AuthorTopic: The definition of a Style....  (Read 16445 times)

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

The definition of a Style....

on: September 10, 2007, 07:46:10 pm
(quoted from my morning professor)

The definition of Style is "...To have the Balls to make the same mistake over and again until that mistake is taken for truth."

agree or disagree?
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Jad

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #1 on: September 10, 2007, 07:55:21 pm
Yes. Definately. At least that's how I achieve STYLE.

I love style :] Flaws are such a wonderful kind of beauty.

No really, I think style can be a lot of things. But that is among the defining components, I'd say.
' _ '

Offline MoD

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • mnky
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #2 on: September 10, 2007, 08:15:10 pm
I would think of style as more of a reprioritization or selective emphasis than error. For example, some styles prioritize readability over anatomical accuracy because of small size, and others might prioritize realism or smoothness over low color counts.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #3 on: September 10, 2007, 09:47:12 pm
Agree. People will tell you '...but that's wrong!' and you will say 'I like it wrong'.

Offline Darien

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 435
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ...nine...ten...draw!
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #4 on: September 10, 2007, 09:53:52 pm
well, to me a mistake is only a mistake as long as it is unintentional, once you do it intentionally it's no longer a mistake but a choice.  So I suppose in that sense, yes, I agree, but I think your professor worded it in a way that makes it seem more profound than it really is.

Offline Conzeit

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1448
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Camus
    • conzeit
    • View Profile
    • CONZEIT

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #5 on: September 11, 2007, 02:53:25 am
I cant say I know enough to define what style IS......

But that certainly doesnt seem like the way to look at it. on some extent it could be true but that just sounds like it could be used to justify any flaw...and that's the problem with style around here.


I'll post this essay which I thought would alteast be a good oposition to the phrase you gave...even though I cant say this is THE truth

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_johnkstuff_archive.html
"Take It From Katie - an essay about style versus skill" and " Influences Won't Help You Without Skill" second post on the way down.
here's a jewel for ya

"I almost think that anyone who can tell you what their style is, or openly talks about "developing their style" is in danger of never finding a real style whatsoever"

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #6 on: September 11, 2007, 03:06:59 am
The difference is when people tell you 'so that's your style!' and when you say 'that's my style!'

The first isn't something you choose. The second is something you choose. I personally don't think I have a style and it always amazes me when people say I do.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #7 on: September 11, 2007, 03:25:52 am
interesting.  I think my personal opinion is most similar to darien's in that it's a rather dramatic but not inaccurate description.

is there a difference between assigned style and self-defined style? style as a proactive decision (i know i can do it like this but i prefer to do it like this) as opposed to a decision governed by failure? (i do not know how to do it like this and am unwilling/unable to pursue the matter, so i suppose this constant and unifying mistake will be considered by my style)?
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #8 on: September 11, 2007, 03:40:04 am
I think there is such a difference. For a long time an beginning artist is (and should be) trying to do things as well as they can, given their goals and aesthetic considerations. They should be trying to reach their ideal of how they should work, and that ideal though it will be individual when you get there, is not a 'style' as much as it is a vague combinatorial aproximation of all the things the artist has seen others do that thought were awesome.

Offline The B.O.B.

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 699
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • currently losering it up...
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #9 on: September 11, 2007, 03:43:38 am
   I just like to stick to the meat and potatoes logic: Style is just the way an individual, both the artist and audience, perceives it's creation. Several things could contribute to why their style looks that way, but do humans REALLY know why their pieces come out so differently than others? It always amazes me how  different everybodies perception of something is. You can dress up 40 kids in the same outfit, and cut their hair the same way, but leave them all to draw the same object in a room, and you will most definitely see a stark difference in each of them. Almost a perceptual fingerprint of our mentallity, that we probably still aren't aware of. That would be crazy, though, to get to the point where authorities would be able to identify you by your art. They already do it with signatures.(*light blinks on for more brainstorming on current/ongoing plot twist of fictional comic/story*)

   I still believe in the old practice habits that one should always try and perfect his skill no matter his excuse of what level he is at. There's always room for improvement, and style is NEVER a limit. Sure style may be flawed to one set of eyes, but to others, its new and refreshing. "one man's trash is another's gold."

edit: " Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.": Helm, you quick bastard...
my back hurts...

