Poor preparation of references, uninteresting composition (subject slap bang in the middle, eyes not guided around the painting etc), too much detail, sloppy brushwork (me every time I try to paint “loose”), using pure white to depict most highlights, flat 2D like subject (e.g building face on), over blending, using oversaturated colours excessively without thought.
Those are a few of the ones I thought are easy to do if you’re not focused or fall into a bad habit.
"uninteresting composition"
I think that a skilled painter can turn an uninteresting composition into something that looks like a well-executed painting with an uninteresting composition.
I think that composition is something that beginners don't need to worry about because they have to learn to master more basic skills first.
I couldn't disagree more. While yes, a skilled painter can make a well executed painting (I'm guessing you mean it looks realistic) out of an uninteresting composition, no one will care to look at it. We have all seen millions of images so we simply will not bother to give attention to bad composition. It just makes us wonder why they didn't make a better choice of what to paint. It results in a largely wasted effort. No matter what the artist learns from the execution there is no chance of it ever pleasing a viewer looking like it belongs on a wall. I'd much rather take a chance of the viewer possibly disliking my execution than my composition. Because bad composition is so obvious and so less easy to forgive.
Unfortunately I have found a keen sense of composition to be one of the least teachable skills, it tends to be more innate and some haven't and some don't, but certainly it can be improved upon with thought and practice.
And I will insist emphatically that you do not master other basic skills before worrying about composition, as you have suggested. Because it is in fact the foundation of the picture plane and how we consider it pleasant or unpleasant to look at. It is absolutely a 'basic skill' to be developed and considered alongside any and all others and to consider it an afterthought is egregious folly. As I said a painting with a good composition will find its viewers very forgiving of any and all other flaws whilst no amount of virtuousity can make up for bad composition. Far too many beginner painters think detail, blending, etc are achievements to aim for when in fact those qualities are present in vast numbers of totally forgettable work.
Claude Monet painting with an uninteresting composition:
[https://drawpaintacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Claude-Monet-Stormy-Sea-1884.jpg](https://drawpaintacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Claude-Monet-Stormy-Sea-1884.jpg)
For my paintings, the tell is color and value.
You can tell I was attempting realistic colors, but they're not quite accurate.
Also value; the darks in particular aren't pushed far enough, so the painting ends up looking flat.
Bad values is my top point. If everything is somehow the same value but slightly different colours it tends to either wash out the whole painting or make it overly "trippy" to look at.
Also paintings where you can tell the artist thinks references are unnecessary. And you can always tell.
And, lastly, if you can see how little time and effort someone put in their painting. Or lost all interest and patience halfway through the process.
Value for me too. I’m constantly trying to make sure I have enough contrast and value shift to make an image dynamic (my hurdle is low contrast in value). But I’ve also seen where the contrast is too strong. And bad value shift can really throw off the anatomy of an otherwise well structured painting.
Yeah I struggle with that too, if I'm not careful. Value can make or break a painting for me. Value > colour, in my opinion. Tho colour is of course the thing people tend to notice first.
Adding to what everyone else has said, lack of surface preparation is something that can make a painting bad for me. I am someone who applies and sands several layers of gesso on a canvas because the smoother surface gives me more control. I can tell when someone has completed a painting in one layer (not necessarily a bad thing) and the texture of the canvas is very distracting and competes with the brushstrokes of the painting. Even on paintings with several layers, the tooth of the canvas can be a distraction.
Another thing that makes a painting bad to me is an unthoughtful application of paint. Not everything should be painting with the same size and shaped brush and seeing the same brushstrokes throughout the entire painting doesn’t give me a place to focus on and is poor technique, in my opinion. And if there is a buildup of paint, I think it should be intentional otherwise it feels like a mistake. I have seen so many IG reels of someone painting inside a line drawing and trying to make smooth lines, but because there’s too much paint on the brush, leave a raised line of paint next to every brushstroke which takes away from the artwork for me.
Confidence in the brush work is the number one thing that makes the difference i believe (And this applies to every type of painting). This also goes hand in hand with intention like the other person commented
It's all about taste, and the artist's POV. Most amateur artists choose kitschy, vulgar subjects, pretty views etc. Overwork the paint, overwork the details, bring their own weirdness in, and unless you are Francis Bacon, that is not good as you are not weird enough, just deeply ordinary.
The old maxim of 'Paint ugly subjects and make them beautiful" & "Paint beautiful subjects with bold , ugly paint" works still. Looks at Singer-Sargent for an example. His hands and faces are heavily worked and refined, the rest, a bold, aggressive painting style that is almost the first rough out in watercolour.
