PDA

View Full Version : Stylized vs Realism - illustration


PerfectBlue
07-14-2005, 07:40 PM
I was curious to your opinions on two forms of illustration.


Recently Magic Man posted in my WIP thread (link in sig), suggesting i review some anatomy on skulls to better this portion of my piece (a very valid point!). Meanwhile, a friend of mine in school had been following that thread (he refuses to register). He called me yesterday in the mood for a debate ( :D ) and brought up an interesting point to me. He is a musician (usually bugging me to draw him album covers for his stuff :p ) and not much of an artist, but he wondered why i needed accurate skulls in a comic style piece.

We chatted for like an hour about it, and in the end we didn't come to much conclusion.. so now i pass the debate on to you guys! When an artist draws over time, he develops a style to his work. The more original art over unoriginal art he draws, the more intense the style can get. Over time, his entire piece can be as unique as his signature and if he is lucky he can be well known for his style.

But is there a fine line between realism and stylization, or is it a blurry shade of grey between the two? Would incorrect anatomy only be acceptable once it is so far over the line it is obviously stylized, or can one get away with smaller tweaks?

My friend's logic was; "If its stylized, why does any of it need to look real? If the demon is obviously not real, why do the skulls need to be?"

mrtristan
07-14-2005, 07:55 PM
For me, my issue with the word "stylized" is that sometimes people mean "not too real" and sometimes they mean "not too good".

Take comic books, or anime. Most have a "style", but some are definitely better than others. I happened to like the work John Cassidey did for the latest X-Men series. It's stylized, in that it isn't real, but it also bears the mark of consistency. That is, a character seen from different views and expressions is instantly recognizable as that character, and not just because they're wearing the same striped suit. There's a lot of anime out there that fits this description as well: all characters are stylized, but they're also very unique. And the style is carried out into many different kinds of situations and expressions. It takes a lot of skill to do this. However, there's also really crappy comic books and anime out there, where the only difference between characters is the hair color, or the shirt color.

I think some people are "reality bigots", however, in that they think that anything non-realistic is easy. What's funny, is that in the end, everything we draw isn't real. It's an illusion on a piece of paper (or computer screen). So there you go. My $.02.

I really need to get back to work. :)

Boone
07-14-2005, 08:00 PM
Ummm...I think it would only be in question if you went for a job in art that demands a certain correctness. If someone hired you to do concept art for a possible development( such as a building ) - then yes, you should try to be acurate as possible. Same for medical illustration...you get the idea.

On the other hand, the Japanese draw characters with impossibly gigantic peepers and even stranger noses! But that is for entertainment...

Do you see? :D

John Keates
07-14-2005, 08:01 PM
There is a funny fact which is that people will recognise a chariacature more easily than a photo of the person. This is because an artist can pick out the features that make that person look the way that they do and exaggerate them. But it is very hard to be a good chariacaturist if you don't know about anatomy as you won't know what features to play with.

At the end of the day, you can't just produce any old style as you have to work within the things that appeal to our brains. Our brains have evolved to see things like peoples' heads and so that is what you have to work with.

There are some things that look plain wrong to us which people take for granted. For instance, it looks wrong for knees to bend backwards.* This shows that we all have some sense of anatomy. It is good for an artist to have more anatomical sense than other people because otherwise we can get caught out in certain situations.

It is like, for a musician, there is no point making music outside of the human hearing range and it is a good idea to have some music theory to help you allong so you don't make mistakes (like clashes), or at least you know how to avoid make mistakes when you want to.

*When people draw fauns and minotaurs with "backward bending" legs, they aren't really backward bending because they are based on animals hind legs which are just the same but which stand on their toes.

fourcrowsArt
07-14-2005, 08:06 PM
Hi Blue, this is coming from a conventional artists point of view, so take it for what it's worth...

In my experience, it's not necessarily the using of the knowledge, but the having it. When something like that is in your head, it pops up when you don't even realize it...

I actually do very little realistic work, but when I do a head, I still stick to known proportions in some areas, and distort others...or follow some known rule of thumb just to make something believeable...it's kind of a fine line between, like mrtristan said, good and bad comics...or like ....I don't know...compare Scooby Doo and Spirited Away...if you are speaking animation...you know it when you see it....if someone has it in their head, or if they're hacking for money... (sorry, I'm rambling)

for me, I want to create something that we all know isn't real, but looking at it, wonder if somehow it couldn't come true...you know?

ashakarc
07-14-2005, 08:13 PM
My friend's logic was; "If its stylized, why does any of it need to look real? If the demon is obviously not real, why do the skulls need to be?"
Correct anatomy is just referencial. If you use it to portray an object that exist in reality, then it is essential. It depends on the context and the subject. If your beast is a metamorphosis of a human like figure, then that anatomy will not necessarily derive from realistic characters, but what is important is that the process of metamorphosis is recognizable. Correct anatomy relies on a range of acceptable proportions, i.e a range of proportions of the parts to the whole. A comic figure like Bart Simpson is not adhered to these proportions, but read as a character with some realism to it. That is because "IMO" it is referencing human movement, behaviour, character, voice, etc.. The essence of correctness is relative to what it signifies.