Offline Rox

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #10 on: September 12, 2007, 09:44:22 am
"Style" is why it's okay for Helm's avatar to consist of blue and yellow triangles.

On a more serious note, I don't think style can ever collide with the quality of one's work. If there is a blatant mistake in a piece and someone claims it's their style, then there's a blatant mistake in their style. I think that, if you upload art on galleries or post on forums or anything like that, you're not just making art for the fun of it, you're also making it for your audience to look at. If your audience dislikes something that you like, it's probably worth changing it because more people will find it better. Well, if they're a bunch that are able to give decent critique to begin with, of course. I wouldn't correct my art after DA comments, for example...

I know what my style is like. It's fairly cartoony and usually ends up with tons of sharp edges and corners. I've drawn like that for many many years, and even though my "style" changes constantly, some things never go away. If I sketch something quickly, it WILL have a ton of sharp corners and straight lines. It will also be fairly cartoony. I've never had a reason to incorporate hyperrealism into my art, so I don't really bother. Although, of course, despite all that, the basics are still the most important thing ever. Anatomy, proportions, image composition, if any of that is off, you CAN'T blame it on style, because they're not related.

Unless, of course, it's a specific attempt to make something look bad. Which is sometimes what some people do. I guess that's a style in itself. But! You need to know how to do something right in order to do it really wrong. So if someone, for some reason, wants to draw really badly, they should learn how to draw really good, then consciously do the opposite of that to achieve the proper result.

So, yeah, style never restricts, it's something you constantly build on. Sometimes you can't improve unless you let your style evolve. In fact, I found the best way to improve is to LET your style change in various ways you're not comfortable with.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #11 on: September 12, 2007, 12:51:31 pm
"Style" is why it's okay for Helm's avatar to consist of blue and yellow triangles.

Actually no, it's a matter of aesthetic choices. Aesthetics and stylistics aren't the same thing though they often boil down to the same set of motivations. The triangles have a deeper significance than 'they look cool' in this case.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #12 on: September 12, 2007, 09:04:44 pm
are you sure about this being an aesthetic choice?  it seems as though these triangles could mean many things to many people.  aesthetically blue and yellow has always been considered noble or even sublime beauty, though there's a slight garishness thrown in by the fact that you've used a cool blue instead of a warm (bringing you close to an adjacent color scheme, and granted green and yellow is not as bad as blue and green, but it's not typically regarded as pleasant).  You have repetition of form which would be considered soothing yet at the same time you have dramatic differences of scale which create discomfort, coupled by the fact that there's no clear hieratic progression for those differences it leaves (by design theory, not necessarily in practice) people rather confused and uncertain.  I'm not really sure of the aesthetic significance of all that though, unless your goal is to both attract and dissuade, comfort and discomfort...?  It's not even direct competition as it would be with say complements or pairs, it's just sort of an uneasy peace/cold war between the elements...?
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #13 on: September 12, 2007, 10:06:43 pm
The semiotic charges of many of my artistic choices are internal and are meaningless to externalise as text. Needless to say it's nothing to do with design theory.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #14 on: September 13, 2007, 01:36:50 am
ah, broader definition of aesthetics in place here :P
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Jad

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #15 on: September 13, 2007, 11:22:59 am
"Style" is why it's okay for Helm's avatar to consist of blue and yellow triangles.

Actually no, it's a matter of aesthetic choices. Aesthetics and stylistics aren't the same thing though they often boil down to the same set of motivations. The triangles have a deeper significance than 'they look cool' in this case.

Which means that if I, as a (hopythetically) capable artist, chooses to draw huge eyes and distorted facial anatomy on my characters, with a 'deeper significance' behind the reasoning than that it just 'looks cool', it's no longer Style but an Aesthetic Choice?