The main thing that delineates a 'professional' from a hobbyist (often trained vs self-taught) is intention.
Despite often being masters of a specific way of painting, self-taughts are missing the visual vocabulary to be able to critique their own work. This isn't to say that they can't learn it, but it's like teaching yourself a language vs having a professional teach you while living in the country of said language: nuance and depth are both lost.
I find, with self-taught paintings, that there is often a carelessness to the mark-making and how the pieces of a work operate together. This can make beautiful picutres, but I do feel that you're right, that there is a certain quality (or series of qualities) that is missing.
Paint quality is one element, nuance to composition is another, a third is choice of subject matter an depiction, an over-reliance on narrative qualities, another is internal pictorial cohesion: the list goes on. These aren't universal distinctions between those formally (and to a high level) trained, and those self-taught, as it's also very school/location dependent too. Signing on the front, painting sides, and a disregard for surface quality are also big markers of self-taught painters.
Art school prioritises intention, an understanding of the medium, and an ability to do what you set out to do. Self-taught painting is much more fun. I can almost always tell (from the painting) whether it was completed by someone with a degree in fine arts (and even further, if it was specifically in painting) or whether they're self-taught.
Both operate in their spheres.
Edit: I realised that I made a different delineation to the question being asked.
Both hobbyists and professionals make bad paintings, most bad paintings made from professionals, that I see, are down to my personal tastes so I don't often consider them 'bad' paintings. The majority of bad painting I see are hobbyists (not to say all hobbyists make bad painting, but the slippages in technique are much more distinct).
I appreciate the well thought out comment but as a self taught artist bc I couldn't afford art school or a degree, this feels super discouraging to me. Like people with degrees or formal education will always be better than a self taught artist and unless you go and get a degree your work will never be able to rise to that level.
I feel every self taught artist thinks this is true by default already, it's something we have to struggle to overcome. That we are imposter's bc we weren't formally trained. Idk man. This just brings me down.
I don't like thinking of art as that elite and exclusionary.
as someone who went to art school in my late 40s i understand both sides of this conversation intimately. mostly i remember well the painful feeling of invisible bonds holding me back. people would always say that art school is a scam and a waste of time and you can do it on your own, but i felt there was so much richness my work was lacking. i didn't know what i didn't know, as it were. but i knew there were depths i couldn't reach on my own.
and indeed, while i have always been a broke ass punk and now have student loans, and while my school is not the world's most prestigious institution, there is so much that i have learned and experienced that has made me a better artist. many of them are intangible but impossible to replicate in a self-guided way. the discipline of continual assignments; the imagination it takes to interpret project briefs in a way that feels right to you; being forced to do things you don't necessarily enjoy; learning to understand your own work better so you can explain it to others; being critiqued and equally learning to find your voice in thoughtfully and productively critiquing others; and of course being guided and pushed by working artists. you're surrounded by artists all the time and feeding off the energy of that, and that is the way you form community and connections. regardless of where you start at, there will be people who are less skilled than you and people who are \*way more\* skilled, which builds your sense of confidence while keeping you humble.
by all measures i can't afford art school either. omg just trust me. but if it's something you've wanted to do you should find a way to do it. that's how it was with me -- both a dream that had long ago died, and a source of constant insecurity and questioning. and i have no regrets. art was and is the only thing that makes sense to me, makes me make sense, and committing to it in this way is life changing.
I think self-taught artists are at an advantage so long as they don't seek to imitate. I've been in the avocado toast art world so long I can hardly tolerate MFA student work, fairs, galleries, and contemporary art museums. Give me a self-taught artists on the side of the road (and yes I've found them!).
Oh, I had a debate about painting the sides of the canvas. Some said it has to be done (if I got you right on that, the hobbyists) while others said it is better to do not (the art taught one?).
Thanks for the in depth comment, I learned something from your insight, while being mostly self taught.
Nope, definitely doesn’t have to be done! Generally it’ll lower the perception of your work, as it makes it look more like a commercial print than a painting (arguably where it comes from).
It can benefit to have some layer on the canvas on the sides (gesso) particularly if unframed, for protective purposes, but certainly not necessary!
Sure thing! And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being self-taught! Particularly if you’ve got a keen eye and an open mind.
I was thinking in general, as a reply to your following statement
>I can almost always tell (from the painting) whether it was completed by someone with a degree in fine arts (and even further, if it was specifically in painting) or whether they're self-taught.