Bugs Life was criticised by biologists for incorrect anatomy and missing legs and so on, which they considered as miseducation of kids. Counter argument is, could an insect talk and behave like a human? duh !

You are allowed to characterize as you wish until you earn your style to be unique and original. It is a creative process after all.

By the way, the Statue of David by Michaelangelo, is larger than life with arms longer than a normal human being proportions, some of the renaissance paintings had the head of children smaller than the head of a "normal" child. Are they wrong? may be. Does misproportion make it comical? No. Comic illustrations are variations of reality that reduces some aspects of real life features while exaggerating others.

Post Modernism in Architecture did just that, if you look at the work of Michael Graves (http://www.michaelgraves.com/) and Robert Venturi (http://www.vsba.com/projects/fla_archive/10.html), they used classical elements with modern ones in a different context and proportions.

There is more into that, but let's listen to what others will have to say :)

PENCIL-SLINGER
07-14-2005, 08:41 PM
[QUOTE=John Keates]

There are some things that look plain wrong to us which people take for granted. For instance, it looks wrong for knees to bend backwards.* This shows that we all have some sense of anatomy. It is good for an artist to have more anatomical sense than other people because otherwise we can get caught out in certain situations.
QUOTE]

Here is my opinion and that is all it is. I think Mr.Keates made a valid point in saying that artist need a strong bckgrnd in anatomy and just the basics in general. My belief is that once an artist has a strong and solid understanding of these basics then they can successfully depart from the "how things should look" reality to the, this is how I meant it to look argument. If one truly understands the laws and principles of art then they can and should try to break them with success. We all have to think that they way our minds were created they have the capability to point out the mistake or lack of skill in a work of art even though the viewer may not understand why what he is looking at is wrong, but it the artist has a strong grasp on the fundamentals then they will be able to trick the viewer into believing what they are looking at could actually be a reality.

Elsie
07-14-2005, 09:16 PM
I remember reading a thread to a certain (wonderful) piece of work a few weeks/months ago by Linda Bergkvist...the girl with the red hair and green eyes. You know the one I mean - somebody started saying it was a photo manipulation, blah blah blah, and when he was rebuffed, came back with something along the lines of "Well, it shouldn't look that real anyway, if an artist draws something identical to how it would really look, what is he/she bringing to the table?". So, I think it's safe to say whether you draw very stylised or very realistic...you're always going to have someone griping at you. I personally lean more toward the realistic pics (I always have). What is he/she bringing, that person asked? If you ask me, a hell of a lot. Something that didn't exist, and now we could believe it does.

Having said that, I'm really starting to like more stylised and cartoonish images...

jmBoekestein
07-14-2005, 09:32 PM
You pose the answer in your question. It's in the relevance of realism in your work, an otherwise in your understanding of your public. Since there is only the perception of reality for stylisation you can't stress otherwise... I think that's what ashakarc is explaining, I agree with him fully.

PerfectBlue
07-14-2005, 10:12 PM
Knowing the artist's abilities would definitely put a curve on the debate. You know he has the ability to draw realistic, but he chooses not to.

What about seeing a piece where you don't know anything about the artist? You are presented an anonymous painting where some things are lightly stylized; do you critique it as poor work, or do you praise it for how pleasing it is to the eye?

This reminds me of something; A famous artist puts a few drawings in a gallery under a different name, and they get ripped apart by critics. But if he puts them in a gallery under his name along side his more famous work, they are praised for how marvelous the style is.

Stahlberg
07-15-2005, 10:12 AM
There is a funny fact which is that people will recognise a chariacature more easily than a photo of the person

This is the point exactly. You have to know which parts to exaggerate, which to be careful with, and which directions you can get away with taking something in.
Look at the stylization popularized in American comics in the 60's and 70's - take the lower legs of any character in tights, for instance. It always curves outwards, quite a lot in some drawings, depending on the viewpoint and pose. But you would NEVER see it curving the other way - inwards (except on the rubber-man)! That would just look demented, wrong, pick a derogatory term...

robotJAM1
07-15-2005, 01:57 PM
There was an interesting program on the BBC a while back called " How art shaped the world". Which really made me think about this subject. A lot of people (especially in cgi) are utterly obsessed with realism. Most of the pieces on this site are judged by how realistic they look, even the fantasy work is judged this way. If you look at a lot of the most famous traditional artists portrayed people in a completely stylised way.

I think it helps as a starter to always look at real reference, but your images doesn't have to be accurate proportional to be a good image. My favourite all time comic artwork is Electra Assassin, the characters are almost completely wrong proportionally, but that's what makes it so good. It has a style rather than trying to be realistic and failing.

The thing is that you can tell he's looked at real reference, which is why there's things in there which aren't the usual comic book style (which is usually just influenced by other comic art).