I can't really put the line between these subjects :O

Oh, and to elaborate on why I think that flaws=style sometimes: Often, when I get tired of trying to achieve 'perfection', I just stop giving a shit about some rules and draw with scribbly lines/bad anatomy/overly used Anime aesthetics. This might all be pointed out as 'flaws', but they give the drawings a delightful 'stylish' feel. Can't really put it in words. That's just my view of the subject.

Quote
The semiotic charges of many of my artistic choices are internal and are meaningless to externalise as text. Needless to say it's nothing to do with design theory.

This is also something I'd call 'style'
' _ '

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #16 on: September 13, 2007, 11:31:22 am
"Style" is why it's okay for Helm's avatar to consist of blue and yellow triangles.

Actually no, it's a matter of aesthetic choices. Aesthetics and stylistics aren't the same thing though they often boil down to the same set of motivations. The triangles have a deeper significance than 'they look cool' in this case.

Which means that if I, as a (hopythetically) capable artist, chooses to draw huge eyes and distorted facial anatomy on my characters, with a 'deeper significance' behind the reasoning than that it just 'looks cool', it's no longer Style but an Aesthetic Choice?

I can't really put the line between these subjects :O

And nor should you be readily. Those pieces of art that are built on strong aesthetic choices will always seem more original, consistent and substantial than the 'hey, I am cool' type of art. You don't have to know why the artist did what they did, you'll feel it on some level, after some time that this isn't shallow or up to chance.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #17 on: September 13, 2007, 01:13:34 pm
Yes, typically a person with any level of appreciation for art (and i mean a person over the age of about 4) will be able to recognize intuitively which pieces have a certain degree of conceptual value behind them where others do not, even if they cannot grasp the depth of it.  there are a number of levels that I've observed and there are probably many others:

instinctive : everyone from birth, even animals (and some people say, plants) are able to understand (if not articulate) the entire spectrum of aesthetic choices (in the pure sense of the word, i.e. how formal qualities create sensations and nothing more)

self-defined : at a very early age, children are able to relate complex emotions and connections via their own sense of things, although these connections will usually not make sense to anyone else as they are established within the child's psyche.
able to understand symbolism : strong

conformed : children of schooling age have recognized society and accepted its standards; the early understandings now merely an unexplainable feeling.  things are often broken down into simple and somewhat permanent categories of good and bad.
able to understand symbolism : very weak

exploring within society : teenagers are exposed to a much broader and more contradicting world than they had ever anticipated, and they seek out answers from the world to define for them what is good and bad and how they should feel (this is true regardless of whether they are mainstream or a rebel, as rebels are defined by the mainstream anyhow, and also true regardless of whether they are a specific type, jock, geek, artist, et cetera, or if they take their identity buffet-style from those).  this defines most "mental students" and is a necessary stage for social existence and in art technical understanding.
able to understand symbolism : contextual only

self-realization : at a certain point in one's life, they become aware that all of their emotions are within them and that the only thing stopping them is the habits and conditioning that came out of the previous stages.  Most young people who have moved past a student mentality remain in this stage for any number of years.  This is a necessary stage for establishing style, goals, and general confidence as an adult.
able to understand symbolism : contextually and as it relates to personal experience

universal realization : eventually, people realize that their mind is not the only mind aware of itself, and they are finally able to fully appreciate life, the universe, and everything.  Many do not seem to reach this point; Michaelangelo, Picasso, Van Gogh, to name a few, and live their lives in a mixture of conceitedness or loneliness or both.  Don't mistake me - there will always be a certain level of respect that anyone can muster, probably based on the idealizations ingrained by previous stages, but they will not necessarily have a spiritual relationship (in the non-religious sense) with the rest of the world in the same way that someone who becomes universally aware will.
able to understand symbolism : contextually, personally, hypothetically (all possible meanings), and sympathetically (what it might mean to the person, though this will always be a guess)



personally i don't know where I fall, probably somewhere between exploration and self realization.  It's amazing how much my perception is still colored by the world around me instead of my own thoughts.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2007, 01:17:14 pm by Adarias »
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #18 on: September 13, 2007, 01:32:10 pm
I find this ladder highly artificial and akin to 'Artistry: The RPG!' to the point where it is repugnant to me, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #19 on: September 13, 2007, 04:06:53 pm
while of course everyone is different and these stages are extremely fluid, i think you would be hard pressed to find me a person who does not appear to generally follow these patterns. I'll discard it if there is clear evidence for falsehood.  pedagogy and behavioral studies however are fields that I believe has a lot of merit and this is all textbook stuff here that you can hear from any teacher, therapist, or anthropologist, not because it is widely taught, but because it is widely observed.

