Storm

‘Good’ at trees you say?

Back in the depths of the rubbish paper era, this one happened.

It’s… fine. Perfectly serviceable. Not a disaster, not a triumph, just ok. Which is slightly annoying, given that this was firmly within my self-declared “good at trees” phase. Naturally, that confidence was immediately punished.

The tree isn’t terrible, but it’s not great either. The branches don’t quite have the rhythm I was aiming for, and the whole thing feels a bit stiff, like it’s posing rather than growing. I remember expecting more from it, which, in hindsight, was optimistic considering the paper was once again doing its best to sabotage any subtlety.

The background behaved better than the main event. The layered hills have a calmness to them, and the limited palette does a lot of heavy lifting. The circular format helped too, containing everything just enough to stop it drifting into chaos.

Still, this painting sits squarely in the “learning but not loving” category. A reminder that perceived strengths are often situational, and that materials matter far more than confidence alone. Being “good at trees” turns out to be conditional, who knew.

It’s not one I revisit for inspiration, but it’s useful to look back on occasionally. If nothing else, it keeps me humble… and reminds me that even your so-called strong points need decent paper to stand on.

Leave a comment