Mal de Ojo
07-15-2005, 02:21 PM
for stylized I do understand exageration/deformation
In my opinion, exageration reads better but is less real, so less inmersive.

For example animation you can stylize it for better reading and understanding or you can make it realistic in case you want to sell a human walking.

For my likes/taste on stills, I do love realism with bits of slightly exageration, for better drama... Like, more distance betwen eyes, eyebrows shapes and a thousan things that you can exagerate slightly for better reading and still looks realistic.

What is for sure, is that realism dont stand for himself, I mean If you want to tell a story you will have to push things up, poses, proportions, situations, lights...

Nazirull
07-15-2005, 03:09 PM
I havent seen and done much arts myself but here is my two cents worth.

I think that in arts, there is this spectrum of styles which spread across like the light spectrum from ultraviolet to infrared.

The art equivalent is the abstract art to the hyper surrealism. Each style has its own frequency which attracts people or artist with the same frequency into their respective spectrums.

IMHO, that somewhat justify why artist dont settle on one style and why the sytle that seems perfect to you are being criticized by others.

These style need each other to work in harmony.

To pit Stylized Vs. Realism is to put UV and IR and it will become neutral in the end. :)

Kanga
07-15-2005, 04:43 PM
Nice thread.

This subject is of great interest to me.
I did a long stint as a commercial artist and believe me much of what is made is blatantly wrong but communicates well. We broke the rules all the time and I continue to do that. Often a crit will read like this is wrong or that is wrong, what is meant is that it doesn't work well. In 2d when something is just sitting there this is crucial because that is the only view you are going to get as an observer, meaning the artist has to draw 'around corners' so that when the art is seen it gives an impression of how something 'is' even the things that are not visible.

I checked out the work and thought that the skulls could be more expressive,... thats all. Its a constant search for that high standard.

Atwooki
07-15-2005, 09:40 PM
Quick observation and slight generalisation here:

Prior to 'CG' most illustrators/painters/artists (of note) studied the roots of their craft (structure, perspective, anatomy, colour theory etc.) and then fearlessly branched-out' (nay: blossommed!) into a recognisable individual style of their own - usually at a fairly early stage of their development.


C.

terren3i
07-16-2005, 12:37 AM
I was curious to your opinions on two forms of illustration.

But is there a fine line between realism and stylization, or is it a blurry shade of grey between the two? Would incorrect anatomy only be acceptable once it is so far over the line it is obviously stylized, or can one get away with smaller tweaks?

My friend's logic was; "If its stylized, why does any of it need to look real? If the demon is obviously not real, why do the skulls need to be?"

my answer for your friend is very simple, because there is market for both a demon can look cartoony and realistic, its a call u make depends on what u working on rather than a foolproof right or wrong answer.

is there a fine line in between? no, i dun think so , it depends on marketing stralegy of how you promoting your work. Art, as much as i know, was never solely about direct visual contact. frames, advertisments, there r all these thing around to control and adjust how and which angle people looks at your work. George Lucas called his SW cartoon an 'anime style' from teh interview on the dvd; FF-spirit within is generally accepted as "real" movie but not a cartoon, but it had never fooled me since the first frame in the movie, 'Jurassic Park''s dinosaurs r generally be accepted as how the real thing should look and walks like, while nobody cares that no paeliotologists on earth had ever actually witness one or take photo of and forth they cant possibly approve what's 'real', scientific prediction only true before new proof is found. Realism does not exist, but a version of existence does dwelt in every one's head, what artist does is playing around those.

Wysiwyg
07-16-2005, 01:14 AM
Even with cariacture, which is stylization of the real, certain rules of form (especially in anatomy) are still present when done successfully. These proportions even when skewed, as being larger or smaller than they would in reality usually are arranged in the same manner as you would a realistic portrait. To ignore these rules (ie: exaggerated arms in this case), reality/believability begins to diminish, like a cyborg guy with what must look like a 20 ton arm that he can ignore and stand up straight w/o falling over.

look at any figure...even the aforemtioned 'Bart Simpson'...hell all the Simpsons are stylized approaches to anatomy, but the proportions/placement are generally identical to what would be a realistic proportion.

The Simpsons, cartoons from the band Gorillaz, to even the most outlandish creatures to grace the digital canvas, all are stylized, but based on reality and the rules therein.

Not insuating anyone in particular, but alot of times artist use the phrase, "That's just my style." to cover up laziness or mistakes.

Kanga
07-16-2005, 01:34 AM
Not insuating anyone in particular, but alot of times artist use the phrase, "That's just my style." to cover up laziness or mistakes.

When people asked Dr Suess why he drew so funny he replied: "That's just the way I draw."

'Thats my style' is a phrase often used because the artist is tired of explaining the reason he does what he does. There are many examples where an artist has taken a drastic departure from reality and the result has been an enormously succesful means of communication. Looking at drawings and images has been a learning experience for us from birth its ok to play with an image because often you are stretching the imagination of the viewer.

