Sta.sh
Theme
.
But of course there are always the rules......
Please please please fave the journal!
Make another journal about this giveaway and provide a link of that journal in the comments (this will help spread the word about this giveaway)
this journal 
oints:
Rules
Should be about School Times!
, comment and watch!
When does ‘style’ become an excuse for bad drawing?
(This is referring to drawing style, obviously)
I had never thought about it before until an exchange I had with a deviant (coughtrollcough) brought it to light. A commenter had accused one of my fave artists of being unable to draw anatomy correctly. I said it was her style. The commenter said that she just couldn’t draw.
Now, I still stand by my defence, but when I saw the subject being brought up again elsewhere, it got me thinking. Who decides what style is and what is an inability to draw? Surely it’s subjective? Does it have to be anatomically perfect before it’s classed as a style? Does it have to be outrageously obvious?
For example, let’s take Picasso and his 'Weeping Woman' . This is evidently a stylised way of drawing. Cubism to be exact. Judging by the style of this piece, does it mean he can’t draw? I don’t think so. The anatomy is intentionally inaccurate – a point I made to the commenter about my fave artist’s work, which the commenter rejected as an excuse. Another commenter said she has to learn the basics before creating a style. But this person is assuming she hasn’t learnt the basics. Maybe she has, and has refined it into her own unique style, where the anatomy is technically incorrect.
Another example might be my work. I had someone tell me a pic was ‘poor’ because the face wasn’t realistic. But I work with an anime style. I can draw realism if I want, but I prefer anime. So does that mean I can’t draw? That I’m hiding behind a ‘but it’s my style’ excuse? Does it all boil down to a matter of personal preference? If everyone’s constrained by realism how can there be such a thing as style in the first place?
You tell me, because I can’t get my head around it. Seems like a lot of people are pointing the finger and shouting ‘Stop hiding behind the style excuse’ before they even understand what it means to have a style. Feel free to give examples too. As usual, I’m not looking for an argument, but a discussion. And no, I wont name the artist I’m talking about
(I’ll be posting commission information soon, I swear!)
Stumped 
To be honest, if you think about it, animation in general is exaggerated to give depth and difference to its characters, its what makes them seem like their own body has a personality of its own.
But yes, its becoming harder and harder to draw the line between "this is just my style" and it actually being anatomically incorrect...but then...if you think about it....a lot of key artists styles CAN be noted because of said "anatomyically incorrect" styles.
Also....trolls just obviously have nothing better to do with their time, and the fact the fact of the matter is....most artists don't listen to them anyways (i said most because there are a few that are easy to upset and sometimes end up giving into the troll/s). Trolls are just another form of bullies, and to be honest don't we have ENOUGH bullies in real life to deal with, do we really need to go making more on the internet?
Частенько есть простой способ понять, знает человек анатомию или нет. Если он знает, то он хотя бы раза два ее рисовал как подобает. Иногда же ведь можно у художника встретить кардинально разный стиль рисовки, как эксперимент?
Черт, на эту тему можно долго дискутировать. Вон, еще до меня развели беседку х)
sorry,i suck,i forgot.
Very tough question. I do not know because I've rarely been accused of an inability to draw. "Lucky" x) But sometimes I have very little annoying when people listen of the shortcomings in the work they start "this idea I want to", " this is my style, "etc. Why not just think about it, and not just excuses? Although, maybe I would too uncomfortable if my style is rejected as "poor knowledge of anatomy", etc. Although I really only know poooor basics x). But none the less.
Often there is a simple way to understand the anatomy of this guy knows or not. If he knows he is at least twice it painted. Sometimes, too, because you can meet the artist's radically different style of showing off as an experiment?
Heck, on this subject can be a loооng debate. x)
My english suck too x)
Sorry.
Basically it all boils down to the AIM of the art; Mark Brown for example is not a horrible artist because he draws cartoon animals as humans, and it doesn't mean he CAN'T draw humans, the AIM of his art is: cartoon animals, does he suceed? Yes; likewise, it depends on your aim, take Hiromu Arakawa for example, her aim is manga style, does she suceed in that? Yes, BUT if someone is looking at her art for REALISM, then no, her art is not at all correct, it needs to bee seen as manga, that was her aim, take Rukia Kuchiki's art for example, she draws cartoon rabbits, that doesn't mean that she can't draw or that her art is bad, it means that she wants to draw rabbits, if she wanted to draw realistic people, maybe she could or maybe she couldn't but that isn't her style or her aim, everything can be a style, even stick figures, as long as no one looks at a stick figure and starts rambling that it isn't realistic because people who draw stick figures aren't AIMING it that way
Sorry for rambling
Take, for example, three imaginary comics. They're all stylized to some extent. But in one of them, even though the character's head is anatomically larger than in real life, and their feet are tiny, and their arms are rubbery...but in every panel, their large head is the same size in proportion to their body, as are their tiny feet, and their rubbery arms bend in a consistent way and have the feel of real, comfortable movement.
In another of them, the character is mostly consistent, but sometimes changes in proportions and drawing style...but this happens in relation to what's going on in the comic and how they're feeling. In the third comic, the character design is stylized, like the first, and changes from panel to panel, like the second...but it doesn't do so in a way that relates to the content. The head changes sizes, the features change on the face, seemingly at random, and the movement and postures do not look natural or feel real. Guess which one is weak because it's using style as an excuse for lack of skill?
I think a good guide is, within the art, does it *feel* right (as the simplest of character designs can)? Do the characters look like they have weight, are not bending at painful angles, are not about to fall over, etc? Are they expressing something we get?
And outside of the art, is the artist interested in the world around them? Do they sketch? Do they pay attention to how people stand and move and smile and frown and so on and so forth? Or do they say "no, that's not relevent, since my work is stylized?"
When I say "feel" here, I don't really mean emotional response to the work - obviously that's super important, but so subjective I thought best just leave that kind of thing out and focus on more concrete matters!
Which is in my view why you can tell the difference between competent and, well, not so great stylization (on a sliding scale of course, since everyone's always improving - although I'm basically making an argument for quality, I'm not saying it's a black-and-white matter of good artist/bad artist!)
In a nutshell, constant drawing study and attention to the world will come through in a sense of reality and physical right-ness in even the stylized work that person does, and that sense will be lacking in artists who are using the "it's my style" line as a crutch to avoid study and practice.
I guess style is style when the audience looks at the form and sees the force and the energy. That one may theorise at all about whether it is a matter of excuse is a sign that he/she does not connect with the work, or the artist's vision. Too bad. Even though art cannot exist without the audience, people experience things at different levels. The very fact that you feel that the artist (the one you mentioned in the post) has legitimate claim to a style shows that there's identification and connection between you and the art. All that the other person had proven was that he/she had NOT identified with the artwork.
To date, many remain unable understand Picasso, and many continue to perceive his works as "bad art"-- doodles passed off under the excuse of abstraction and artistic revolution. But that doesn't negate how others feel about his work, nor does it make his art any less "artistic." I think what is most important, really, is that connection. The message that's being delivered is what's important; if one could connect with that emotion behind a stylistic decision, identify with the message that's being conveyed, then I think there is style. Where the message falls through completely-- where no one is able to empathise-- then really it doesn't make a difference whether or not the artist had intended any stylistic move.