Quote:

Original post by slowpid So then, Bouncer is every bit as talented as this guy (http://www.messs.cc/albums/WORKIP/Rhythm_CU_MESSS.jpg)...

If you're gonna use that pic as an example, you might as well post the whole thing. ;)

Quote:

Original post by slowpid So then, Bouncer is every bit as talented as this guy (http://www.messs.cc/albums/WORKIP/Rhythm_CU_MESSS.jpg), and the fact that his work lacks this skill is actually an illusion. The explaination is simply that his picture is exactly how he envisioned it; he envisioned all those flaws, all those flat lines and the lack of depth.

As I stated, there is no other hidden meaning. I didn't say anything about talent. I reference only his potential and creativity.

But honestly, while this image looks very beautiful, nearly flawless, it does little to break from a standard style from which I've seen countless depictions. And that, to me, shows a lack of creativity, making the work less interesting.

Quote:

That, or he just doesn't have the skill and experience to produce anything decent yet, even if he's trying to learn a specific style.

He quite in fact did produce something decent, judging from the other responses here, including your own "good job". That wasn't meant as sarcasm, was it?

My good job was ment in the context of someone who does this for a living, spuring on someoones who's work looked like they were at least trying. No, I didn't think it was good, it didn't showcase potential*, it was what I would consider average for a person with no formal experience and maybe 7-8 hours worth of practice. I would wager that 6 out of 10 people who had never drawn before could do that after one day of experimentation, maybe two.

Yes, that picture was done in a fairly standard anime'ish type style. But thats not because the artist only knows one style, and this in fact highlights my point.

The artist who drew that is experienced, a professional. He can draw in different styles because he has a foundation, and it allows him to be versatile with his work. If you look into his CG talk portfolio you will find pictures done in many different sytles, accompanied by the pictures from whom he derived the particular style of choice.

style comes after foundation, you would not the outside of a house and finish by pouring the cement and building a frame within it.










*I dont mean offense by that; but potential is a trait, like 'hardworking', or 'independant', its something that cannot be portrayed through a piece of work, but through contact with the person themselves.

Quote:

Original post by slowpid style comes after foundation, you would not the outside of a house and finish by pouring the cement and building a frame within it.

The most interesting style (I assume, considering the birth of new accepted styles is rare) would be something that comes naturally, not something 'invented' from skill. I would argue that it will be easier to put forth a new style without a lot of artistic practice than with. Perfecting that style will take a lot of time, and you have to find your own way. No one can teach you how to do it.

So I disagree. Outside first, then frame. If you build the frame first, you're using too much of the left side of your brain.

Actually, from a science viewpoint, I would rather associate the style itself with the frame. The style itself is in fact what you want to master. Not general art. And I would assume that mastery of your own unique style would be difficult after mastering general art. The reverse is not true.

By really knowing how to correctly lay a foundation, how to build a house from the inside out...you can build a Victorian, Ranch, Colonial, Art Deco, any and all established styles mixes and matches thereof possable...includeing building your own unique vision, with the added worthwhile and noble bennifet of haveing the finnished house outlasting you...

Conversely, working from the outside in results in a house without a stable foundation, one that can't weather the storms of critisisam, one that crumbles under its own weight...thats perfectly fine if you build the house, or create your art, for your own amusement.

But if you want to earn your keep, want to put food on the table, then get a good grasp on that foundation...Winning awards only feeds your trophy case, actually selling your work feeds you.

That's a great point. If you're trying to create a product, then traditional structure should be your frame. If you're trying to create art, style makes a better frame.

But you're failing to see my point. If you start with your own style, regardless of artistic knowledge, and work towards perfecting that style using your own techniques, you can still master traditional techniques later on. You can then choose to mix some traditional techniques into your own style to improve it. But your own style will still dominate your art.

A serious problem occurs when you work towards mastering traditional techniques before even bothering to nurture your own unique style. Mastering those traditional techniques will do at least two things that I can think of to hinder your uniqueness:

- Teach you to not do the things that made your style unique in the first place. Where something may be an error with most traditional styles, it may very well work great with your own.

- Show you the proper direction to take in a given situation, while finding your own direction may have resulted in something more interesting. Compare this to the building of drastically different styles of houses in different cultures. Someone starting to layout an alternate-culture house design in the west would have been insulted for poor construction techniques, even though those techniques would have worked well if the right additional steps are taken. Why bother? You make money by building houses, not being unique or artistic.

