Style Or Substance?

[Gameglitch]

Style: more or less the technique approach, creativeness, used in a piece of work, like cartoons (Power Puff Girls, Dexters Lab), abstract, etc. May not be the most technical amazing graphic wonder but still appealing.


Substance: The technical aspect of the piece of work, like photo Realism, were there is a zillion bits of detail, accurate building structures, scale model car designs using complex math etc. You may have a cool new car design or a really real looking face of someone but the picture seems "empty".


Ps: I know that you would like it if I had a "both" option but that would be way too easy, so im forcing you to choose... which one would you lean towards.

[jhonenfreak]

I'd say substance is more important. All (or most) art tells a story, and for it to be descriptive and informative that piece has actally got to say something or have some sort of meaning. Style is important as well, but anyone could splash paint on canvas and call it their "style".
_________________
[url=http://starrust.com][img]http://starrust.com/images/linksout/starrust2.gif[/img][/url]

[Lizkay]

A realistic drawing or painting looks and is awesome no discussion, but I think the style is the more creative thing. You need to trainee hard for that, and the main thought behind is that you draw without any reference, is there any challenge if you draw something which is already "there" you could make a photo of it instead of drawing it realistic. I don't want to say that all this stuff is sh... but you can draw/paint realistic and combine it with creativity, fanatsy themes of stuff which could never exist in reality is such a thing. If I see a realisitic painting of a fruit basket, and yes if it is astonishing real, it will never really amaze me because it still makes me think... *why the heck did they invent the photography?*
But also Style can just exist if its appealing to the eye, and as it is with all things in live, you will never find a way to make all the viewers happy... ^_^
_________________
- hmm... did someone say "MUFFIN"? -

[JediRevan20]

I'd prefer a healthy mix of style and substance, but I'd have to agree; style is more important, not discrediting the other. Styles cannot be duplicated(well, they can....but I try not to take someone else's...which Is why I have very little fanart in my galleries.) Style defines who you are as an artist, and even if one person doesn't like your style, others may love it.

[unfocused]

Your definition of style is for people who are too lazy and/or don't have the talent/skill to do your definition of substance. You'll find many people choosing style because it may just be all they can do. I've made a few original cartoon-like characters when I was in 5th or 6th grade. Eventually you grow out of it when you become better at artwork and need something more challenging. That's when you will ultimatley choose substance. Style is fun, of course, we've all done it, but it's less challenging than the opposition.
I see even you chose style, Gameglitch. Unless your going to be a cartoonist (which you can be), there isn't much down the road for style. But of course, I'm sure you all would disagree, it's only human nature to rebel againsts what you believe. Substance
_________________
"edit : i luv james" - Layzcarter

[ChocolateCappuccino]

When I look at art, I tend to prefer style. Sure, the first few photrealistic works I saw had me staring in amazement, but after a while I wanted something that tickled my sense of shape and color. I'm not saying that the one is any better or worse than the other. I hate doing photorealistic paintings myself, it really bores me to tears, but that's just my personal taste.

There's a big difference between choosing style over substance and using "style" to cover up that you haven't mastered substance yet. Many great and famous artists use/used a personal style, and we know for a fact that most of them are/were capable of making art with substance. So I don't feel it's right to say that style is something you outgrow and can only be used for drawing powerpuffgirls. Or are we only talking about the "style" of children and teenagers?
_________________
[img]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y89/chocolatecappuccino/gojyoear.jpg[/img] [img]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y89/chocolatecappuccino/buttonchange.jpg[/img]
[color=white]Minekura fangirl![/color]

[Kingdom-Fighter]

i agree wiv hanna i do prefer style bcoz stuff drawn to scale is so boring in my opinion as it creates to much atmosphere once again in my opinion

[Stratadrake]

Obviously, I prefer a mix of both. Who doesn't? Voting exclusively for one OR the other is a tough choice, especially when you define the choices in such exclusive terms.

Allow me to redefine your terms, Genkai.

Style = Creativity and imagination
Substance = Technical ability, or technique

Creativity is important, duh -- how many times can people re-invent the wheel? There are already too many people drawing straight from pictures, originality is a must.

But, on the other hand, technique is just as important, too. The technical aspects put a roof, a limit on one's creativity. How well can you communicate a creative idea if you can't draw much better than stick figures?

In other words, creativity is the thought, but technique is the language through which that thought is communicated to others.

At one extreme, you have great original ideas, but you lack the skills to share and communicate them with others. Whereas at the other extreme, your works feel empty, all the excellent communication just a bunch of mindless babble due to a lack of ideas.

Thus, as much as I value the former, I have to place my vote for the latter.
_________________
Strata here: [url=http://www.nanowrimo.org/eng/user/242293]Nanowrimo[/url] - [url=www.fanart-central.net/user-Stratadrake.php]FAC[/url] - [url=http://stratadrake.deviantart.com]dA[/url] - [url=www.furaffinity.net/user/Stratadrake/]FA[/url]
[size=9]Disclaimer: Posts may contain URLs. Click [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife]at your own risk.[/url][/size]

[unfocused]

Mortal Enemy makes a good point. And his definitions to style and substance are more simple and better.

[b]QUOTE[/b] (Strata)

Whereas at the other extreme, your works feel empty, all the excellent communication just a bunch of mindless babble due to a lack of ideas[/quote]That can be an opinion, I don't find fallenangels art "empty", nor my own. you can have creativity AND substance without the first definition of style. I guess my reason for chosing substance is because I admire someone with talent and skill. Anyone can draw Deedee from Dexter's Lab. Not everyone can draw this _________________ "edit : i luv james" - Layzcarter

[Gameglitch]

[quote="unfocused (o)(o)"]
I see even you chose style, Gameglitch. Unless your going to be a cartoonist (which you can be), there isn't much down the road for style. But of course, I'm sure you all would disagree, it's only human nature to rebel againsts what you believe. Substance [/quote]
Actually its almost a dead heat between the two (they both have good qualities). If I had to choose, id tip my hand to substance like this famous artist.

http://www.artandnature.com/bateman.html