I understand that you like to sorta "fight the system" in a lot of places, but this is one case where that seems like it would be difficult to disagree with real merit.  This stuff is actually better laid out than evolution or even aesthetics and color theory.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2007, 04:09:48 pm by Adarias »
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #20 on: September 13, 2007, 06:08:24 pm
Quote
This stuff is actually better laid out than evolution or even aesthetics and color theory.

I really doubt that one. Color theory and aesthetics and stuff can be argued towards any direction you like.

I hear your segmentation and I don't want to fight it, it's interesting talk but it should be taken with a grain of salt. I am not a big fan of generalising the human experience. If someone comes in and exhibits clear symptoms of one of these categories and I've delt with such before I will suppose he fits the other criteria and instruct him likewise until his specific idiosynchrasies are more apparent. Because they exist and no human fits any mold. You realize the difference between keeping general models in mind and considering them to be universally applicable, I hope.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #21 on: September 13, 2007, 06:12:14 pm
this IS a general model, and was never proclaimed as anything more ^^
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #22 on: September 13, 2007, 06:13:24 pm
Alright, you seemed really set you know, on 'this is how it is!' and stuff. I felt it was implied.

Offline Zach

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Bear
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #23 on: September 13, 2007, 08:55:26 pm
I think of style more as how you express yourself...

i.e. helm once said that all my faces looked like mine.. that might be considered a style.
EAT PUNAJI  BECAUSE IT'S GOOD AND TASTY

Offline Rox

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #24 on: September 15, 2007, 10:02:45 am
That's a restriction, though. Even if I claim I can't draw humans anymore, I can. I just prefer not to. That might be a choice of style. Only being able to draw one type of face sounds more like something you'd wanna practice to get rid of.

It might be easier to try this discussion on another subject, then try to apply it on pixel art. I'm listening to the music from Space Giraffe right now and it occurs to me how very different music can sound, even if it sounds identical to the untrained ear. Little things like whether someone has drums be in the background or foreground, if they use delay or reverb or both, or none. Some people like their synths to oscillate violently so they sometimes blend into the background then fade up to be almost disturbingly loud before fading back again. That's definitely a stylistic choice for an experienced musician. By that time, you know what you like and you tend to stick to that.

In pixel art terms, that makes me think more of subtle things, like... how much you vary hue and saturation between light and dark colors. Someone might always make their shadows blue. Others dislike the blue look and go for a more pastel type feel. I've seen a lot of cases where a piece is improved by giving everything a bit more saturation, turning blacks into pale greys and whites into a dusty yellow and things like that. While it does look good, I personally like to use perfect blacks and whites. I'm not sure why, but I prefer it. I guess that's my style.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #25 on: September 15, 2007, 10:29:49 am
Quote
That's a restriction, though. Even if I claim I can't draw humans anymore, I can. I just prefer not to.

mostly correct anatomically ? And good structure? I don't believe you. You'll have to prove that.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #26 on: September 15, 2007, 04:36:38 pm
well there is another thing to consider which is the difference between transferable and contextual skill, and comparisons across pieces.  In this case, (im not really familiar with your work rox so take no offense), understanding how bones and muscles work in an animal-thing does lend itself to understanding humans and vice versa, but the specifics of course are rather unique to each in terms of proportions and unique shapes.  Also, it would be unreasonable to expect a person who primarily draws one thing to be better at another thing that they are out of practice with; your human anatomy probably is not better tuned than your animal-thing anatomy.