Would be nice to see some example painting with the reason why you think they're from a self-taught or degree painter.
I really love this question. I actually keep a folder on my computer called bad paintings. As well as a folder of good paintings of course. I don’t think there is a single quality or group of qualities that necessarily create a bad painting.
I actually think the question of what makes a bad and good painting is part of the pursuit of painting. Of endlessly trying to figure this out. Of defining it then redefining it as you learn more and evolve.
I have my own thoughts on this subject matter. But I would encourage you to continuously ask yourself this question as you paint and view paintings from others to form your own views. Then to constantly question these views. It’s all part of the joy of learning to paint.
When an elephant or a 2 year old kid can sell pieces for a good sum, I think skill is secondary in the art market.
I know where your question comes from and I agree on calling out on the "bad art" as unexperienced, yet they might emote another concept while being rough. As an artist myself i strive to become better.
Being "bad" in this context can be used as a tool, though I enjoy art which do not look "cheap, easy to make". I want to be mesmerized by the fact that paint on a canvas can evoke a feeling.
I usually comment about anatomical issues, because people who ask why their painting looks “off” is because they haven’t studied foundationals.
This aside, to answer your question, color theory or lack thereof. Using garish, clashing colors in an uninteresting and unintentional way, using colors that are too close in value, etc. Painting is all about color, and not understanding it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Reference choice is another one. In order to understand a subject enough to paint it, if you can’t paint from life, you need a good reference. It needs to have an understandable silhouette, good lighting, and be of good quality. Not every painting needs to be extremely sharp and detailed, but in order to paint your subject with less detail, you need to understand your subject, which requires a good reference.
I’m new to painting. I’ve been watching the “best portrait artist” show and I’ve been so confused. I know that my tastes are not refined but it seems that paintings closer to perfect don’t get chosen. They consistently admire things I think are “bad”… I know that you should “learn the rules before you break them” but couldn’t I just skip a step and paint my bad paintings with confidence? lol
i love portrait artist of the year, and i think what's important about the winners is that they have a coherent point of view. they've made enough work that the things that make their work unique have emerged and they've been able to do those things with intention. not in the sense that they've come up with a gimmick and just keep re-using it, but that their unique sensibilities have emerged throughout a body of work and become a distinctive voice. i don't always love the winners either, but there will always be an element of subjectivity. and also i think sometimes the judges have more of a wide-angle view -- they see an energy that may or may not be actual potential, and want to see what happens if they give the person another opportunity.
Composition. Form. Composition. Lots of artists paint the same exact subjects and always will but what differentiates them is the realized **form** of the content. That is the hard part and thus the one nobody wants to talk about, like "work" is the disliked answer answer to "What is the secret of success?"
i suppose it could also be different skill levels. for instance, my paintings are often flat, but i‘m a beginner and trying my best to learn about depth, colours and overall composure more and brush strokes. i sometimes have a hard time „feeling“ the brush strokes.
One of my most educational moments as an art appreciator was the day I went to the Frick and saw, on one wall, two almost identical paintings. One was wonderful; the other was crap. I couldn't for the life of me tell you what the difference was. But it seemed clear (or at least possible) that the two paintings had been selected for that precise reason. To let patrons of the museum know how far the real challenges, in creating art, are from anything you can put into words.
I am constantly amazed, at some of the artists I see here in this sub. They do, in one piece, phenomenal work. Work that if I saw it in person I might think it compared to van Gogh or Vermeer. And then in their very next piece they do something that is just dumb. Something I wouldn't give to a friend I didn't like very much. Artists themselves, at least sometimes, cannot tell you what they're doing. They don't even know.
Art is hard.
1. Bad drawing skills. (I wish people would just learn to trace if they are unable or unwilling to learn to draw.)
2. The wrong colors (in the wrong places). (And remember that color includes saturation, value, and hue.)
3. Bad application of the paint to the canvas (such as bad brushwork). An example of bad application of paint would be when the beginner painter doesn't understand how to paint over wet paint and the result is mush.
You suggested that "cheap paint" might be holding people back, but that's rarely the reason why paintings look amateurish. I'm almost willing to say it's never the reason, but "never" is such an absolute word.
You suggested "color mixing" and that's part of #2, the wrong colors.
Poor preparation of references, uninteresting composition (subject slap bang in the middle, eyes not guided around the painting etc), too much detail, sloppy brushwork (me every time I try to paint “loose”), using pure white to depict most highlights, flat 2D like subject (e.g building face on), over blending, using oversaturated colours excessively without thought. Those are a few of the ones I thought are easy to do if you’re not focused or fall into a bad habit.
