AuthorTopic: A question on "Style"  (Read 4690 times)

Offline Stickman

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

A question on "Style"

on: October 01, 2009, 03:13:27 am
Hello.

I don't post on this forum very often, but I joined this site and Pixeljoint around 2 years ago. I earn my living as animator. I initially started off as a 2D animator but the jobs became scarce and so I moved into 3D.
Back then when I used to draw frequently, I was always mixing different media's such as building 3D sets from cardboard and then animating in 2D, cutting out the frames and then placing them within the 3D set (laborious and exciting at the same time), or mixing other media's.

The thing is...I've recently been looking at my gallery and there doesn't really seem to be a style that actually runs through.(Well at least I don't think there is). Although I don't have a problem with this as I enjoy taking different directions, I sometimes wonder if that can be detrimental in the long run (I'm in my 30's).
I look at the work on this site, Pixeljoint as well as others and there's many times when you can put the artists name to the picture instantly. I also see that persons style develop more and more, getting better and more refined.
So I was wondering about the users of this forum what the/their general consensus on style is.

Offline Helm

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

Re: A question on "Style"

Reply #1 on: October 01, 2009, 04:09:56 am
I don't think I have a style of my own either and then people come and tell me I do, so probably it's the same with you?

Offline Stickman

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: A question on "Style"

Reply #2 on: October 01, 2009, 04:34:50 am
Aaahh that's interesting. I've looked at your work on the joint and apart from the self portraits, I wouldn't look at a picture of yours and say "Yup...that's a Helm pic".

I haven't had anyone say to me that I have a style of my own in art work - though I sometimes get this comment in the animation work that I do (until they see my showreel that is).

Offline Mathias

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1797
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Goodbye.
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/9542.htm
    • View Profile

Re: A question on "Style"

Reply #3 on: October 01, 2009, 05:12:36 am
People like it when they can nail an artist down to a certain style because it's an identifying mark. It almost becomes a way to get to know that artist. Consistently styled artists have their own "brand" which causes their work to have recognition. So, it's good in that way.

But then there's the self-limiting issue, where style can trap you and possibly prevent growth, unless I suppose it morphs over time. Think of what happens to a band's fanbase when they change their sound. Metallica is the example that pops out at me. As Metallica's sound changed lots of fans were alienated from the group because they didn't like the direction. I think the same applies to visual art.

Personally, I love it when an artist has a strong set style. It's amazing. I don't get it, I don't see how they can take the same direction for so long. I tend to branch out, just by default. In fact, when maintaining a certain style for an entire project is necessary I might even find it difficult and kind of a nuisance.

From crazy ol' Helm's TAO OF PIXEL ART thread:
Quote
* Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. If you put water in a cup it becomes the cup, if you put into a bottle it becomes the bottle. You put water into a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

There is no distinction between pixel art styles. They are all aspects of one thing. Study it holistically.

Offline Dr D

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 415
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Not a real doctor.
    • View Profile
    • PJ Gallery

Re: A question on "Style"

Reply #4 on: October 01, 2009, 09:00:30 am
Much like that/those quote(s) are trying to explain, I myself, too, would much prefer any artist to improve his or her abilities and knowledge regarding art, than to stick to the same methods and choose not to improve only to retain recognizability and consistency in their works.

But aside from that, I think the real issue you're getting at is what makes style identifiable. Going through ptoing, big brother, iLKke, Syosa, Dex, Skeddles, 4tochkin, scruffs, and Fools work, an example collection of artists whoms 'styles' I find easy to identify, I think it's a safe assumption to make, that this stems from the lack of experimentation, or at least, what was seen of their submitted work.

Most of these artists tend to stick to the same methods, tools, and even colors, that they're comfortable with, and most of these artists are very much seasoned, and this combination of tools and methods is the way they feel they can produce the results they are most satisfied with.

When I look at your gallery, I see someone still learning, trying out new things. Just have a look yourself, compare your galleries with those of above mentioned artists and you'll find what I say to likely be true. In your gallery, I see pieces that are very detailed, although limited, or pieces that are detailed, without any set restrictions. I see works of art that are wide-pixelled, animated, simple, and just plain unusual. (Such as the Anti 2D fighter.)

Now without a doubt, it is a difficult task identifying the style of someone, according to a preview of a piece that could have many different restrictions. In other words, it's hard to know when it is your piece, if you may be trying new things. If it's only PJ-preview-related, then you could benefit from adding a unique border or element to each preview, such as Elk and JinnDEvil have done. But otherwise, I don't believe your style will ever be condensed as long as you're trying out new things, as opposed to doing the same thing over and over with only a change in subject.

I suppose the best way to sum this all up is, not that you lack a distinct style, but possess many different styles, that are only defined by your work methods and tools.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 12:54:23 pm by Dr D »

Offline Helm

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

Re: A question on "Style"

Reply #5 on: October 01, 2009, 01:36:26 pm
People like it when they can nail an artist down to a certain style because it's an identifying mark. It almost becomes a way to get to know that artist. Consistently styled artists have their own "brand" which causes their work to have recognition. So, it's good in that way.

