/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4583590
I've been told differently by one artist, at least to not sell the best of your works. But I agree more with you, especially if it's not likely they could be sold for more later.
>>4582223
I see the effort but tonally it's a mess (I'm not saying that to discourage you). It's actually easy to fix. In short, compositionally speaking, in your picture there should be areas of rest and areas of detail, and in your case areas that should be a rest for eye are filled with detail (background has cross hatching). They are sitting in the dark, you shouldn't be afraid of all black big areas. Everything is midtone and all the details are lost because there's too many of them. Even white parts don't pop because there's not much contrast around them. With a dimly lit scene like this light source should be easily identifiable (pic rel is more extreme but you get the point). You should mix up white silhouettes on black background with black on white, ie could have made a guy in a black clothes pop out on lighter background and his white head come out more on darker part. Overall, either do the scene in a way of pic related, or have it compositionally play more with silhouettes. How to do it, is do a sketch first in just white, grey, black, not doing any cross shading. You've put effort in all these details but what's more captivating to eye is tonal composition. You make only crucial details pop and omit the unimportant rest. Especially you should avoid details in shade, as it works against creating illusion of space. As a guide you should decide if your picture is dark or light, or at least decide which tone is dominant. If you take 50% of black and 50% is light your picture is gonna be tonally confusing, but if you make black a majority, grey minority and a bit of white for most important details it's gonna be more tonally captivating