Definition of Style

[Jive]

How important is having a particular style of drawing, really? I've noticed for some time now that artists ,of course, often have a unique portrayal of things, a unique vision.
If you peer through their galleries you can see a consistency in their works: The way they draw their body
The way they draw their faces
Their style of coloring....etc...
Is this something all artists should try to do? Is it even something you CAN TRY to do? Or is it a natural course? A sub-conscious inkling that manifests itself effortlessly?
Personally, with my work, I do not seem to have a consistent style. Each piece varies greatly from the last. One piece will be a pseudo-realist figure study, and the next, an impressionistic storybook compilation. Is this a bad thing, not having a specific style? Not wanting to draw things in a certain way every time? In the end, will this only hurt me? Will it make it harder for people to identify with me and my work?
Or perhaps is it a good thing, to be flexible and to be able to express myself in a multitude of ways? In a word:

Is Style Nothing More Than Each Person's View of the World?
Is it a Benefit or Detriment if that View, that Style, Constantly Changes?

Let me hear your thoughts, because this has been bugging the CRAP out of me.

[Viridis]

If you search the archives you'll see this question has been asked many, many times already: http://conceptart.org/forums/search.php?searchid=4599136

The answer is basically: no, you shouldn't 'try' to have a style, it will just generally happen on its own. While it can certainly help to have your work be consistently recognizable, it's not a requirement or anything to have a certain style. And there's absolutely nothing stopping you or your style from changing over time--that will happen naturally too.

So yeah, stop worrying and just get back to drawing.

(I feel like we need a version of 'less QQ more PewPew' for art...)

[Farvus]

I'll quote here Marko Djudjevic's post from 2006. I think he really nailed it.

OK,

guys, you have to realize that there is two forms of style.

The first form of style is based on the lack of knowledge about certain things, such as anatomy, perspective, composition, etc...
Artist with a style like that are very distictable, cause they rely on shortcuts and style treatments to hide their flaws and issues in their own work.
A good example would be Rob Liefield.
Back in the early nineties everyone drooled over his "style". It was full of imperfections, flaws, mistakes, but it hit the nail in people for a certain period of time. People were liking the freshness of it for some particular reason that I cannot comprehend anymore today. Anyhow, his art didn't grow since then, he was caught up in his style for years and people started hating what they once loved. Because he would constantly reproduce his flaws and his art didn't mature as the culture around him evolved and ventured away from percieving his work as fresh. One of the main reasons for this happening, is that a style that is selling like hotcakes for a time will catch a lot of imitators and copycats, thus causing the market to drown in it's own pile of shit-styles. Spectators will grow tired of seeing the same style everywhere and long for something new. That is the point where most style-artist get outdated and forgotten by the general public within their own lifespan.
An artist like Liefeld is what you call a one-trick-pony. And there is alot of artists here on the boards who fall in the same category.



The second form of style is based on pure knowledge of all basics in art. An artist that has a great grasp for anatomy, composition, design, etc. will be able to venture into every possible style, just for the sake of trying out new things. His foundations will be so solid and strong, that he will be able to rely on them for every topic or style that he approaches, his style will define itself by how much he abstracts his knowledge about art from the basics, that he has inherited completly. Such an artist will always stay fresh, because of his abilities to work on a style for a given amount of time, then switch back to the basics and start searching for the next new style from this point on.
A good example for an artist who is capable of doing this daily is our very own Coro, who ventured from learning the basics, to his sketchbook graffiti influenced style, back to the basics, from there into representational landscape painting, then back to the basics, from there to his abstracted bum drawings and so forth. His handwriting will be seen in every one of his pieces, but it will be different in style every time. Mainly because of his expertise in the basics of art. Also, he will never have to worry about getting outdated due to an influx of imitators, cause as soon as this situation arises, he'll be able to go back to his basics, redefine himself, and start something completly fresh and new.
An artist like Coro is what you would call an accomplished artist, who is able to venture out of his comfort zone any time he needs or want's to.




Cheers
M

My two cents.

Even when you base your art mainly on foundations that allow you to do everything, the more complete artist you become, the more it leads to one of two different approaches. First would be focusing on one thing, pushing it to perfection and evolving it slowly so that you don't stagnate. Second would be going for being more experimental and trying out different styles even just out of curiousity. None of those is better or worse. I think it's just artist's personal trait that says something about his personality. You can change styles as much as you can and in every drawing there will be your handwriting but also you'll be recognized as someone who is very experimental (or not). So you couldn't escape from being noticable even if you want to. It just takes some time to fully grow and work out this type of consistency.

Cheers.

[Jive]

Thank you Farvus, that was very informational. I have always been worried that not setting a specific style or finding my own voice over the years was a sign that I wasn't making real progress as an artist.
And i think that worry was also stunting my progress as well.
Now i am going to try my best and simply follow my instinct. Cultivating visions. I guess i have to forward think, rely on what I know, and dis concern what would or wouldn't be accepted by others.
Once again thankyou very much.

[Elwell]

Marko is wise.

[steve kim]

style = totality of an artist's shortcomings

[Pigeonkill]

I think style is building up one’s visual vocabulary through experience. Naturally we all absorb what interest us and cut out what seems unnecessary. Having a strong skill set helps us interrupt and execute those ideals.

I think it's good to just be yourself, not try to be a slave to any one style. There’s always room for improvement and fun exploring.

[Jive]

That's an interesting viewpoint Pigeon Kill, a filtering of seemingly important and unimportant things.
It's especially intriguing after I took a look at your sketchbook ( Which was awesome by the way) and noticed that you also had a varying style. It would shift sometimes even on the same page.
Something very similar to myself.

So I am inclined to agree.

Perhaps the reason why my, or anyone else's style may continually shift, is because with each piece traits and characteristics and detail become more or less significant to relay the emotion behind that piece.

Conversely, would that mean that an artist who may have a consistent style... simply has a constant view of how things appear to be, of what is or is not important to relay that emotion?

Through the years my work (which I look forward to sharing and be critiqued on soon) has habitually morphed, so I seem to be fighting off an identity crisis of sorts. Thusly, this is a question that has been bothering me for some time.