The Case for Simplicity

DokiDokiTsuna 2018-10-28 15:51:50 UTC #1

I don't know many artists like myself who regularly draw in tons of different styles, but of the few I do know, whenever they switch to a more detailed style, all their commenters start going "omg such improvement!" and stuff like that.

And I just feel kinda sad, because if they'd been watching them for the last 6 months like I have, they'd know that it's not an "improvement"; they were always capable of stuff like that. They just chose not to do it for a while.

I've always been able to tell when a simplistic art style is by choice or simply the limit of the artist's abilities. But is that a skill that belongs only to fellow artists, or even to just a select few?

I just wish that more people knew that, just because someone's art doesn't fit into the 'pseudo-anime-semi-realism' stereotype, doesn't mean they aren't a good enough artist.

Samuraiflame 2018-10-28 15:54:17 UTC #2

LOL THOSE ARE MY READERS
I started a second comic with my 'regular' style and people keep commenting about the improvement. I'm still flattered but now I wonder if people think I normally just suck. ʅ(◔౪◔ ) ʃ

I think it's fun to have other styles you can pull out to impress people though. It's like a secret weapon when people underestimate you.

DiegoPalacios 2018-10-28 16:02:04 UTC #3

Different art styles suit different stories. That is why some experts may opt for a simpler style even if they have the skills to pull of something like "pseudo-anime-semi-realism" which is an awesome style by the way.

Sometimes people have only seen one of the styles the artist can do. So when they see the artist can make more detailed work they get caught by surprise.

HGohwell 2018-10-28 16:30:48 UTC #4

I've had sorta the opposite of "omg such an improvement". When I'm feeling artblocky, I switch to a simpler more expressive style, highly inspired by the animes Heartcatch Precure and Ojamajo Doremi. It's a lot harder than it seems to make it look right (I have dreams of doing a comic in that sort of style one day) but every time I go back to it I have people saying I'm taking backward steps and it's doing damage to my style to be doing it.

SleepingPoppy 2018-10-28 16:37:43 UTC #5

I think for the lay man (and many very very beginning artists) it's common to just assume some form of realism is everyone's goal. So if they see something more realistic/detailed, yeah, they might think that's the artist improving.

It's not necessarily a real preference, either. I think it's most likely that these people don't really think about it until a more realistic piece is in front of them. Then they ooh, and ah because it's different, not actually better.

A more developed eye will more likely pick up the difference between a style change and a skill change. But nonartists may have this skill to, just usually not as developed.

DokiDokiTsuna 2018-10-28 16:48:50 UTC #6

Wow, that's even sadder. And pretty judgmental...=_=

TheBryceKrispy 2018-10-28 16:53:19 UTC #7

Just because an art style is simple, doesn't make it bad. Simple styles to make for great facial expressions.

However, I cannot tell if a simple art style is by choice or the artist's abilities. How would you tell the difference between the two?

SleepingPoppy 2018-10-28 16:55:19 UTC #8

Yep. There are some gorgeous "simple" comics that feature on tapas. And same for cartoons on tv. An effective simple style takes skill!

TheBryceKrispy 2018-10-28 16:56:29 UTC #9

Yep. Like this one., @SleepingPoppy

Luminosophy 2018-10-28 17:00:47 UTC #10

This reminds me of comments I used to see where people, both young artists and laymen, stated that "cel-shading is for lazy people who don't know how to paint". It was something along those lines but yeah it totally does not surprise me that people are conflating detail/ semi-realism painting with higher level of ability. To even make symbol based styles work you have know as much as the realism artists.

HGohwell 2018-10-28 17:25:41 UTC #11

@DokiDokiTsuna Yeah they were very judgmental and that sort of stuff really knocked my confidence in my art for a long time. Unfortunately during my late teens I was hanging around with a lot of artists who were on the pretentious side. Anime/manga inspired art styles were considered not real art, simple styles were lazy and the resort of those without anatomical knowledge. They were also the same sort who thought as @spudfuzz says, cell shading is lazy and for people who don't know how to shade properly. Of course this of course totally ignores how hard cell shading is to make look good. They were the sort of artists who strove for realism and accuracy over everything, and anything done for style purposes or aesthetic purposes or just plain because you felt like it or liked it, wasn't real art.