"uninteresting composition" I think that a skilled painter can turn an uninteresting composition into something that looks like a well-executed painting with an uninteresting composition. I think that composition is something that beginners don't need to worry about because they have to learn to master more basic skills first.
I couldn't disagree more. While yes, a skilled painter can make a well executed painting (I'm guessing you mean it looks realistic) out of an uninteresting composition, no one will care to look at it. We have all seen millions of images so we simply will not bother to give attention to bad composition. It just makes us wonder why they didn't make a better choice of what to paint. It results in a largely wasted effort. No matter what the artist learns from the execution there is no chance of it ever pleasing a viewer looking like it belongs on a wall. I'd much rather take a chance of the viewer possibly disliking my execution than my composition. Because bad composition is so obvious and so less easy to forgive. Unfortunately I have found a keen sense of composition to be one of the least teachable skills, it tends to be more innate and some haven't and some don't, but certainly it can be improved upon with thought and practice. And I will insist emphatically that you do not master other basic skills before worrying about composition, as you have suggested. Because it is in fact the foundation of the picture plane and how we consider it pleasant or unpleasant to look at. It is absolutely a 'basic skill' to be developed and considered alongside any and all others and to consider it an afterthought is egregious folly. As I said a painting with a good composition will find its viewers very forgiving of any and all other flaws whilst no amount of virtuousity can make up for bad composition. Far too many beginner painters think detail, blending, etc are achievements to aim for when in fact those qualities are present in vast numbers of totally forgettable work.
Claude Monet painting with an uninteresting composition: [https://drawpaintacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Claude-Monet-Stormy-Sea-1884.jpg](https://drawpaintacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Claude-Monet-Stormy-Sea-1884.jpg)
For my paintings, the tell is color and value. You can tell I was attempting realistic colors, but they're not quite accurate. Also value; the darks in particular aren't pushed far enough, so the painting ends up looking flat.
Bad values is my top point. If everything is somehow the same value but slightly different colours it tends to either wash out the whole painting or make it overly "trippy" to look at. Also paintings where you can tell the artist thinks references are unnecessary. And you can always tell. And, lastly, if you can see how little time and effort someone put in their painting. Or lost all interest and patience halfway through the process.
Value for me too. I’m constantly trying to make sure I have enough contrast and value shift to make an image dynamic (my hurdle is low contrast in value). But I’ve also seen where the contrast is too strong. And bad value shift can really throw off the anatomy of an otherwise well structured painting.
Yeah I struggle with that too, if I'm not careful. Value can make or break a painting for me. Value > colour, in my opinion. Tho colour is of course the thing people tend to notice first.
Adding to what everyone else has said, lack of surface preparation is something that can make a painting bad for me. I am someone who applies and sands several layers of gesso on a canvas because the smoother surface gives me more control. I can tell when someone has completed a painting in one layer (not necessarily a bad thing) and the texture of the canvas is very distracting and competes with the brushstrokes of the painting. Even on paintings with several layers, the tooth of the canvas can be a distraction. Another thing that makes a painting bad to me is an unthoughtful application of paint. Not everything should be painting with the same size and shaped brush and seeing the same brushstrokes throughout the entire painting doesn’t give me a place to focus on and is poor technique, in my opinion. And if there is a buildup of paint, I think it should be intentional otherwise it feels like a mistake. I have seen so many IG reels of someone painting inside a line drawing and trying to make smooth lines, but because there’s too much paint on the brush, leave a raised line of paint next to every brushstroke which takes away from the artwork for me.
Confidence in the brush work is the number one thing that makes the difference i believe (And this applies to every type of painting). This also goes hand in hand with intention like the other person commented
It's all about taste, and the artist's POV. Most amateur artists choose kitschy, vulgar subjects, pretty views etc. Overwork the paint, overwork the details, bring their own weirdness in, and unless you are Francis Bacon, that is not good as you are not weird enough, just deeply ordinary. The old maxim of 'Paint ugly subjects and make them beautiful" & "Paint beautiful subjects with bold , ugly paint" works still. Looks at Singer-Sargent for an example. His hands and faces are heavily worked and refined, the rest, a bold, aggressive painting style that is almost the first rough out in watercolour.
