Snowshoe rabbit redo

[stave]

I finished the original on 2010 and it was well received on the forums and by most folks. Of course it went to the galleries where it did not receive such a warm welcome. One gallery kept it for less than a month and then requested I come pick it up.

Well I decided to try the new painting technique and see what happened. I figured it would either be a grand sucess or a grand failure. I like both versions but of course I think the natural wood was a great deal better. I do know that the painted version will probably sell better but I guess we will see.

What is your opinion, success or failure? I know that real criticism is considered dangerous ground here but I am not a youngster at this..so please let me know your opinions. How can we grow as craftsmen if there is not room for constructive criticism to help someone improve?

Mark Strom
www.stromcarver.com

 

[ehpoole]

I like the new version as-is -- there's nothing that I would really change.

For others, there's something broken in the image resizer at the moment (I'm not sure what's going on there ), but you can view the full-size image at: http://www.ncwoodworker.net/pp/data/500/medium/winter_haven2.jpg

 

[JackLeg]

Paint made it pop!! Looks good!

 

[llucas]

Both are incredible!...but my guess is the original requires just the right lighting and setting to set it off. I prefer the new version, as it stands on its own....AND really highlights the artists attention to detail.

 

[ScottM]

+1 for the painted version. The paint brought it to life.

 

[PeteM]

Hi Mark,

I think most "critter carvings" work better in color. The bark, background and rabbit look great. I especially like your treatment of the bark. The only thing is the large area of snow in the lower left. It's very bright and the two twigs poking out keep drawing my eye away from the rabbit. Making the two twigs into a fallen branch might break it up a little.

You've really nailed the painting technique. If you ever decide to give a painting class sign me up!

pete

 

[Bill Clemmons]

Okay, I'll be the contrarion. As a woodworker, and lover of wood, I prefer the natural look of the original (unpainted) version. But then, I prefer Shaker furniture too. For my taste, the painted version is just too busy. It overwhelms the senses.

Unfortunately, I think your assessment is correct: the painted version will sell much better.

Bill

 

[MagGeorge]

Both versions are narrating different stories. The many faces of a creation.
I like them both.




_______________________________________________

www.sawblade.com

 

[stave]

Thanks for all the comments. I agree with the observations about the lighting and the painted shadows. It is still a learning process for me. At least it did not turn into a disaster and the next one will be better. Lets just hope it sells, that is the true test.

Mark

 

[CrealBilly]

Nice cover shot - I'm gonna be hunting some of those pretty doggone soon

 

[Shamrock]

I love them both-but the painted one is just incredible. You painting skills are on par with your carving skils IMHO

 

[Bugle]

REALLY like the painted version. Oils or acrylic?

 

[James Anderson Jr]

Painted version really does it for me.

 

[stave]

I used watercolor, acrylic and oils. The base coats for the light branches are watercolors followed by acrylic and then oil glazes. The rest was base coated with acrylics and then painted using oil glazes and some fairly straight oil paint. It is a slow process but the results are worth it.

Mark

 

[ReynoldsJay]

I'm a fan toward the painted version. Your painting technique is beautiful, and something I would see on the wall in any of my families homes. The natural one is wonderful, but for the non-woodworker, one might not fully appreciate the time and effort to create this design. Sounds like that might have been the case.

My thoughts, if you put this in a gallery, they will call you very quickly, this time though to pick up your cash! Great work.