A painting in the making

Nice, but even nice IMO if a person had been standing there painting at the time.

Stephen, appreciate the comment, though this would have made it a different photograph.

Yes, so that comes back to the point of a critique.  Because I don't know why you took the photo, I have to go with my own gut reaction, and I think in general a photo like this, especially with the title you gave to it, tells a more complete and compelling story with a person present.  That kind of comment is based on my own bias, and it is offered only as something for you to think about, especially if you do not have the sense that many people have regarding the power of having a person in many compositions, including landscapes.  On the other hand, if you were telling a story of which I'm completely unaware, this composition may be exactly what you were after, and adding a person might go so far as to destroy your intention.

So, yes, adding a person would make it a different photograph.  In some cases, that might be what the photographer was after, in other cases it might be detrimental to the intentions of the photographer, and in still other cases the photographer might consider it a flip of a coin.

A more objective comment that I just noticed -- the can at the base of the easel appears to be tilted, so I suspect the entire photo is tilted somewhat (hard to judge based on anything else in this area of slanted rock).  Also, I think you should have included the points where the easel contacts the ground rather than cutting off the legs and the bottom of the can.

I think (but I'm not sure) I have a similar photo in my collection; it was taken at an arboretum when an artist was painting the spring bloom.  For my purposes, having the artist was essential.  If the artist hadn't been present but the easel had been there, I probably would have gotten much closer so that the work on the canvas could have been seen in greater detail.