Thank you for the detailed explanation. The way you describe it makes total sense.
I saw the snow as a patch and not a hill because there is no dropshadow on the left side and she doesn’t stagger or leave any visible footprints while descending. Those are all deliberate choices by the artist though I guess.
It may make sense as … she ascended the snow pile and then turned around to face the viewer.
But yeah, I … I still cannot quite make a 3d model of my interpretation of the scene in my head and have the lighting situation completely make sense.
Some of the shadowed areas do not quite align right… and the foreground element on the right is… ill defined?
I don’t know too much about the artist or art style perhaps the entire point is that the background and foreground just are not supposed to be the focus, not supposed to entirely make sense, what matters is the subject.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. The way you describe it makes total sense.
I saw the snow as a patch and not a hill because there is no dropshadow on the left side and she doesn’t stagger or leave any visible footprints while descending. Those are all deliberate choices by the artist though I guess.
There are foot prints.
It may make sense as … she ascended the snow pile and then turned around to face the viewer.
But yeah, I … I still cannot quite make a 3d model of my interpretation of the scene in my head and have the lighting situation completely make sense.
Some of the shadowed areas do not quite align right… and the foreground element on the right is… ill defined?
I don’t know too much about the artist or art style perhaps the entire point is that the background and foreground just are not supposed to be the focus, not supposed to entirely make sense, what matters is the subject.