How you yourself judge the worth of work is personal but if you are into communication then I think you will have to agree there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Wysiwyg
07-16-2005, 12:35 PM
When people asked Dr Suess why he drew so funny he replied: "That's just the way I draw."

'Thats my style' is a phrase often used because the artist is tired of explaining the reason he does what he does. There are many examples where an artist has taken a drastic departure from reality and the result has been an enormously succesful means of communication. Looking at drawings and images has been a learning experience for us from birth its ok to play with an image because often you are stretching the imagination of the viewer.

How you yourself judge the worth of work is personal but if you are into communication then I think you will have to agree there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I totally agree that the approachs of image portrayl are about as varied as the artist themselves, but even the good Doctor S. adhered to some level of reality when drawing his unique characters. I don't mean 10 fingers/toes, but in terms of placement of eyes in proportion to mouth etc.

As any 'rule' of art, many established artists can break them, yet still pull off what could be considered a successful piece by the masses (after all artist intent is great, but if it's commercial work then the customer is always right, now matter how horrid his taste :P ), but when I stated that "Just my style" was a scapegoat phrase I was referring to those budding artists that would rather hurry up and finish a piece then go back 10 steps to fix the problem. I guess I didn't illustrate that clearly, apologies.

Atwooki
07-16-2005, 07:34 PM
Wysiwyg:
Even with cariacture, which is stylization of the real, certain rules of form (especially in anatomy) are still present when done successfully.
These proportions even when skewed, as being larger or smaller than they would in reality usually are arranged in the same manner as you
would a realistic portrait. Exactly right Wysiwyg - otherwise known as 'tessellation'.... (at least when I was designing caricature at 'Spitting Images' in the eighties that's what the label was :) ).
This means that 'form' and structure (anatomically speaking) was considered universal (Re: topology, in 3D modeling terms), just appropriately deformed to re-create the 'character's individual charateristics in question.....

Mal de Ojo:
for stylized I do understand exageration/deformation
In my opinion, exageration reads better but is less real, so less inmersive. Don't ever mistake 'exaggeration' for 'style' - They are two different things, both creatively and etymologically- Anybody, (for instance) can take an image at will, exaggerate it in many different ways, and yet it does not automatically become a 'style' :rolleyes:
(unless several other recognisable images conform to the design aesthetics of the former/original)

Chris

RoundRobbin
07-16-2005, 09:10 PM
"realism is hard to pull off and takes a whole lot of practice , knowledge, reference and skillzzz.

Stylized is easier to pull off and takes less of the former. The hrardest part of stylization is imagination and to make a sense of inventive beauty.

Realistic stylization type of anims are even better. Kinda like manga 2d cinema type movies, mixing the two to create a world that can't be real but looks real. This is what makes motion vids a masterpiece. Using imagination for a visualization and using realism and its mathematical theories to create an appealing sensible visual."

~le durt-

Atwooki
07-16-2005, 09:52 PM
see below:

Atwooki
07-16-2005, 10:02 PM
Stylized is easier to pull off and takes less of the former.
Completely the opposite! How did you come to this conclusion (post examples please)
Great depiction stylistically demands a rock solid foundation of the 'classical realism basics'
to expand from, otherwise your really just fantasising, mucking about, or happy to waste your own time.
The hrardest part of stylization is imagination and to make a sense of inventive beauty.
Your imagination is a tool; it's up to you if you want to:
A./ Develop it fruitfully along with your personality, in order to suit your own ends
or:
B./ Let it temporarily be stimulated by others (the easy dead-end route).

C.

RoundRobbin
07-16-2005, 11:19 PM
Your imagination is a tool; it's up to you if you want to:
A./ Develop it fruitfully along with your personality, in order to suit your own ends
or:
B./ Let it temporarily be stimulated by others (the easy dead-end route).

C.

i stated that in a visual sense, not in an emotional 'oh, i want to be a better human' sense. in realism you don't need imagination. However in stylizing art you need your imagination. Most of the greatest stylizing artists in past history e.g: disney didn't draw mickey mouse from a mouse, but from his head, although he may have used a mouse as reference like body part distancing, and all that fibinachi crap artists need to know about . this seems like common sense to me, i'm sure you too. So why is it that realism in 3d is always replaced by over the top stylized animations, because its simple gestures make it easy to tell a story. Why is it animators have such a hard time animating subtleties, because realism is a pain in the ass. Why is it the best modelers in cg model Real-objects, organic and inanimate, because the human eye is adept to the falacies of the items which we see everyday when we wake up, we know whats right about it and whats wrong about it instantaneously. Usually if you could master realism, than stlyised art is snap of the finger easy in comparison, with all the rules realism has, before and now more than often the guidlines have been transferred to create newer characters and environments and you name it. Usually the successful stylised characters have such guidelines. i've done a lot of realism and stylized art in my time, i still find a mixture of the two could bring amazing results. Without imagination your dull, and without interest for realism, than your not proficient in 'art' ..hence, stylised art is easier to pull off. not only that, more economical and it's an energy saver...

