AS AN YOUNG ARTIST,
is it better to experience, learn and express (in drawing, painting, design and etc) in different styles as many as possible?
rather than keeping yourself in one style you developed or found suitable?
(maybe until everybody can recognize your style at once?)
I know both are important but for 'young artists'. people who has a style that people can recognize at once are always respected for the distinctive charm of it. but change seems to be something you should not be far away to evolve into something beyond where you are.
logically, I know one will say both of them are important as an artist...
or, one might say style is a natural thing, must be kept and it's the subject matter, philosophy or perspective that needs to keep changing and evolving...
or, one might say, an artist without challenges and changes is a dead artist....
Let's little bit distanced from philosophical third person POV and...... why don't we reflect ourselves little bit here?..and let's talk out honestly where we are. I will join in too..lol
more correct question might be
What does change in style mean to artist?
What does style mean to evolve and improve as an artist?
I feel like this question deserves the same answer as a previous question asked. And that was the creativity vs. life experience thing. To me its all about what the purpose is. What the idea behind it is or feeling...blah blah blah. I used to get really embarrassed and scared when people would tell me that my art looks like something they have seen before. Or even worse, they would say who's art reminds them of mine. Most artist I think have experienced this. But i think the trick is not to get too tied up in style. Good artist borrow and great artist steal. So find what you like and make it your own. Draw from life, draw what and how you love to draw, and most importantly draw from your heart and your own ideas. Thats my opinion anyway.
ReplyDeleteit is kind of weird to answer my own question but it's been a while i will write some stuff.
ReplyDeletefor me, style of art, which is generally determined by what is seen, is diverged into two different but very relatable things.
one is about about the potential of tool and another one is potential of an idea and choices that are made to express ideas
since Manny has already mentioned lots of good points about relationship between value and purity of ideas, i'd like to open my opinions in more technical aspect.
whenever i buy a different kind of pen or brush or tool, i try my best to find out what the most powerful thing that i can bring out of the tool. It also applies with programs in computers, which i am not very strong at. And maybe that's why i have quite different look of drawings or paintings depends on the tool. For soft pencils I really give my attention to how much the pressure on my fingertips is on or what thickness of each lines can imply. with sharp pen or hard pencils, i would more carefully watch where i go with the delicate lines. Or I watch if i don't overuse any of those. These awareness of tools strength is built up on more traditional and conventional perspective. The fundamental and traditional habits are things that could be researched, studied and learned from masters and books. and for computers, with its preciseness and ability to make things perfect as possible from the image in my head, I tend to use more hard edge paintings and simple shapes.
and here is what I think in terms of taking a risk for a fresh air.
It's nothing like i am a post modernist or modernist, I just believe change is always worth to be taken, which may do good and bad or both at the same time. and having a change doesn't only mean using the tool in an unconventional way.
i don't blame people try to mimic pencil lines in computer. I don't blame doing things in a certain tool to mimic the other tool. And of course that's not the kind of technical improvement or change that will do good for an artist.
well it may do some good things like, you don't have to scan 2000 pages.
What i want to say about 'change' in style along technical point of view, is that If the artist can bring up the potentials of ideas and expressed with the right tool with right techniques or with weird tools with unique process of making to profoundly support the idea, then I would definitely clap in front of a dead silent canvas or monitor. idea is the first but I can't value an okay idea without certain amount of efforts and input to make choices in how to express the idea. I think that's also important.
however that does not mean i don't value a scribbling sketches that has a great idea. i've seen lots of weird sketches of great masters and artists. and they are glowing as is in a frame. I may sound contradicting myself but here is a reason.
It is because:
changes are up to choices. and choices are up to the ideas. and ideas are up to experiences.
And i know and i can see the radical importance of scribblings when i see it. It may not sound logical but there are definitely things i can feel about what it wants to say, what it want me to understand.
when i see the strong thoughts and choices for ideas through tools. I think it become a great stuff. And you know same goes for making a film too.
This is just my opinion.