I still get this sort of attitude but since breaking away from the artist group I was hanging around with I've learnt to deal with it a lot better. And it's not just them ignoring that to make simple things right is hard work, but I often find overly detailed realistic style can become cluttered and you loose what's really important in the picture. It doesn't always work that well in comics where you want things to be clear.

skicoak 2018-10-28 18:10:06 UTC #12

I'm a fan of any type of art that's done well but I get why readers might favor art styles that lean to more detail oriented visuals. It's a storyteller's medium and that increase in detail often makes following the story easier for the casual fan.

ronschuijt 2018-10-31 14:06:17 UTC #13

It can also be a case of time economics. Making a comic can soak up a lot of time, and as a creator you want to draw as efficient as possible. Not every genre demands a detailed style, so stylising your drawings in a way it suits your atmosphere while quickening your workflow can be a win-win situation. Also, stylising often creates a more recognisable personal touch that can make your comic feel truly unique.

I personally prefer an artist that is able to communicate more with less, over those who mainly aim to draw as realistically or as detailed as possible.

ar-ninetysix 2018-10-31 16:00:18 UTC #14

This post just reminds me of these games from The Legend of Zelda. I'm gonna go real in-depth on the games, so bear with me, I'll bring it back to the topic lol

So, back in 2000, there was this tech demo for what looked like a more realistic (at the time) visual of Ocarina of Time to show off the hardware capabilities of the Gamecube, and like, everyone was hyped as hell.

2003 came around, the trailer for Wind Waker came out and there was mixed reception. Fans wanted a realistic game at the time, and Wind Waker's cel-shaded graphics looked cartoony to the general public in comparison to that tech demo. Some hated it, some loved it. People arguing on whether Nintendo was starting to cater towards children more than the adults, and so on.

Nintendo was like, "Ok, we heard you guys." and in 2006, Twilight Princess happened. Fans were ecstatic, everything looked so realistic (at the time) and the overall artstyle was basically semi-realistic anime and it looked like the series was gonna take a darker turn and cater more towards adults.. so yeah, everyone was happy, pretty much.

But... the years went on. People's views have changed since then, other games came out looking more realistic, and Nintendo settled for a hybrid of realism and cel-shading (and a watercolor painting aesthetic) for Skyward Sword.

Afterwards, they went and made another hybrid of their artstyles in what we would see from their next game, Breath of the Wild.

So, what does all this have to do with the post?? Well, there's people that have gone back on the Twilight Princess realism in favor of Wind Waker's cartoony look! One major part of the reasoning being that the limitations set on the hardware combined with the artstyle and it's lack of saturation made for a dated look that tried to hard to be real for some people. They've seen how much better the realistic approach has become in recent years, and Twilight Princess pales in comparison to these new games.

The cel-shaded graphics of Wind Waker can't age as much because it went away from realism, even if the game came out before Twilight Princess. The overall expressive nature and simplicity of it is essentially why people still love that artstyle so much. Skyward Sword aged too, but only because of the limitations of the hardware, not the artstyle itself. And it all comes together in Breath of the Wild. The cel-shading was perfected, the models have become less polygonal looking, the colors stand out, the textures have upped their resolution, the detail is outstanding! It's an impressionistic psuedo-realism and it seems to work! Seeing as I haven't seen anyone actually complain about the look of it, I truly believe this will be the next game that will stand the test of time from Nintendo as far as the artstyle goes.

Back to the topic at hand, simplicity can definitely go a long way, and complexity can too. The mix of both can do the same as well. It's the execution of it that matters more in all of these cases. Simplicity in the wrong hands can come off as crude and poorly drawn, complexity can come off as unnecessarily detailed and a strain on the eyes. That mix can be seen as indecisive and settling for in between. There's an audience for everything, and in that same strength, there's critics for everything. None of these should have any superiority over each other anyways. Good art, bad art, amazing art, horrible art, it's all subjective. But at the end of the day, the artist has to make something that they themselves can be happy with, and in doing so, I think the audience should respect that much at least~