~uh8n_Durty

Wysiwyg
07-16-2005, 11:29 PM
"realism is hard to pull off and takes a whole lot of practice , knowledge, reference and skillzzz.

Stylized is easier to pull off and takes less of the former. The hrardest part of stylization is imagination and to make a sense of inventive beauty.

~le durt-

Uh how can you stylize something if you don't know what it's made up of? Having mastery over it's original form? Of the many artists I've seen over time, the best stylistic interpretations are done by those who do the best realistic ones.

RoundRobbin
07-16-2005, 11:49 PM
..........duh

Atwooki
07-16-2005, 11:53 PM
Most of the greatest stylizing artists in past history e.g: disney didn't draw mickey mouse from a mouse, but from his head, although he may have used a mouse as referenceThink the creator was 'Ub Iwerks' in fact ;) :

http://www.wikimirror.com/Ub_Iwerks

but OT here really...
Why is it the best modelers in cg model Real-objects, organic and inanimate,Perhaps the best modelers in your opinion :)
I can't remember the thread here of late, but I think an artist called Anders Ehreborg (fellah here on CGT - and he'll kill me for spelling his last name wrong :blush:)) was voted the best/most popular, and he ain't realism.... :shrug:
because the human eye is adept to the falacies of the items which we see everyday when we wake up, we know whats right about it and whats wrong about it instantaneously.Very true, but interestingly, joe public can spot errors in a badly designed cartoon - whether a still or its animated counterpart.
Usually if you could master realism, than stlyised art is snap of the finger easy in comparison
This would make for a very intruiging challenge as you mention it: Those who consider themselves 'realists' having to create a highly stylised image, and the style-mongers vice-versa! (wonder if that inspires any mods reading this thread :shrug:?
Without imagination your dull, and without interest for realism, than your not proficient in 'art' ..Couldn't agree more :)
hence, stylised art is easier to pull off. not only that, more economical and it's an energy saver...I'd say to the contrary - Look at the enormous amount of design time that goes into creating (prime example) Pixars characters, through pencil on paper, inking, shader development no less complex (including SSS lighmaps etc)than that used for photorealistic surfaces, and then of course the characters animation has to be 'hand-created' for the most part to conform with the intended stylisation of the piece - no mocap here; it would simply look staid and be wrong!

RoundRobbin
07-17-2005, 05:43 PM
Quote:
Usually if you could master realism, than stlyised art is snap of the finger easy in comparison

This would make for a very intruiging challenge as you mention it: Those who consider themselves 'realists' having to create a highly stylised image, and the style-mongers vice-versa! (wonder if that inspires any mods reading this thread :shrug:?



Atwooki, atwooki, atwooki....i'll accept any challenge to defend the true genuises from the misguided, whether it smashing them at their own game or crushing them at my own.

ps: i don't consider myself a realist, but i'll happily defend their skillz..if you only knew ;)

Kanga
07-17-2005, 07:19 PM
Wysiwyg
Ok man cheers :thumbsup:!

Thread in general
Its kind of strange that people talk about realism as if it is seperate. Any kind of succesful realism is so doctored, twisted, manipulated and moulded into a form that communicates that I would venture to say that realism per se doesnt exist in the way its title would lead us to believe. As for stylised being easier,... well I know its just as difficult as hell to come up with something that works whichever approach is used!

Atwooki
Good to see you mixing it up buddy!

RoundRobbin
07-18-2005, 12:06 AM
you can't find aesthetic visual guidelines from inventive stylizaTions, we find all of our guidelines or 'rules' (as to what makes things appealing) from reality. If this thread is binary like the 'stylized vs realism' title states. I would rather defend that which is there (realism) than that which comes from there and evolves from it (stylized). The more we respect our reference the better we are as artists.;)

Nazirull
07-18-2005, 03:09 AM
Well said artwooki.

I think we have to respect each trade....realist or sylist coz both requires a considerable amount of intelligence to be executed succesfully. :)

Wonton
07-23-2005, 08:58 PM
But how would you know if it will succeed? Surely you're not stupid enough to sit there and hope people won't notice your lack of skill, and just appreciate your "way of doing things".
Maybe people will appreciate it, maybe this is just a hobby, or maybe we're being too harsh.
But to get that professional position, your work is gonna be reviewed by a professional. And I tell you, if the people on this board could clearly see your lack of visual knowledge, your employer is going to see it. What if they don't want your style, but would rather you follow their "Lead Artist"?

So how do you judge or make corrections to something that is neither right nor wrong?
Learn from reality, because there is only 1 version of it.

When you reach the end, you'd have your own style, as well as the ability to mimic others.

Atwooki
07-24-2005, 02:52 AM
I suppose it would make sense then, to become the 'lead artist' rather than the 'subordinate' ;)
C,

jmBoekestein
07-24-2005, 02:42 PM
hahaha, depends on who you'd want to agree with yourself, you, or the public.