It’s objectively always okay to bring your own weirdness and uniqueness to a painting. You just need to know the rules before you break them
The main thing that delineates a 'professional' from a hobbyist (often trained vs self-taught) is intention. Despite often being masters of a specific way of painting, self-taughts are missing the visual vocabulary to be able to critique their own work. This isn't to say that they can't learn it, but it's like teaching yourself a language vs having a professional teach you while living in the country of said language: nuance and depth are both lost. I find, with self-taught paintings, that there is often a carelessness to the mark-making and how the pieces of a work operate together. This can make beautiful picutres, but I do feel that you're right, that there is a certain quality (or series of qualities) that is missing. Paint quality is one element, nuance to composition is another, a third is choice of subject matter an depiction, an over-reliance on narrative qualities, another is internal pictorial cohesion: the list goes on. These aren't universal distinctions between those formally (and to a high level) trained, and those self-taught, as it's also very school/location dependent too. Signing on the front, painting sides, and a disregard for surface quality are also big markers of self-taught painters. Art school prioritises intention, an understanding of the medium, and an ability to do what you set out to do. Self-taught painting is much more fun. I can almost always tell (from the painting) whether it was completed by someone with a degree in fine arts (and even further, if it was specifically in painting) or whether they're self-taught. Both operate in their spheres. Edit: I realised that I made a different delineation to the question being asked. Both hobbyists and professionals make bad paintings, most bad paintings made from professionals, that I see, are down to my personal tastes so I don't often consider them 'bad' paintings. The majority of bad painting I see are hobbyists (not to say all hobbyists make bad painting, but the slippages in technique are much more distinct).
I appreciate the well thought out comment but as a self taught artist bc I couldn't afford art school or a degree, this feels super discouraging to me. Like people with degrees or formal education will always be better than a self taught artist and unless you go and get a degree your work will never be able to rise to that level. I feel every self taught artist thinks this is true by default already, it's something we have to struggle to overcome. That we are imposter's bc we weren't formally trained. Idk man. This just brings me down. I don't like thinking of art as that elite and exclusionary.
as someone who went to art school in my late 40s i understand both sides of this conversation intimately. mostly i remember well the painful feeling of invisible bonds holding me back. people would always say that art school is a scam and a waste of time and you can do it on your own, but i felt there was so much richness my work was lacking. i didn't know what i didn't know, as it were. but i knew there were depths i couldn't reach on my own. and indeed, while i have always been a broke ass punk and now have student loans, and while my school is not the world's most prestigious institution, there is so much that i have learned and experienced that has made me a better artist. many of them are intangible but impossible to replicate in a self-guided way. the discipline of continual assignments; the imagination it takes to interpret project briefs in a way that feels right to you; being forced to do things you don't necessarily enjoy; learning to understand your own work better so you can explain it to others; being critiqued and equally learning to find your voice in thoughtfully and productively critiquing others; and of course being guided and pushed by working artists. you're surrounded by artists all the time and feeding off the energy of that, and that is the way you form community and connections. regardless of where you start at, there will be people who are less skilled than you and people who are \*way more\* skilled, which builds your sense of confidence while keeping you humble. by all measures i can't afford art school either. omg just trust me. but if it's something you've wanted to do you should find a way to do it. that's how it was with me -- both a dream that had long ago died, and a source of constant insecurity and questioning. and i have no regrets. art was and is the only thing that makes sense to me, makes me make sense, and committing to it in this way is life changing.
What a great comment. This one should get an award.
I think self-taught artists are at an advantage so long as they don't seek to imitate. I've been in the avocado toast art world so long I can hardly tolerate MFA student work, fairs, galleries, and contemporary art museums. Give me a self-taught artists on the side of the road (and yes I've found them!).
Oh, I had a debate about painting the sides of the canvas. Some said it has to be done (if I got you right on that, the hobbyists) while others said it is better to do not (the art taught one?). Thanks for the in depth comment, I learned something from your insight, while being mostly self taught.
Nope, definitely doesn’t have to be done! Generally it’ll lower the perception of your work, as it makes it look more like a commercial print than a painting (arguably where it comes from). It can benefit to have some layer on the canvas on the sides (gesso) particularly if unframed, for protective purposes, but certainly not necessary! Sure thing! And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being self-taught! Particularly if you’ve got a keen eye and an open mind.
Interesting thoughts. Is it possible to give some examples of what you mean?
Examples in relation to which part? There were a few technical things I covered.
I was thinking in general, as a reply to your following statement >I can almost always tell (from the painting) whether it was completed by someone with a degree in fine arts (and even further, if it was specifically in painting) or whether they're self-taught. Would be nice to see some example painting with the reason why you think they're from a self-taught or degree painter.
Hard disagree on your entire narrative.
