One of the things I hear about often from artists, especially visual artists, is their need to find a style for themselves. I can certainly understand that need. In an age where "artists" spring from every nook and cranny of the world, and spam their quite often mundane and mediocre affair on the world wide intarwebs, it's really hard to make yourself stand out and get noticed. The very few who do are either very unique, or have insane technical skills. Both of these traits are not something that can easily be obtained, but both are goals of any aspiring artist who wants to be recognized as the next celebrity of the art world.
It seems that finding an original "style" is something of a shortcut. Well, what is a style, really? Isn't it the method of how you execute your artwork in such a fashion that it conforms to a certain aesthetic value? That's a mouthful. In any case, a lot of what comes out in your "style" will undoubtedly be determined by your influences. Everything you've experienced is what goes into your artwork, in through that, your style.
Whether you think it or not, you have a style. It's roughly the average of your influences as an artist. And this is why I find the perceived persuit of a "style" kind of ridiculous. For example, I personally don't think my artwork is anything too unique from the thousands of other anime artists out there, but everytime someone looks at it, they tell me that they can spot it as my piece of work from a mile away. I honestly can't see it myself, but there you go.
But what I can see is the influences that I've put into my work. Over the years I've had a number of artists that I obssessed over, and being the wonderful commercial whore I was, I naturally tried to imitate them as much as I could. It probably all started with Bill Watterson. I loved Calvin and Hobbes, and I used to trace the comics all the time. I think that was the first time when I really began to divert my efforts into art. It was followed by Macross art, when I was introduced to anime art for the first time. After that, it's a blur, really. I remember I got infatuated with Slayers once, and Kunihiko Tanaka continues to be a big influence to this day. Perhaps my latest big inspiration was from Akihiko Yoshida, character designer for Matsuno masterpieces like Final Fantasy Tactics, Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy XII.
Newer artists lack a lot of exposure, though. I think because of their limited influences, their style isn't very developed. I see this in a lot of fan art, where you can really see how the artist really only had one major influence and so his art is almost a replica of said influence. But in time this artist will gradually shape his own style from the pieces of inspiration he picks up from other sources.
So when people say they're looking for a style... well, they're probably looking in the wrong places. You don't develop a style out of thin air. The style will come to you naturally as you grow as an artist.
Why am I talking about this in a White Currents blog? I... don't know. But I guess I can relate it to what I believe White Current's inspirations are and why I created White Currents in the first place.
Well, the inspirations are pretty straightforward, I think. My love of flight is probably the primary factor, and subsequently, I also have a love for the sky, and things that float in the endless blue field. I've always had an interest in floating islands, which was a big factor in creating White Currents. Last Exile and the Final Fantasy series, especially 12, were probably big contributors in the aerial atmosphere of the world. As for storytelling elements... there's so many influences, many of which I already mentioned in previous posts anyway.
With anything I do, I think White Currents is really just a way for me to tell stories that's already been told a million times, but with my own sensibilities thrown in. I can love a show, or a movie, or whatever, but invariably there will always be something that's amiss for me. Something I know I would've done better if I were to do it myself. I'm not really trying to be original. I'm just offering my interpretation of how things ought to be done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So true. There's a tendency to mimic the qualities of a piece, and then the creator of the piece one admires; It's the crux of every young artist, but every artist is a young artist at some point (perhaps at all points), so mimicry is only natural. But where I find these young artits, forum cloggers, net spammers, become stagnant is in a fundamental lack of appreciation for their emotions (what makes them draw in the first place). It's like they hit a roadblock in their creativity, waiting for thet influence to come along and then the next, without realizing that the influences they admire had influences too, and something MUST have caused their influences to choose those influences! *pant**pant*
It's where that "style" word comes into play. Everyone does have a style, whether they like it or not. But there's an oft made statement, usually by untrained eyes that i find leads to that creative roadblock:
"Her style is so original!"
or
"His style is so futuristc!"
