From her website
'Fused trees create a forest background for the winter birch trees. The warmth of the pale amber glass hints at the spring thaw as the snow melts on the hillside.
The photo fusing process uses multiple photos, digitally enhanced and layered in Photoshop, then printed using a technique that transfers the image to the glass. The glass is then fired and the image is permanently fused into the glass. Those glass pieces are then cut and arranged in the leaded glass panel.
This piece won an honorable mention award at the 2018 In: Art Show in Wyoming, MN’
A little derivative, but still gorgeous. I guess it could be called an homage instead, but that’s whatever.
If you say derivative in a critique, you are obligated to say of what/who. Ideally provide an example link. A very bonus comment would also include why.
Otherwise you are just being ongo gablogian
There is no obligation involved at all.
But, anyone that couldn’t see the Mondrian influence in the work has never seen his stuff. Even the choice of trees as the background is a direct call back to his work.
Saying something is derivative is like saying:
“This looks influenced from…blank.”
Without supplying a “from” you have half an idea.
Ah.
I see you misunderstood this entire thing.
I have zero interest in playing silly little games like this. I do not accept your paradigm that I have an obligation to do anything at all.
So, bugger off and mind your own.
You’re on a public forum, leaving half formed thoughts for the rest of us. That’s all of our business. If you’re done, leave. If you disagree, disagree. but don’t act like you get to police my replies.
You used a trite, boring pedantic phrase with no backup, no reasoning. And having gone this far have made it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about, you clearly don’t know derivative of what