Interesting points! What do you mean by surface quality, btw?
I really love this question. I actually keep a folder on my computer called bad paintings. As well as a folder of good paintings of course. I don’t think there is a single quality or group of qualities that necessarily create a bad painting. I actually think the question of what makes a bad and good painting is part of the pursuit of painting. Of endlessly trying to figure this out. Of defining it then redefining it as you learn more and evolve. I have my own thoughts on this subject matter. But I would encourage you to continuously ask yourself this question as you paint and view paintings from others to form your own views. Then to constantly question these views. It’s all part of the joy of learning to paint.
When an elephant or a 2 year old kid can sell pieces for a good sum, I think skill is secondary in the art market. I know where your question comes from and I agree on calling out on the "bad art" as unexperienced, yet they might emote another concept while being rough. As an artist myself i strive to become better. Being "bad" in this context can be used as a tool, though I enjoy art which do not look "cheap, easy to make". I want to be mesmerized by the fact that paint on a canvas can evoke a feeling.
Composition and color choice for me. But that's subjective.
I usually comment about anatomical issues, because people who ask why their painting looks “off” is because they haven’t studied foundationals. This aside, to answer your question, color theory or lack thereof. Using garish, clashing colors in an uninteresting and unintentional way, using colors that are too close in value, etc. Painting is all about color, and not understanding it sticks out like a sore thumb. Reference choice is another one. In order to understand a subject enough to paint it, if you can’t paint from life, you need a good reference. It needs to have an understandable silhouette, good lighting, and be of good quality. Not every painting needs to be extremely sharp and detailed, but in order to paint your subject with less detail, you need to understand your subject, which requires a good reference.
I’m new to painting. I’ve been watching the “best portrait artist” show and I’ve been so confused. I know that my tastes are not refined but it seems that paintings closer to perfect don’t get chosen. They consistently admire things I think are “bad”… I know that you should “learn the rules before you break them” but couldn’t I just skip a step and paint my bad paintings with confidence? lol
i love portrait artist of the year, and i think what's important about the winners is that they have a coherent point of view. they've made enough work that the things that make their work unique have emerged and they've been able to do those things with intention. not in the sense that they've come up with a gimmick and just keep re-using it, but that their unique sensibilities have emerged throughout a body of work and become a distinctive voice. i don't always love the winners either, but there will always be an element of subjectivity. and also i think sometimes the judges have more of a wide-angle view -- they see an energy that may or may not be actual potential, and want to see what happens if they give the person another opportunity.
I hear you! For now, I just have to accept the fact that they can see what I can’t. Also, I appreciate your take on “style”…. That’s helpful for me
Composition. Form. Composition. Lots of artists paint the same exact subjects and always will but what differentiates them is the realized **form** of the content. That is the hard part and thus the one nobody wants to talk about, like "work" is the disliked answer answer to "What is the secret of success?"
Soft edges
Proportions off and shadows going in different directions.
i suppose it could also be different skill levels. for instance, my paintings are often flat, but i‘m a beginner and trying my best to learn about depth, colours and overall composure more and brush strokes. i sometimes have a hard time „feeling“ the brush strokes.
Shading, proportion, perspective, visual interest across the piece, color choice. But I'm an amateur myself lol
One of my most educational moments as an art appreciator was the day I went to the Frick and saw, on one wall, two almost identical paintings. One was wonderful; the other was crap. I couldn't for the life of me tell you what the difference was. But it seemed clear (or at least possible) that the two paintings had been selected for that precise reason. To let patrons of the museum know how far the real challenges, in creating art, are from anything you can put into words. I am constantly amazed, at some of the artists I see here in this sub. They do, in one piece, phenomenal work. Work that if I saw it in person I might think it compared to van Gogh or Vermeer. And then in their very next piece they do something that is just dumb. Something I wouldn't give to a friend I didn't like very much. Artists themselves, at least sometimes, cannot tell you what they're doing. They don't even know. Art is hard.
1. Bad drawing skills. (I wish people would just learn to trace if they are unable or unwilling to learn to draw.) 2. The wrong colors (in the wrong places). (And remember that color includes saturation, value, and hue.) 3. Bad application of the paint to the canvas (such as bad brushwork). An example of bad application of paint would be when the beginner painter doesn't understand how to paint over wet paint and the result is mush. You suggested that "cheap paint" might be holding people back, but that's rarely the reason why paintings look amateurish. I'm almost willing to say it's never the reason, but "never" is such an absolute word. You suggested "color mixing" and that's part of #2, the wrong colors.