I'll try to write a critique here, I've never done this before and so hopefully the critique itself won't be critiqued:

It's never the same (and never as good, if the actual painting is good) when viewing a two-dimensional digital image of what in reality is a significantly three-dimensional work. Still, although it would be easier to judge in person, even in the flattened digital image here for me to look at, the brushstrokes are very visible, and the flowers sit strongly in the foreground, their texture giving them a depth and adding to the perspective that is already there in the overall form of the work.

I see a very effective combination of a symmetric placing of the plant and flowers in the center, the plant growing from the bottom center of the canvas, the flowers blossoming at the ends of fainter, delicately climbing, almost (but not) fading into the sea of red-orange, stems, the entire plant a gentle explosion of life springing from not just the bottom part of the canvas but as if from its surface as well. So that it comes both up and out, giving it a strongly three-dimensional feel. At the same time the flowers and the stems look placed as nature would randomly done so, the stems and petals being asymmetric, for nature of course is never exact. The flowers themselves face in different directions, the lowest two facing towards the viewer, adding again to the sense of depth perception.

The blue, found only at the extreme lower canvas, obviously signifies the water that is the source of the verdure; the water too does not come entirely across, giving it a tertiary role compared to the plant and background. The cold blue water also contrasts the much warmer sunset-colored background, framing the flower plant further between them.

The flowers themselves are of similar color to the background; this allows them to blend into it to, as if they are so closely connected with the sun, which powers them; at the same time, the flowers' brighter tone and color keeps them distinct from the background. All but two of the flowers are red, and the bright yellow ones are balanced at somewhat opposite positions, adding to the impact of the painting. The background itself is lit most on the left, deepening from brightest yellow to moderate orange-red as the eye travels rightwards. This changing coloring to me, going from mostly yellow with some orange to mostly red-orange with some yellow, gives the painting a greater feeling of motion, as if the background itself is moving slowly across the sky. Also, the red flowers on the left are well-placed to contrast against the brighter background, as is the one bright yellow flower on the right is against the reddening background.

There are no rules in art, so nothing is "wrong" for me to correct. However the one thing I would question are a few green strokes at bottom of the plant, below the flowers, to the left of the main plant stem, are questionable, in that it is hard to tell if they are stems or fallen leaves. It may have reduced some of the simplicity of the painting by having too much extra green paint there, distracting from the flowers and main plant.

Overall a beautiful and playful picture.