/lit/ - Literature

>>6325835
But there's no new you, it's always you and you change with life. Anyone who can't understand that people don't remain the same all their lives need to mature.
Try finding people into the things you're into right now and expand your relationship outside of college/workshop/creative writing class/whatevs. That's the vital point with people, I think, joining them to your life outside of the things that get you together.

Godspeed lonely anon!

>>6317595
It could still sort of work with an overly classic narrator but you should expand on it and give it a justification (a nabokovian upbringing, an obsesion with classic authors, everyone in the future reverting to that style). Alternatively you can just change him, of course.

I'd recommend working on something else, maybe trying the same concept again. If you're writing just a bit it's better to keep the creativity flowing instead of obsessing with something that you'll eventually throw away anyway.

Hope I haven't been too harsh with you. Keep on working anon, that's all that matters, and conquer the stars.

>>6297636
>I like the brightness of colours
That's a personal preference, you should try to understand and explain why you prefer it in that composition (it creates a certain tone, it interacts better with the expressions, it helps the eye move, whatever you think happens in your mind with it)
>I like her hair
Again, don't stop at some point without asking why. Does it feel more natural? It helps you move the eye through her figure? It interacts with her anatomy in a certain way?

>I think it is more detailed in general.
Why is that a difference you care about? You could say a Picasso has less detail in terms of diferentiated brush strokes but every part of it is important to the construction so it has more details to consider.

>I assume it's done later so it had more advanced techniques.
Yes and no. While a later artist can pick the influence he wants the skill is tied to each one and the way he uses it tends to be tied to their context. Both those paintings are oil works, and while the materials got better with time (and cheaper, which means more ease to train them) the technological evolution it's not such a big difference in this case.

Welcome to art analysis and critic, hope you like it here.

>>5886691
>Either way you should read everything he has written.
You sound like someone with a very poor cirteria. Shouldn't you be saying the same about so many writers that are before and above him that it wouldn't leave time to read this guy?

>>5886711
Haven't you ever catched students re doing classical paintings? In el prado they even had certain rules about your reproduction so it can't be sold as a reproduction. Do you know how many fake rembrandts are there?
There's a great line from Picasso, when asked why he kept trashing most of his works he used to say that anyone can make a fake picasso, even himself.

Technique has value, I'm not saying it doesn't, and you understand it better when you know how to apply it, I'm also agreeing on that. But it's just a part of what makes your understanding of a certain work. To have an in depth analysis and to be able to express an opinion that's both interesting and revealing the main thing is dedicating huge amounts of time to think about the work. If you really care you'll see a lot more things than if you have a prefect previous preparation.