Then repetition versus practice comes into play.  Continuously drawing the same thing over and again without pausing to truly observe it can lead to the development of preconceived ideas that will be hard to break down.  Personally, I find it hard to create a likeness because it keeps being overruled by what my brain tells me a human should look like.  From the front or even more so from the side it is infinitely easier to draw a likeness, because i draw these views far less than i draw 3/4ths and i have many bad habits from doing that from "memory" time and again.  In this way, it could end up being that your animal-things are rather contrived compared to your figure studies, and your humans could turn out far better.

Basically my point is that while good practice makes perfect in all aspects, there are any number of ways for bad practice to counteract this and while I do not know if you can still draw people, i would not at all be surprised if you could and that they were at least as well established as your favored subjects in the same way I would not be at all surprised if your anatomy was a mangled mess when you went to.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Rox

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #27 on: September 15, 2007, 11:40:45 pm
No, my anatomy isn't mostly-correct. Far from. But I don't think my style prevents me from learning anatomy. In fact, my style would probably benefit from more practice. That's what I was trying to point out, in response to Zach's always-drawing-similar-faces situation.

I mean, I often draw similar things, too, but that's because I intend to. The other day I actually pulled off a pretty decent giraffe, including strangely-jointed legs, if you must know! Definitely something I'd never done before, and it doesn't look anything like the foxes and stuff that normally spawn from my digital pen. If I have to draw something that doesn't look like a cartoony white fox, I can pull it off.

Besides, even my cartoonish... style... is firmly rooted in reality. Now and then I do check up on anatomical guides and such and refine my own pre-lineart guidelines to be more true to life. I start out all my humanoid drawings with one of those funny and useful skeleton-looking things. You know, lines for limbs, balls for joints, measuring proportions while I try to find a decent pose, that kinda stuff. Muscles and such, I'm not so hot on.  And one thing I know I don't get enough practice with is human faces. But honestly, I don't see myself needing that kind of skills in the near future. I'm happy with what I'm able to do on paper right now, and I don't strive for anything more. Not yet, at least.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #28 on: September 15, 2007, 11:44:31 pm
Quote
If I have to draw something that doesn't look like a cartoony white fox, I can pull it off.

So you say, need to see.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #29 on: September 16, 2007, 02:15:00 am
i have to admit i believe in the possibility but like i said I've never seen much of your work..... i could say that when the queen saw my work she declared me more talented than Michaelangelo and more sexy than jessica alba and it wouldn't mean anything unless you saw it :P
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline gliding

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 252
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Um yea...
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #30 on: September 16, 2007, 02:22:56 am
Even if we were to see this work, it still would not override the fact that aesthetics are largely subjective (save for certain aspects). Saying, "lemme see then!" isn't going to hlp anyone and sounds a bit more like a challenge of some sort more than naything else.
I would like to see more of what you can do though, Rox.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #31 on: September 16, 2007, 03:47:19 am
this isn't a challenge.  i think in a discussion on the topic of practices it is more than reasonable to point out that any claim should be taken with a grain of salt.  i believe rox is capable, but that doesn't mean she IS, and any discussion without observation is speculation rather than assessment.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline tocky

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 503
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • doublepostokrates
    • View Profile
    • my blog

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #32 on: September 16, 2007, 10:44:14 am
Rox is a dude.

I think style isn't anything more or less than the way bias affects a person's actions. Kind of a gross generalization, but true. In art, it'll affect all sorts of things; subjects you pick, how you represent them, the tools you use, the restrictions you work under - in my opinion, all these are stylistic choices. Aesthetic decisions are determined by your biases, as well - and so are stylistic choices, in my mind.

The most ridiculous thing I've read today is Helm about how he doesn't have a style, when everything he says and does is laced with it.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #33 on: September 16, 2007, 12:32:12 pm
I measure what I say carefully. I wouldn't go 'dunno, need to see' for anyone posting here, but from those making claims of what they can and cannot do,  I know Rox's pixelation history and I think he's talking more than he's drawing, and this is a gentle nudge to do the opposite.

I believe his fixation on drawing furries might make him happy but will keep him constantly underachieving as an artist, and I'm not here to hold anyone's hand during that process. We're all here to learn and to progress to as far as we can go. So I am poking and nudging because this talk of 'I can but I won't' is bad for Rox.