That's a pretty interesting point. Certainly the most successful artists seem to have mined the same material for years. Not so sure if it's very good to think about what one is doing as a 'brand' (which is a marketing term) though.

Offline Ben2theEdge

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 503
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • I'ma drink mah coffee!
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart Gallery

Re: A question on "Style"

Reply #6 on: October 01, 2009, 01:44:40 pm
I almost feel like anything that could be identified as my "style" is actually more like people identifying my bad habits and worn out tropes. It's certainly not a bad thing to have your own "style" but I think it happens on its own without any effort. Besides that I feel like people who deliberately try to cultivate a "style" end up just riffing on the artists who inspired them. I find myself having to fight this urge constantly.
I mild from suffer dislexia.

Offline Stickman

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: A question on "Style"

Reply #7 on: October 01, 2009, 05:06:05 pm

But otherwise, I don't believe your style will ever be condensed as long as you're trying out new things, as opposed to doing the same thing over and over with only a change in subject.

I suppose the best way to sum this all up is, not that you lack a distinct style, but possess many different styles, that are only defined by your work methods and tools.

That's a very interesting thought. The first point I've always recognized, but the last point is something that I never really thought about.

I think this could probably explain a lot of things in my approach when working with pixels. I'm extremely slow and constantly changing the work flow, which many times ends up vastly different from the original concept. I can easily spend a solid 3 days - and I'm talking 12 hours a day - on a competition involving a pixel size of 320 x 240. (Sexy Beast and Temporary relaxation are example of this). Or even the smaller ones will be guaranteed to keep me busy for a minimum of 2 days (Return From Lambeth Palace and Trust In Me are prime suspects).

It's a real tricky one. I remember coming out of animation college and going to interviews and being told that they weren't to sure what to do with me. Whether to put in me in 2D, Traditional 3D or computer 3D. Which would then transpire to "Your work is more disney" or "Your work is more Manga" to "Aahhh, so you do experimental animation...".

I suppose the most important thing is whether you feel you are improving or not. If your constantly changing styles and approach, it can be tricky to evaluate. (although I think I may have improved on using colours somewhat...)

Offline The B.O.B.

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

Re: A question on "Style"

Reply #8 on: October 01, 2009, 06:24:02 pm

It's a real tricky one. I remember coming out of animation college and going to interviews and being told that they weren't to sure what to do with me. Whether to put in me in 2D, Traditional 3D or computer 3D. Which would then transpire to "Your work is more disney" or "Your work is more Manga" to "Aahhh, so you do experimental animation...".

I suppose the most important thing is whether you feel you are improving or not. If your constantly changing styles and approach, it can be tricky to evaluate. (although I think I may have improved on using colours somewhat...)

   Well, I believe that issue is a bit more identifiable. As artists, most of us exhibit a bit of pride where we don't want to be identified with another artist or his style, and that we want to be something new...better, different. However, most of the time a business layman's train of thought is to organize, organize, organize. He/she must find a way to better organize certain artists together to run their job more efficiently, while keeping the main style of the project consistent for the client. In business, money and the customer come first with requests, and it's the business's job to respect and adhere to the wants of that client upon contractual agreement(...at least in my experience)
   I've always liked this subject of style, as I feel it's just the human fingerprint on canvas(digital, or traditional). I think in scientific terms, it's just a matter of "monkey see, monkey do." It's what certain pack/clan animals do to survive along with their peers by learning new things, and techniques for more efficient results, as well as achieve alpha status eventually(there's that pride thing again, : )... )
   But as a unique set of chromosomes, genes, culture, and how different our individual minds are from each other, many things can help influence the way we see things differently. In my case, when I first began, I tried to make my pixel art alongside the likes of the previously popular Capcom pixel artists....what came out was a disfigured mess, with hardly any distinguishable features that would match Capcom's style. Never the less, this brought comments to the surface with " I've never seen this scratchy style of pixel art before...".

   Which raises an interesting question, in my opinion at least: Is style something that is brought on through time as a technique that was initially considered a FLAW, but through time becomes more widely accepted? Would Picasso(his later more identifiable abstract works) had been as successful, had he been born at the beginning of the Renaissance in the 12th, 14th, or 17th century, where it was important to display proper perspective? I'm not one to mix technique with style, but to me, it's an interesting debate...

Oh well, my 2 cents.

PS, Stickman, when I see your art submitted in the Pixel Joint queue, I can tell it is yours, without even looking at the name. Same goes for majority of active users on this site. And I mean that in a respectful manner, not a shameful manner. No one should ever be ashamed of their style when drawing, flaws or not...it's what makes you, YOU, Snowflakes...

 
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 06:27:42 pm by The B.O.B. »
my back hurts...

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: A question on "Style"

Reply #9 on: October 08, 2009, 04:45:19 pm
I think proper style is something that grows by itself after some time. Not necessarily flaws at all either. The sideways nostrils I have been doing for a while now (mainly in my nonpixel stuff) simply came from an experiment and I liked it, so I took it further.

As far as Picasso goes. If he was born in one of those periods I doubt he would have done what he did :P
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.