And my advice to you is to stop worrying about abstract things that may be a problem in the future and concentrate on learning how to draw, especially from observation.
Still I don't know if its objectively true because someone else might see it serving another purpose.
Last edited by LightandDark; August 8th, 2012 at 11:10 PM.
I'm confused. It seems to me the OP is actually talking more about design? Especially with the cartoons being mentioned; there have been obvious intentional choices that were made. Everything in Pinocchio is extra thick. IIRC, Tarzan's props are all particularly fussy by making the proportions taller and thinner than actual real life objects. I don't know if just telling someone to draw more from observation (while always excellent advice!) is enough in this case?
Does it depend on the context because all the objects/characters within the image are designed with the same 'rules' in mind?
The only thing I want to throw out there is. For cartoons and something like Adventure time take into account if they were a still image vs animated stories. Adventure Time if I saw a few still images I'd say "Ok that's neat, a bit cutesy" but it wouldn't have nearly the impact, and I highly doubt would become very popular. Same thing with even something as big as Legend of Korra or something where the drawings are actually pretty sweet. Would still be ok, but it's only truly great because of the story and how it's communicated in animation. You get to know the characters and then there's a sort of feeling attached to them.
Eh I'm ranting. Just pointing out animation isn't quite the same as doing a still life or anything. You can have a bunch of people paint the same thing and every piece will turn out different. You get a studio of animators together they better be able to draw it all the same way based on the characters designs.
Can anyone elaborate on this rehearsed sounding line? by now 2 people already wrote that and to me personally it doesn't make much sense because an artist's limits are something that never really cease from evolving.Style is your finite limitations as an artist.
Also I doubt artists with a style see it as limiting themselves or unable to draw in someone else's style if they really wanted to make the effort.
The idea about bad art goes back to the argument; is there good and bad art or only art and not art? In any case we return to; what is the definition of art? No thanks.
Last edited by devyni; August 9th, 2012 at 02:07 PM. Reason: Re-read that last part and realized I didn't really respond to the point Arshes Nei was making. Sorry!
Today I think some of his art is really good by its own right and definitely something that could sell.
Again My point was not exclude anything ...I'm not the first guy to say 'bad art' on this thread and bad art is still art and there is a museum for bad art as well, the question is : what is bad art and who are we to decide ? from what I see art that no one really wants, that no one would be willing to buy is considered bad art?
Personally on an intellectual level I believe bad art is something very subjective that each person decide for themselves: For example In my eyes Abstracts by Kandinsky and Mondrian are good and have value because they are inspiring and aesthetically interesting while abstracts composed of random paint splatters are meaningless and uninteresting.
As far as the main topic , I think its yet another beginner question thread that can be answered with 'shut-up and draw' or 'go out there and draw' as Elwell already pointed out because style is something that emerges with practice.
Developed Actively by vBSocial.com