This discussion is odd to me, I find that they both serve their purposes and they are used for different purposes/contexts. Sure you can intermingle when it's a message to be told, but then the context would change too I think. So it depends on your purpose.

Basically, stylised is easier because it requires less intricate detailing/shading/attention to whatever. Realism is the most powerful tool, but the most difficult because it demands an extreme amount of finesse if you do it as an original and not merely a copy of a photo or life figure.

Ultimately, it requires a lot more time to get something realist(ic) done well than stylised.

I think ou should know the rules before you bend them but it's not necessary I think, there are oads of manga training books around, I bet a lot of those people wouldn't ber very good realists. But they do fine in manga, because it's easier.

Atwooki
07-24-2005, 05:44 PM
Basically, stylised is easier because it requires less intricate detailing/shading/attention to whatever. Realism is the most powerful tool, but the most difficult because it demands an extreme amount of finesse if you do it as an original and not merely a copy of a photo or life figure.

Ultimately, it requires a lot more time to get something realist(ic) done well than stylised.So Jim, you've never seen a stylised image that has detail?

Generally a unique and recognisable style takes years to develop, unlike realism, where the development time is more in understanding the vagaries of anatomy etc. and an ability to robotically copy with little imagination.
Both obviously need a solid understanding of structure, color balance, perspective etc.

Realism is the most powerful toolWell, I guess that explains the enormous success of company logos which are purposefully pared-down to minimalist forms :rolleyes:

fourcrowsArt
07-24-2005, 05:59 PM
Generally a unique and recognisable style takes years to develop, unlike realism, where the development time is more in understanding the vagaries of anatomy etc. and an ability to robotically copy with little imagination.


I was going to say something like this too...only a little more nicely...lol...

Just becuase you work in a stylized fashion, doesn't necessarily mean you don't have a clue, nor does it mean you don't have a grasp....

and truly in my opinion, at least in a traditional artistic sense, it's much easier to be realistic, than to develop a style that shows imagination, as well as true thought...it's easy to copy shadows and light.

...I haven't learned enough about digital at this point to know the difference...

jmBoekestein
07-24-2005, 06:14 PM
So Jim, you've never seen a stylised image that has detail?

Generally a unique and recognisable style takes years to develop, unlike realism, where the development time is more in understanding the vagaries of anatomy etc. and an ability to robotically copy with little imagination.
Both obviously need a solid understanding of structure, color balance, perspective etc.
Well, I guess that explains the enormous success of company logos which are purposefully pared-down to minimalist forms :rolleyes:

The name's Jan Mark, and factually the stylised images are nearly always less detailed and always flattened. Basically they allow for the freedom to use simpler compositions and colourschemes as opposed to realism. I can see your own taste goes towards unrealistic depictions from the first sentence you posted here. So I'm taking the rest with a grain of salt ;).
I can't think of any logo's that stuck with me though. I think it's for usability in print and production. :D


edit: let's face it. To be imaginative in a realist style is not at all easy but possible. I think that's why it's never done, look at some of the favorite's of a lot of people, they do realism, but, they use their own imagination for just about everything. Those symbolisms seem to me far more suffisticated than the ones in heavily stylised paintings.

Silvergray
07-24-2005, 08:50 PM
To stylize or not to stylize? That is the question.

Personally I believe that the need for stylizing forced or accidental, with or without anatomically correct parts clearly depands greatly on the FEEL of the image you are trying to convey.

When you look at it does it feel right to you?

All of this comes out of the painter/sculptor/etc...'s own experiences be it in school, from books or in life. So if you want or don't want to have big anime eyes in your drawing clearly depends on who you are as a person and as a painter.

Like the old saying goes: "be yourself..." everything will fall into place after that.



Note: This may or may not apply to commercial illustration or commisssioned work with very very specific marks that need to be hit. In cases like this, sometimes it isnt about being yourself, sometimes it's about getting paid. Being artistic is great and all but you still got to eat. ;)

Atwooki
07-24-2005, 08:57 PM
Sorry - Jan Mark :)

My own taste? Nah...I like to experiment, and I've kinda outgrown realism - at least for the moment :)
Here's a 'realistic' oil painting of mine from a while back:http://www.custom3d.co.uk/nttp/mongolians.jpg

Chris

PatternRecognition
07-24-2005, 09:16 PM
Realism or stylized.. it's hard to decide, but personally I go towards 70-80% realism. It's because of my rather lacking academic knowledge of things like lifedrawing.

Atwooki, that oil painting is actually very stylized. With that in mind, I can't say you've ever been IN realism ;) :) Most of the faces look like children's with proportions like that.

