Above is an image sent to me by a reader. I like that they have studied French Impressionist painting well enough to work in that genre. I think it is really valuable in training to choose an artist or school that interests you, and study it so thoroughly that you can work in that technique, Whether or not you remain in that method, it gives you a baseline. You will have at least one way of doing things, which is infinitely superior to no way of doing things. Before you reinvent the wheel, it is good practice to build a wheel or two in the way it has been done historically. My guess is that this is a studio piece, although I do not know that, and it must be closely based on a French 19th century example. I would suggest to this painter that the next step would be to go out on location and try applying this system on location. There is a lot right with this painting, and it has some charm, however I am here to criticize (find fault) with it. It is most useful to know what is wrong with your painting, that is where you will need to study. I would suggest to the painter that they not touch, or revisit this painting, rather apply my criticism to the next thing they make. It is easy to just make another picture, if you rework criticised paintings you lose the notes from class.
I think the painting has a problem with all of those receding lines that take you forcibly and deeply into the picture yet don't provide a "thingy" to look at when you get there. The house seems to be more of the pointing system, rather than pointed to.
There are repeated intervals in this picture too. Here is a set. It is best to form a variety of shapes, with irregular and varied intervals. The repeating of the same interval or distance from one thing to the next is static and looks mechanical.
There are things here which don't explain well. In a painting it is problematic to have the viewer stop and wonder, "what's that?" Number one must be a little tree, but I can't really tell. It may have looked exactly like that in nature, in which case the artist needs to modify the thing so as to explain itself. Number two might be a rock, or maybe a loaf of bread, I want to know. Number three is the head of a figure, but it looks too like a ripe olive. That needs to be more head-like. Number four is in the trunk of the tree, usually trees obey "constant taper" very seldom is there more volume above the trunk than below. If you search "constant taper" in the box at the upper left I have written more about that.
The picture is cut in half by the implied horizon line. The artist would be better moving this line up or down. This would require a decision, is the snow the thing? or is it the sky? Again this is a repeated interval problem.
The notes with the crude arrows pointing to them are all about the same, yet some are in the light and some are in the shadow. They are too much the same, both in value and color temperature.
The passage at the lower left is either in the light, or in the shadow, maybe both! The two worlds must be kept separate. Either the light hits something or it does not. There is no other location for a note than in the light or in the shadow. The rest of the passage is clear enough, I suspect that there was either more color there, or reflected light and that confused the painter enough that they split the difference. Every time your brush hits the painting you must know, "is this passage in the light or is it in the shadow?". ( I wonder if I am supposed to use a period in this place, please advise style editors pout there? it sure looks wrong).
Tomorrow I will rework the victim in photoshop and talk about what I did to it and why.