Offline .TakaM

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • Fetch Quest

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #34 on: September 16, 2007, 12:39:49 pm
*shrugs*

style = a way of doing something.
a very loose definition, but doesn't it have to be?

and on that note, I think everyones got their "style" not necessarily trademarks like ears always pointed, noses always rounded etc, but an evident and recognizable process/execution, so much so that I think I could confidently differentiate between if say Helm, Indigo and Adarias coloured the same line-art.
Life without knowledge is death in disguise

Offline Rox

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #35 on: September 17, 2007, 02:40:06 pm
I am talking more than I'm doing. But like Adrias said, this isn't about what I can or can't do. You're just using this discussion as an excuse to get another chance to gawk at my awesomely awesome art of awesomeness! Bad Helm!

I actually spent about half an hour trying to write that post in a way that WOULDN'T make Helm try to make me prove myself, but I realized it's impossible... so I gave up. I'm still not intending to "prove myself" about anything, because that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.


And I can still blame my inactivity at that there 3D school I've mentioned a thousand times. It's an excuse, but it's true. Even if school allowed me to polish each piece until I think it's worth posting online (of course we don't get that much time), Pixelation still wouldn't be my first choice of forum to spam with polygons. So I'm afraid you still won't see much from me, despite all the gentle nudging.

Recent developments have made me considering making a new avatar though...

Offline Jad

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #36 on: September 17, 2007, 09:39:48 pm
I am talking more than I'm doing. But like Adrias said, this isn't about what I can or can't do. You're just using this discussion as an excuse to get another chance to gawk at my awesomely awesome art of awesomeness! Bad Helm!

I actually spent about half an hour trying to write that post in a way that WOULDN'T make Helm try to make me prove myself, but I realized it's impossible... so I gave up. I'm still not intending to "prove myself" about anything, because that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.


And I can still blame my inactivity at that there 3D school I've mentioned a thousand times. It's an excuse, but it's true. Even if school allowed me to polish each piece until I think it's worth posting online (of course we don't get that much time), Pixelation still wouldn't be my first choice of forum to spam with polygons. So I'm afraid you still won't see much from me, despite all the gentle nudging.

Recent developments have made me considering making a new avatar though...

That doesn't mean you can't post something in that OT-creativity thread <3

Please do :]
' _ '

Offline Sohashu

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #37 on: September 22, 2007, 12:54:37 pm
To me, a style is simply when you take the subject matter, and represent it differently using a set of boundaries and rules.  I could draw a pie, exactly as i see it, and then I could draw a pie under x restrictions.  I guess in a way, to me, style is when you change the way something is represented by changing the techniques and rules you work by. 
Back from hiatus, just remembered how excellent this community is at forming technique in a fledgeling artist of any kind.

Offline ptoing

  • 0101
  • ****
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #38 on: September 24, 2007, 05:38:24 pm
Adarias, I think what your prof said is only partially right. It's correct if someone does not actually have the ability to draw it properly IMO.

Look at Klimt, his old stuff he did was superrealistic old master kinda stuff, and lateron he stylised more, he found his style. Same can be said for lots of artists.
Style does not necessarily equal mistake, it can be a conscious abstraction or sometimes, yes a lucky fuckup that actually works, given you know what you are doing in the first place. If you do not know what you are doing to a certain degree it's not style but ineptitude.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #39 on: September 25, 2007, 12:37:09 am
Look at Klimt, his old stuff he did was superrealistic old master kinda stuff, and lateron he stylised more, he found his style. Same can be said for lots of artists.
Picasso, Girodet, Pollack.... :P
Style does not necessarily equal mistake, it can be a conscious abstraction or sometimes, yes a lucky fuckup that actually works, given you know what you are doing in the first place. If you do not know what you are doing to a certain degree it's not style but ineptitude.
Well said.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Rox

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: The definition of a Style....

Reply #40 on: September 25, 2007, 09:00:30 am
A lucky fuckup that actually works?

There's a new, accurate way to describe evolution...