It's a little unclear what you want critiqued in this piece. I assume that if you wanted a critique of each piece you would post them separately, so I'll assume that what you want is a general critique of your artistic technique. The first thing I notice is that your pieces approach photorealistic as I get about three times as far from the screen as I normally sit. Clearly, you have what it takes to produce photoreal compositions. Assuming that this is what you are aiming for, what ruins it is the blockiness of the shading. In the more sketchy of these demos, the middle left and bottom right, it should be clear what I am referring to, the fact that the shade changes abruptly at certain points in the piece. In the top right the shading on the belly and the fingers is a little bit modular as well. On the top left demo, there is a ring of light blur around the characters in the foreground, then another four times as far out. In the bottom left the characteristic shadows on the tin roof (I'm assuming it's tin) are ill-defined. This is more or less the only criticism of your technique which I can come up with, but it does take the viewer out of the piece somewhat. 4/5 stars on everything, because the art and concept is solid, but no more because I'm not sure where I'm supposed to be looking. I agree with that the top and bottom left are the best developed. The top right needs better shading in order to make the alien figure believable, and the other two are a bit sketchy. If you want something in particular critiqued, you should mention it in the description.
haha thanks. It's funny because yesterday I had a discussion with a friend about that. I've gotten used to doing stuff that's not ' artsy ', where I don't play so much with things that defy physics. If that makes any sense. Like abstract stuff. I like it ! But it's like I have an artist block when it comes to making too artsy stuff. Maybe later