With that line of thinking, a young artist assumes that there really is nowhere further to look in regards to their favourite influence, because that artist is "the whole package", encompassing everything they enjoy about art and the creative process. But if art is "artiface", a deception, a craft of the mind's eye, then all viual styles are derived from something. No exceptions are made for estalished artist or novices alike. Take for example the works Range Murata (Robot, Last Exile, Blue Submarine No.6). His work is wildely successful, and his "style" is like no other. But he, like all others has his influences. Visually he must have been influenced by by other comic artists and illustrators who he may have related to during his time as a young artist, but when you look deeply into his work, there is a unifying element in how he implements his craft, the shapeshe uses,the thinness of his lines and characters, and the doll-like way he paints). It's so obvious that Murata himself regularly claims to drawing upon it. What is it? A famous artist? A classic comic? Nope! It's Art Deco!
"Who's Art Deco" i'd imagine someone asking now: An artistic movement, much like impressionism, or cubism, Art-Nouveau, Surealism, Romanticism, and the list goes on and on. Now, that doesn't mean a bunch of snobs getting together and saying, "we like this STYLE, so we're only going to draw in this STYLE, and everyone else can kiss our ass!" (although, sometimes it seems like that). Rather, each movement is a reflection of the aesthetics of that period of time. It's a capturing of the mood, values, emotions, and atmosphere of that time. The correct term for refering to these qualities is Zeitgeist, coined by Carl Jung. It translates to "Spirit of the Times" in German. The look of Art Deco instantly taps into the mood, atmosphere and spirit of people between the Great Wars. It would be fair to say that Murata himself has an appreciation for that type of mood, so he is drawn to it. it bleeds into his artwork because it is a reflection of the emotions he felt when seeing those images for the first time. They were probably the same emotions of a lot of people during the Roaring twenties, and phohibition era North America. It's nostalgia for something that you never were a part of, but still admire. It was also the adolescent age of flight, which is why Murata's "style" ties in soo well to Last Exile (the main charaters of course, being adolescent pilots). Who knew style could mean so much! The same can be said for other established artists too. I myself admire Akihiro Yamada's (Rahxephon, Twelve Kingdoms, Lady of Pharis) and Yoshitaka Amano's (Final Fantasy-Everything, Vampire Hunter D, Hero) "styles", but they too has their influences, mainly deriving from the golden age of illustration, like that of Arthur Rackham, Hokkusai,a lot of the Art Nouveau, and (like much of the dominating illustrative force these days), all things Victorian. They relate to an innocent yet elaborate storybookish. Think "Charles Dickens".
It's by understanding the influences of our favourite styles themelves that we can connect with the emotive qualities that make us like the style so much. From that understanding, a young artist can truly apply the best of those styles to their own designs, because then he or she truly knows how those little stylistic choices function for the better of their own work, rather than just copying an aethetic. Appreciation takes design to the next level: knowing how it makes the viewer feel too.
I hope the young followers of this generations "anime &manga" movement can understand that, but with the zeitgeist works, a good chunk of them will.
Absolutely lovely piece.
I think the points illustrated here cannot be overemphasized, even though I come from a different field of writing. Your style is less of any specific direction and personal slant and more of an amalgation of the various influences that you have experienced and appreciate. The logic behind this emulation is simple: if you've enjoyed a certain method or style, then you probably hope to replicate it and entertain your own audience. Unless, of course, you happen to be Andkato and seek to cause as much physical pain in your readers as possible in the shortest period of time, but I digress...
For example, I like to think that take my style of dialogue from Neale Davidson and James Gardner. The former I've tried to emulate for the sharpness and characterization inherent for every line that a character speaks; the latter for the wit and emotional evocation for his dialogue. But even so, the actual way I write dialogue is further modified by personal experience and a myraid of other, smaller influences to the point that whatever dialogue I write will at best, only bear a passing resemblance to my original inspirations.
The same goes for plotting. Over time, a writer accumulates in his mind what he felt were good devices - specifically whatever managed to move him or strike him as particularly interesting. The more experienced a writer is, the more techniques he accumulates so the more versatile he is at communicating his story. There's a saying that good writers are good readers and I firmly hold to that belief for this exact reason. You can't become a good writer until you've read enough to know what works, and what doesn't for a particular audience(namely, you).
The takeaway from this is just that there's no point to brooding around "considering your style." Writing is very much a practical art at the end of the day - you just start trying out whatever style you want, in the method which you think that it entails. You might succeed, you might fail, but you'll always learn.
Unless you're Andkato, that is. Well, then you'll learn how to cause ocular bleeding in your readership, which would fill your dark heart with joy like kitten brains, all sweet and tangy and...
Post a Comment