Atwooki
07-24-2005, 10:46 PM
Getting a bit OT here, but the mongul race do have particularly short upper limbs and clavicles in relation to their stature, which might give them 'child-like' proportions:

http://www.custom3d.co.uk/nttp/monguls.jpg

jmBoekestein
07-24-2005, 10:50 PM
I gotta say I'm in the same spot as you angryscientist, I lack such knowledge myself. But I'm learning at the anatomy forum, you should go check if you haven't, there's a bundle of treats there. :D

Agree with angryscientist on the painting too. Beside proportions, The lighting is fairly off too, colourwise and in it's consistency. Especially regarding the brightness of the outside. :scream: You're making a bold statement claiming that you've outgrown it. :curious:


edit: the faces in yours are for instance wider and still look like children compared to the photographs. And I'm telling you, with a photograph right under it you can clearly see the shadin is off, as well as the colour.

PatternRecognition
07-24-2005, 11:08 PM
I agree with what jmBoekestein said, was going to point all that out as well :)

And, yeah, I've checked out that new forum, just am too deep in the world of enviroments right now lol

Atwooki
07-25-2005, 12:33 AM
First off, I make no great claims for this painting; a masterpiece it's not!
Second, regardless of the quality of the artwork, it is considered to be
within the 'realism' genre (it was after all exhibited in the 'Not The Turner Prize'
exhibition here in London last year , which is a specifically a 'realism' exhibition)
I would also suggest that Jan Mark's lovely drawings fall into this category.

What it obviously not, is a 'photorealistic' painting, but that's not within the
subject of this thread's title....

You're making a bold statement claiming that you've outgrown it...
Very true :D
Perhaps I should clarify that a little by saying that my creative interests
lean more towards caricature nowadays, as I find the process more stimulating;
certainly the issues of perception intrigue me and hold my interest more.

jmBoekestein
07-25-2005, 01:21 AM
Heheh, like I said, I have no education for this. But I was thinking photorealistic was plain and simple realistic. I forgot that it is an artmovement. Or that it differs from photorealistic, if it's no artmovement that is. uhm... :surprised ...is it?
an artmovement I mean?

To be honest I wouldn't even dare say my drawings are realistic. I guess I should say realist?

I think photorealist is better, and in that way you should see my comments perhaps. I think it bringsd more to memory than a caricature, unless it's for instance count olaf from the movie 'a series of unfortunate events'. If you get my drift. :) I have the same with horror movies which are a good example of stretching reality...sort of. :)

Kargokultti
07-25-2005, 01:22 PM
Someone already said that there's room enough for both styles. I just want to say it again.

CGtalk in general seems to lean in the direction of realism, but I think this has more to do with the 3D origins of this whole thing rather than what actually works. Not saying one does and the other one doesn't, but am saying that one is slighted for not very good reasons.

Let's take an example: Maus, the graphic novel. Would it be more powerful if it were e.g. painted in full colours and in a realistic style? I don't think so. The thing with having cats for nazis, pigs for kapos and mice for jews is that it doesn't actually distance you from the story, but brings it closer.

Photorealism would be like cheating: "Look, I took my digital camera and went back in time, took these photos of the thing when it was happening!" I'm not saying anyone would think this, but the level of detail doesn't help suspend disbelief: "How do you know the guy would look just like that? How can you tell us how a starving person would react? You weren't there, were you?"

By drawing a mouse, Spiegelman admits that no, he wasn't there when it happened, that this is a story he's heard. A mouse is a symbol for a character in a story, and accepting that there was someone at this place Spiegelman's heard these stories of is easier than accepting someone's superbly detailed, but ultimately, imaginary illustrations of life in a concentration camp. (And this would be my subjective view on the matter, not the gospel truth. But I like to think I have a point here.)

Another thing: Magritte already made the point best, but every time you create an image, purporting to show a realistic, three dimensional space, whether it has a real world model or not, you're making an interpretation. 2D isn't 3D. (Even 3D isn't 3D, as long as we're not viewing it with some stereoscopic or holographic apparatus.) A stylized image only takes the interpretation that much further. This discussion is kind of like arguing whether a potato or a yam is the better root vegetable; they're still both in the same family.

Thirdly: I've yet to see an image where the artist truly captures what his eyes see. Take a view of a street at night, lit by streetlights. How would you render the halos around the light sources? A haze, the same colour as the light, something like that?

Now think about what you actually see. There will be these kinds of rays or flares that never stop moving necause your eyes are never actually still. On top of that, if you really pay attention (and you might need to hae full vision in both eyes too, though I'm not sure) you'll see these tiny rainbow-like reflections. I guess it's the light reflecting from the fluids that're outside your eyeballs. They never stop moving either. And then there might be the floating things that're either something inside your eyeballs, or inside your head - though you only tend to see these when you stare at something bright, say, the sky, for some time.

How do you paint that stuff? The answer, I think, is: you don't. Don't know about you folks, but I'd go nuts if I tried.

No 2D image will ever be exactly the thing you see with your own eyes, so this sort of makes all 2D images interpretations of the reality, with more or less imagination in them, that is: more or less stylized.

Finally, check out some of Michelangelo's stuff on the sistine chapel: the half naked chappies floating on thin air have really interesting body proportions:
http://www.funseekers.net/images/Italy/sistine%20chapel.jpg

I bet someone'd find a thing or two to say about the weenie there. And is the head in proportion? Nope. Does it matter? Not a jot.

