AuthorTopic: The definition of a Style....  (Read 16590 times)

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.