How to describe stylistic difference?

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 04 April 2013   #1
How to describe stylistic difference?

Hey guys,

I'm kind of a newb when it comes to digital art.

What words would you use to describe the differences in styles between these two things here?

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_G...dit?usp=sharing
 
Old 04 April 2013   #2
Just go literal: One has blue sky, the other has yellow sky, one has no details in obelisk.. the other does..

Can't really talk much about "style" though with two pictures... unless it's Production-Centric (ie: You are working on your own image of obelisks or buildings).

But at any rate: Go Literal.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 04 April 2013   #3
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrart
Hey guys,

I'm kind of a newb when it comes to digital art.

What words would you use to describe the differences in styles between these two things here?

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_G...dit?usp=sharing

One is relatively good, and has a somewhat realistic, "classicsim" illustration style, the other is kinda crap and too far below the craftmanship level required to let style transpire clearly.

So the difference is that one is the work of an accomplished artist, and the other is the work of someone who still needs to work on their skills.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
Old 04 April 2013   #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO
One is relatively good, and has a somewhat realistic, "classicsim" illustration style, the other is kinda crap and too far below the craftmanship level required to let style transpire clearly.

So the difference is that one is the work of an accomplished artist, and the other is the work of someone who still needs to work on their skills.


This pretty much sums it up.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 04 April 2013   #5
Obelisk
Obelisn't
__________________
SKETCHBOOK
MDI
moonjam.com
 
Old 04 April 2013   #6
The look of inexperience is not a style, so you canít compare the top image to the bottom, stylistically.
The bottom image is too naive to even classify as NaÔve/Outsider Art.
__________________
 
Old 04 April 2013   #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadart
The look of inexperience is not a style, so you canít compare the top image to the bottom, stylistically.
The bottom image is too naive to even classify as NaÔve/Outsider Art.



Uhm the bottom one is the better of the two...
 
Old 04 April 2013   #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadart
The look of inexperience is not a style, so you canít compare the top image to the bottom, stylistically.
The bottom image is too naive to even classify as NaÔve/Outsider Art.


Correct.
This is a good case for "Inefficacy doesn't equal originality."

Even though both have stylistic choices that can be considered unique, the top image stays within rules of classical art knowledge (line weight, color, value, etc) and the bottom violates most of these rules.

Am I getting the impression we're doing the OP's homework?
__________________
LEIF3D.com
 
Old 04 April 2013   #9
The bottom one was made by creative who was paid less.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #10
Quote:
The bottom one was made by creative who was paid less.


 
Old 04 April 2013   #11
Are you people serious?
The upper picture is utter crap.
Kitsch with horrible composition, blown out obelisk structure, stupid trees that are out of place, not doing anything to the picture in this case, only distraction. Why is the obelisk on a hill, this only reduces the impact of a shape that is very powerful. Also, what is this texture inside the obelisk, there is no benefit. And the sky is simply embarrassing.

Bottom image has a nice limited color palette, strong emphasised perspective on the obelisk, nice hard shading of the obelisk edge to bring out the monolithic shape. The cracks make me wonder, what's the purpose, but it's something to think about, at least. The composition works. The mountains, I would have shifted the color more in contrast to the ground, but they work as a background, to add depth and give an idea of scale.


EDIT: very interesting topic though, I got to say! Hope to hear more opinions.


(Sorry for my english, I don't usually say this, but now I'm slightly drunk)

Last edited by plastic : 04 April 2013 at 08:23 PM.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #12
I prefer second one as well, it has much bigger impact on me as a viewer, it's more dynamic first one is technically better but terribly dull.
__________________
www.inbitwin.com
 
Old 04 April 2013   #13
I'm relieved I'm not the only one who finds the bottom image more appealing. Sure there are many visitors here who are incredibly skilled and no doubt have to be very particular in their professional work - but wow they can be fixed-minded and snobbish! :o)

Back to the original poster...

Do you specify digital to narrow the scope of your query?

Do you want words that describe the differences or do you want words that describe the styles of the two images? Do you want just the words or would you like sentences to support the words?

It would be helpful if you explained why you are asking and maybe why those particular images. An answer to your question could be very involved and time-consuming, and while many here are happy to help, we don't have time to do your work for you.

I'm guessing your teacher has given you this project?

Perhaps you would get more useful responses if you presented your best thoughts and research and asked for feed-back and direction?

Understanding styles involves a fair amount of study and can get tediously anal - but it can be very useful for communicating and in producing your own art. I recommend you do some.
__________________
www.zazzle.co.uk/gingerhammer
 
Old 04 April 2013   #14
Whether you prefer the first or second image is down to taste.
I also find the first one exceedingly boring.

But the original question was "what style are they?". The first is accomplished enough to have one, however dead boring, the second one is so below par it doesn't.

It's got nothing to do with being overly technically focused (which I'm not), it's just that when you're at the level where palette, composition, perspective, texture, spaces and all that are clearly uncharted territory, your "style" is dictated by what you can clobber together, not by a conscious choice of what you're doing.
Something good might come out of it, but it's not effortless and tasteful choice when it does, it's happy coincidence
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
Old 04 April 2013   #15
I think they're both crap, but the bottom one is significantly crapper than the top one. To me, it seems the top one was done by someone with some level of skill but no taste, while the lower one was done by someone who simply cannot draw or paint.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
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 12:20 PM.


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