Trident_2K5
07-25-2005, 04:42 PM
Lately I was playing SW:KOTOR and was so engrossed in it that didn't realized
that my girfriend had came from the kitchen and was silently watching the game over my
shoulder until she commented on one of the cutscenes: "I love CG girs, they all
have such a perfect look, such a smooth skin!" When I replied that many consider
this a defect she stared at me like I was lunatic. She just could not understand
why this beauty should be spoiled by all that ugly pores and hair, and
everything. Hey, all photorealism people, do you want to meet a girl who prefers game screenshot made on a shaderless card to your month-developed day-rendered superrealistic work? :)

Some people just want reality to be "corrected", at least in pictures. :) Why not? Ancient greeks tilted pillars to make them look more straight, and good stylization does just the same :)

Wonton
07-25-2005, 06:58 PM
I think you're getting a bit mixed up, month-long rendered detail doesn't equal realism. Just look at the works of Craig Mullins, you can see brush strokes all over the place, some really big ones even. You'll see snow with 1 long, fat brush stroke, or a sky with a simple smooth gradient, but my god... they're more convincing than anything I've seen produced in a 3d rendering, or even a photograph for that matter.


To be honest, I don't think this debate should exist if it's going to be about the outcome of the final product.

Every method is awesome, and I intend to experiment with them all.

But rather, I think this debate should be about learning material, whether to use realism or not. If you're some kinda gifted person, and never needing to observe, then go ahead, learn what you can teach yourself. I wasn't very good and started out quite lost, so I needed the aid of an anatomy book and such.

In disney's "Illusion of life", there's a quote that said something like "It's not about realism, but believability".

Imagus
07-26-2005, 11:13 PM
Think of any work of visual art as having two layers. The first, and most concrete, layer is the physical rendering of the subject, or the "image". The second, far more elusive layer is the essence of what is being represented, or the "subject".

The same subject can be depicted in many different ways, in many different images. However, regardless of the method used, the ultimate goal of the image is to convey the subject to the viewer.

The "style" is simply the method used to create the image that conveys the subject to the viewer. The illusion of reality comes from the artist's depiction of the subject, not neccesarily from the style used.

Errors in an image can distract the viewer, detracting from the subject. To prevent this, artists strive to understand and study the world around them. By doing so, they can create images that, regardless of their style, do not detract from, or distract the viewer from, the depicted subject.

As such, whether "stylized" or "realistic", the true "realism" of a work comes from the depiction of the subject by the artist, based on the foundation of observation.

Therefore...

"If its stylized, why does any of it need to look real? If the demon is obviously not real, why do the skulls need to be?"

It needs to look "real" because, whether actual or imaginary, the depiction of the subject matter must convince the viewer that they are looking at a scene that exists, whether it does or not. Regardless of the style used, the image should convey the subject to the viewer.

I hope that all makes sense... for some reason, it was tough to put it into words.

Kanga
07-27-2005, 12:25 AM
It doesn't really matter if your subject is real or based on real world geometry or not. The power of communication is much more complicated.

It is good to observe the real world and if your scene has a foot in reality it is easier for the viewer to relate. Observing or indeed studying reality is a handy tool because you can go about manipulating it and we call that style. It is not the only way to go by all means.

Looking at the sketch the artist posted and judging by the feeling of it it looks like reality is the base. The general feeling is a bit shakey so it is possible the drawing could be improved by representing focal points more strongly. This has less to do with anatomy than it does with the power that elements are represented.

A composition is a symphony of parts that has less to do with the correctness of individual items than it has to do with those elements supporting each other and contributing to the whole.

Whether something is stylised or real is of little consequence the real question is does it work in this particular instance? Being a master of anatomy or studying reality intensly wont assure a masterpiece. Its just not that simple as each illustration is so much more than this. Yes photorealism is the way to go, yes heavily stylised cartoons are the way to go, yes a mixture of all things you have ever experienced is the way to go,..... they are just tools.

Not one is better than the other and know there is more than one way to skin a cat. Study work that knocks your socks off and you may be surprised that its not only one style you prefer. What you are looking at is the representation of genius which is an essence of many factors. Try and break them down and experiment with them.

Frwanque
07-27-2005, 01:38 AM
Stylized and Realism are the same Every of these two can be Nice or Ugly

You have to be good in both of them. I can do a good object my style and some of you might don't like it I can also put a picture taken by a Cam, put it on a Forum and i'm sure One of you would be able to find error in it.

It is all an opinion all Critic are easy to do but making something good for everyone is Hard.

Some Style we have and think is very beautiful are so easy to do but the final Result Is great what? you want more?

the most important is the expression and the felling. If you want to do realism go for it you have more work to do. But if you can imagine something very new but simple you can have easily more good feed back because eveyone see Realism everyday.

Just do something you like to or go for the Keep it simple Stupid

CGTalk Moderation
07-27-2005, 01:38 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.