

I think I like this picture more than most commenters! I find the face extremely interesting, because the physical features that other people read as puffy and tired, looked motherly to me. And then I realized that the Blessed Mother in this picture looks very like a middle-aged woman of mixed Native-European blood to me, a sort of face that I'm very used to seeing up here in Canada.

But that doesn't really seem to fit with the hair, the costume and the setting, so it's a bit jarring to me too. As is the realism of the face as compared to the stylistic Heart.

[Karl Keating]

Except for once, I have never seen a representation of the Sacred Heart or the Immaculate Heart, whether as a painting or sculpture, that I thought was good art. All the standard images leave me cold. They seem molded out of treacle. Not a one would I want in my home.

(The exception was a passable but not really fine representation of the Sacred Heart. I now forget where I saw it.)

Is the problem that these devotions became popular only after the great artists had passed from the scene and so there is no excellent image to model, or is it because the subjects are so ineffable that no artist could hope to do them justice?

I lean toward the former idea, because equally ineffable subjects, such as the Transfiguration, have been rendered well (by Raphael, for example).

I have no suggestion about what should be done to make the "right" kind of image of the Immaculate Hart. I just know that I haven't come across it yet.

[gurnygob]

I really don't know what to make of most of the comments I have read. People seem to think of Our Lady as some sort of beautiful model in a magazine or something like that. Our lady had a hard life she was not waited on hand and foot. She was not born a Catholic with a rosary in her hands so why do people think she was like that. when I look at this painting I see a real women with a look of Love mixed with some suffering and kindness. I too am no expert, but I do a little painting myself and I for one love it. I wish I had the money to offer you, i would gladly buy it. please keep up the good work and do more of the same. Jesus has given you a wonderful gift, use for His Glory. God Bless

[gurnygob]

ps do you mind if I copy it and put it on my web site