I have not yet looked at any of your other art. This piece caught my attention because, frankly, i have hated with a passion every single picture of one eye that I have seen simply because of this
Yours... I did not hate, it's quite original actually... somehow.. and for that it has my respect.
But as soon as i read the description i quickly fell out of love with it's artist. you should try not to blatantly brag about your own skill with a piece like this. it's creative and well executed but the fact that it took you 20 minutes is really what i would have expected. its a very simple piece. And the reason you shouldn't explain the meaning behind your painting is not because you are evil or want to see what people will guess, it's because the piece should speak for itself or it isn't doing its job.
things i like
-the shadow around the iris, i love the black ink surrounding the edge of the iris, you did a great job of making this feel 3D, it gives it a sort of wildflower look that is really aesthetically pleasing
-the detail within the pupil is really neat, i would not have guessed it was a rabbit but it does have a sort of sinister, animal look to it that brings your attention to the center (a good place for it to be in this piece) and it makes the overall piece more interesting
-Color use. It can be a challenge with watercolor to use the color well when you have the ability to put so much of it into the picture. the fact that you only used greens and blacks shows a practiced amount of control
things i didn't like
- I do not enjoy the fact that this was digitally edited. I dont think it is always a bad thing to mix traditional and digital art but in this case it only made me wonder what you did with a brush and what you did with a few clicks of your mouse. it made the whole piece less impressive to me, knowing that the more challenging parts of painting in this piece might have been done on the computer.
I thank you for your critique, and I respect your opinion, but there are things I'd like to clarify:
First of all, the whole "20 minutes" thing: I did not say it to brag, I simply did because sometimes people want to know that. And yes, it is a fairly simple painting, but what's your point here? I've never said it was very sophisticate or its complexity was above average, plus, complexity and detail are not the only things that define a good artwork: just think about impressionist/expressionist artists such as Monet or Van Gogh: the strong point of their art is the emotionality of them, not a particular level of realism.
About the meaning: a painting should speak for himself or else it isn't doing its job? Mostly true, but not always. Are you sure you can interpret ANY painting, just by looking at it? An example: Dalí. Will you say that it is possible to catch the meaning of all his pieces just by looking at them? Dalí himself once said that he painted some of his pieces in the most absurd way possible just to see what the critiques would have said.
For this reasons, it is helpful to have a description which comes with the painting, but sometimes (as in this case) the artist simply doesn't want to share it, simply because the meaning of his artwork is strongly related to himself and it's very personal.
About the editing done in photoshop: I don't have a tablet or anything else to paint digitally, so what you see was entirely made with a "real" brush. I edited it because the process of putting my art into "digital" form, in order to be able to share it here on dA, comes with a huge quality loss, so editing becomes necessary in order to rebalance the colors to make them look more similar as they are in reality. But anyway, why do you think would have been bad if " the more challenging parts of painting in this piece might have been done on the computer"? I really can not understand why you dislike digital art so much, painting digitally is equally difficult as doing it traditionally, there are no "instant-art" buttons on a computer, so I really can not understand your point there.
Please do not consider this comment as an "angry" reply to your critique; all I wanted is to clarify some points, and I had to do it because, since the description is short and not very informative, some misunderstandings may happen. Misunderstandings that could have maybe been avoided by looking at some of my other works: maybe you would have understood my particular style of painting better.