Style (discussion)

[Profil]

Here's another try to have a useful thread in the lounge.

I saw someone write something like this the other day: (can't remember the author)
"Style is the mistakes you make that other people don't make."

It was quite a revelation for me because all these people say all the time: I want to draw realistic etc. And then they also say "I want to have my own style, lalalal poo." But that's contradicting because the more style you have, the less realistic you will draw.
So is style something we shouldn't seek? Is that just something that is a cover up for our mistakes and we gave it a better name?
Of course there are beautiful pieces of art which are very stylistic, but was they made because they couldn't draw as realistic as they wanted, or wasn't the reality enough?
This is just a discussion, so there are no direct right/wrong answers.

[DavePalumbo]

generally, style seems to happen like it or not, and the more you try to steer it, the more you run the risk of becoming a "look alike" artist (modeling yourself off another artists work). My 2 cents

[glikster]

Ditto to what Dave Palumbo said.

It is generally considered to be a good thing to have a recognizable style, simply because it is that - recognizable. Your work is known as your work which leads to more work.
On the other hand, it is generally considered to be a good thing to be able to create art that does not bear the marks of your recognizable style. I would think that that would be a test of versatility in an artist.

In terms of what you said, profil, Norman Rockwell drew incredibly "realistically" and also had a distinctly recognizable style. I believe you are confusing "style" with "stylized".

My 2 cents.:bashful:

[blog]

thats really quite interesting shit right there profil, indeed a successful thread...

































unlike mine :)



















































oh and make a successful sketchbook thread too, you need to update dude!

[cotron]

while I still hate the word style, I was talking to Sterling Hundley about it a year or two ago, he said something quotable... along these lines- Style is finding what you don't like about your work, changing it, and keeping the things that you do like. Trial and error, basically.

[Gloominati]

in my opinion "seeking-style" is the worst thing you can do if you wanna become a concept artist.Heaving a style is a good thing (hell it's cool) but seeking for it is waste of time, it can even destroy your images. Especially a concept artist needs to create "believable" creatures/characters/machines etc. so no one cares what your style is. If you work for the gaming-industry i think that no one cares about your style as well because the images you create are the start for the animated "thing" (for example a creature). So in the end no one will even see your 'style'(except if a artbook is released or something like that).
Don't get me wrong I love all artists who have a great style so that I can recognize the artist of a certain image at once but I think that style comes completely on its own and that style itself isn't even almost as important as the functionality/belivability of the object you create as a concept-artist.

[Marko Djurdjevic]

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

[Redder]

I want to point out that the properties that serve to characterize style differ in the many fields of art (comics, concept, fine arts, illustration...etc).

[bdfoster]

I think Marko really nailed it in his post.

I was reading the aforementioned thread where style became an "issue" (discussing a young professional concept artist's body of work) and it did get me thinking. There are certain markets-- illustration, most notably, where style is everything. You are hired to produce a certain "look", which is what you have already demonstrated in your portfolio. This, in some respects, can be considered stylization. The most successful practitioners of these arts are, as Marko pointed out, not limited to the style they produce in. They have a wide artistic knowledge base to draw from, and can apply that to different "looks" as they see fit. They also have an ever growing vocabulary which they apply to their art. Someone like Donato Giancola, while being reconizable in his "style" has certainly expanded his approach, his pallette, and his subjects through the years. He has done a great job of slowly evolving this, too, so that his clients are not in the position of saying "This is not the style we hired you for." Of course, it doesn't hurt that he's an amazing draftsman. At the same time, I look at the work that Dan Dos Santos (DS Illustration) has done for the Last Man Standing Thunderdome, and I say "Damn he's versatile (comic books, photoshop, gorgeous oils). Why haven't I seen this in his pro work?" It's because (I can only assume) Dan's marketed himself as an oil painter, with a fairly realistic style. If he turned in his "Boy vs. Girl" piece to a client that hired him for his style, he'd be in trouble.

I think this issue is less prevalent in Concept Art, where versatility is the name of the game. What was discussed as "style" in the aforementioned thread was really an issue of "visual vocabulary". The artist used similar design motifs and markmaking across several projects, and some more experienced pros in the field pointed out that this could be an issue if it continues through his career. I think the mark making part is fine.. I mean, Marko's drawings are almost always going to look like Marko's drawings. But if as artists we are not expanding our creative vocabulary, branching out what we can draw (sometimes achieved by changing how we draw) then we will stagnate, and worse, we will fail as artists.

[James Kei]

What Marko said.

Never substitue style for knowledge.

-JK

[Pixeldragoon]

Marko stole my post.

Pretty much, the only style I shoot for is what other people call it. I never try to make anything any particular way besides how I want it. Because I am am me, things tend to look like they go together. That's what they call my style. AmishCommy told me about this all a while ago- It's like handwriting. ( This next part is my own saying) Every letter is always different, but it all looks the same anyways. That's how it works for me anyways.

[figure2]

As far as I am concerned, you begin to develop a unique style for yourself when you stop trying to emulate teachers or other artists you admire and begin to come up with your own solutions to creative problems.

[Interceptor]

I think a big part of style is also subject matter. Take Marko vs Wes. Similar pencil work, but the things you see from thier personal sketches are much different. Wes is more cute girls and realisticly clothed people. Marko is soliders and monsters type of thing... In may not be the key to definining someone's 'style'. But I do think it plays a part.

[Pixeldragoon]

Yeah, that's kinda what I was talking about, just... you know... with undertones...

[Steinmetz]

Learn to paint then develop a style if it doesn't come naturally, which it does anyway.

[darth massacre]

What Marko said. Get your stuff right and you can experiment however you want.

[DavePalumbo]

awesome. I read...

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.

and while I was readin this, I had one name in my head. That name?

A good example would be Rob Liefield

oh man, remember those tiny hills always obscuring the characters feet?

[Ilaekae]

Style is wearing checkered pants with a Hawaiian shirt over a plaid tee-shirt and argyle socks when your nephews visit with their nubile girlfriends so no one notices you're drolling because they're laughing so hard...

[Dizon]

"But that's contradicting because the more style you have, the less realistic you will draw. "

What? Not necessarily man...

[blog]

Profil you shouldn't need to worry about this anyway, cause you've started from the basics and wll bee s o thankful when you grow up, good luck!

[Magic Man]

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

Well...I'll just quote this and shut up.

Also, as in the first part of the piece, I was stuck in that "style"
style for a long time and only recently came out of it, in that sense, style can be the biggest destroyer of any talent you have. That post really hit home.

[Skank]

oh man, remember those tiny hills always obscuring the characters feet?

ahahaha
wow...those were the days huh?.......:dur:
and when he DID draw feet, they were these tiny little...things.

i can say for certain that "style" killed alot of my early growth in art. i saw a style i liked, and tried to copy it of course. that stunted my art in so many horrible and awful ways its not even funny. it still creeps into my art and drives me insane. im trying to pick up the pieces and start from scratch again. its been a humbling experience. :yayca: