Stylized vs Realism - illustration

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07 July 2005   #31
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.
 
Old 07 July 2005   #32
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.
__________________
Wacom practice


 
Old 07 July 2005   #33
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.
 
Old 07 July 2005   #34
I suppose it would make sense then, to become the 'lead artist' rather than the 'subordinate'
C,
__________________

 
Old 07 July 2005   #35
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.
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
Old 07 July 2005   #36
Quote: 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.
Quote: Realism is the most powerful tool
Well, I guess that explains the enormous success of company logos which are purposefully pared-down to minimalist forms
__________________

 
Old 07 July 2005   #37
Originally Posted by Atwooki: 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...
 
Old 07 July 2005   #38
Originally Posted by Atwooki: 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


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.


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.
__________________
modelling practice #1

Last edited by jmBoekestein : 07 July 2005 at 05:23 PM.
 
Old 07 July 2005   #39
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.
 
Old 07 July 2005   #40
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:

Chris
__________________

 
Old 07 July 2005   #41
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.
__________________
It's all Pattern Recognition.
 
Old 07 July 2005   #42
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:

__________________

 
Old 07 July 2005   #43
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.

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. You're making a bold statement claiming that you've outgrown it.


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.
__________________
modelling practice #1

Last edited by jmBoekestein : 07 July 2005 at 09:53 PM.
 
Old 07 July 2005   #44
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
__________________
It's all Pattern Recognition.
 
Old 07 July 2005   #45
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....
Quote: You're making a bold statement claiming that you've outgrown it...

Very true
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.
__________________

 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.