If you learn that A is bad, you'll likely never face B, and even if you do, the trouble envolved with solving it will probably turn you back to using what you've already learned. The result is that C will never be realized. I'm not an artist, but I do this all of the time in game design and programming. I always try to find my own way first. I don't research topics until I get my own implementation working. Sometimes my version is lacking, sometimes I end up doing more than I needed, but sometimes I end up with something that no other game has. And sometimes that unique design will open up an entire branch of new possibilities, resulting in my ability to easily add cool things that would have been normally very difficult. It's more work, but that's what I live for anyway.

That's how the world works for me. I'm not going to claim it's the same for anyone else.

Quote:

Original post by Kest That's a great point. If you're trying to create a product, then traditional structure should be your frame. If you're trying to create art, style makes a better frame. But you're failing to see my point. If you start with your own style, regardless of artistic knowledge, and work towards perfecting that style using your own techniques, you can still master traditional techniques later on. You can then choose to mix some traditional techniques into your own style to improve it. But your own style will still dominate your art. A serious problem occurs when you work towards mastering traditional techniques before even bothering to nurture your own unique style. Mastering those traditional techniques will do at least two things that I can think of to hinder your uniqueness: - Teach you to not do the things that made your style unique in the first place. Where something may be an error with most traditional styles, it may very well work great with your own. - Show you the proper direction to take in a given situation, while finding your own direction may have resulted in something more interesting. Compare this to the building of drastically different styles of houses in different cultures. Someone starting to layout an alternate-culture house design in the west would have been insulted for poor construction techniques, even though those techniques would have worked well if the right additional steps are taken. Why bother? You make money by building houses, not being unique or artistic. If you learn that A is bad, you'll likely never face B, and even if you do, the trouble envolved with solving it will probably turn you back to using what you've already learned. The result is that C will never be realized. I'm not an artist, but I do this all of the time in game design and programming. I always try to find my own way first. I don't research topics until I get my own implementation working. Sometimes my version is lacking, sometimes I end up doing more than I needed, but sometimes I end up with something that no other game has. And sometimes that unique design will open up an entire branch of new possibilities, resulting in my ability to easily add cool things that would have been normally very difficult. It's more work, but that's what I live for anyway. That's how the world works for me. I'm not going to claim it's the same for anyone else.

Okay...I think you are a little confused on just what you learn at art school.

They don't teach you to do brush stroke accurite copies of famous artworks. They don't teach you to master any particular style.

They will seat you around a small collection of items, haveing you interpret what you see onto the canvas before you (in other words a "still life"). They will seat you around a model (nude or otherwise) and have you draw them. Draw your own hand, draw your own face, other students, even the teacher.

The object of these lessions is not for students to produce identical photo real copies...but to express just what they see before them, to interpret it so others get a sense of the artists understanding of the world around them.

I know several "graphic designers" and a number of "real" professional artists whom earn thier livelyhood through selling thier work at gallaries, art shows, and commissioned pieces (my father among them).

At thier core, both occupations are the same...The "graphic designers" (whom form the core of the video game art departments) earn thier living by produceing what the client/employer wants...how he wants it done, the colors to use, the mood to represent, even the style to draw inspiration from...which in many cases isn't what the artist would personnaly have chosen.

The "real" artists do the same...only thier clients are the people whom buy thier work. And every one of the "real" artists out there who have spent any time pursuing thier art will tell you the public can be very fickle, easily subcomeing to fashions and trends...if your work is fashionable great!...if not you are ignored...99% of artists whom go this "real" route will tell you that there is a difference between the art they want to make, and the art they sell(same as "graphic designers")

Another "real" artist I know is famous around here, his paintings each easily command thousands of dollars...But he has personnaly outgrown the style he is famous for. He wants to explore new ideas and techniques, to grow even more as a artist...but (like famous rock bands) his "fans" much rather he keep doing the style of works that made him famous...so he paints to earn a living, and in his spare time paints for himself.

The real world has a funny way of grounding idealisam. And without a firm foundation to stand on, one is easily knocked over.

Quote:

Original post by MSW Okay...I think you are a little confused on just what you learn at art school.

I wasn't referring to schools. I was referring to learning art from other artists. That just happens to be exactly what takes place in art schools.