I wasn't sure whether to comment or not as I don't know if the camera & flash are doing this painting an injustice, but to me the hills look a bit muddy, the brown lines arn't quite right and it just doesn't quite work for me. It isn't flat as such, I can see recession in the colours to the background, but the hills arn't fresh and vibrant as watercolurs should be and I don't think there's enough contrast between the foreground and middle ground. The eye isn't lead around this painting quite right. I think it would be better if there was more sea at the left hand edge so the hill doesn't stop at the fence post.
i agree with the general comments, it does look a little flat. as a general rule, the further you go, the more blue in your mix. also, reduce the constrast on far away object. distant hills are generally just a little shade of greyish blue, compared to the sky.
dont be afraid to use artistic licence to "improve" on your photograph. even if the hills are very green on you photograph, just dull them out. it will bring the foreground out.
furthermore... i hope you didnt use green straigth from the pan, or tube.. it's a big no no (unless you are very experienced) !
always mix your green from a blue and yellow, preferably the ones you used everywhere else in your painting.
hope i am being constructive without being patronising !
keep it up !
Thanks for your comments, I did wonder whether to give it a glaze of blue but personally I am happy with its finish myself. I fully understand the painting conventions, in fact its a naughty picture because its mixed media!
Learnt the other day that Damien Hirst only obtained an E grade for art GCSE. :wink:
Look what they pay for his pictures, mine nowhere reach his standard of course.
You could always go down the route of painting matchstick people and buildings just like an earlier 'artist'. Then people will give BIG money for the painted versions of the kings new clothes :roll: :roll: