I never got "styles". Why would somebody want to voluntarily

because when everyone draws realistically it gets boring

>>2387208
just a way to stay in the comfort zone for untalented people. Obviously there are many styles that actually take skill, but you see it right away. This one though is not one of them.

File: 1381689630356.jpg (148KB, 800x517px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x517px

>>2387208
Style =/= drawing bad on purpose
It means to alter realism and most of the time it requires greater skill than simply realism
Claiming style for your lack of skill is voluntarily choosing to be bad at drawing
Know the difference it could save your life
>pic related
This image is stylized but it's very clear that the artist is very skillful and could have done the image realistically if they wanted to. But they wanted to do it like they did because it looks cooler

Sometimes style is done to speed up the process and it's fortunate that simplistic styles can look good if done well. Realism takes an awful lot of time and with the invention of photography like >>2387214 said, it's just boring.

>>2387208
>>2387215

There's a way to think about style.
Any given visual 'Style' is either: Shape based. Line based. Form based.

Successful styles pick two of those 3 principles and emphasizes them. Of those two, they would pick one to be dominant.
101 Dalmations is a line based style.
Most Animated CG films are form based. (volumes, rendering, cartoony realism)
OP's pic? Shape Based. It's badly cropped. But this is a Lorenzo Mattotti and it came from Vanity Fair in 1986. He's a fashion illustrator from the 80's and his shit still plops itself on the new yorker and other publications from time to time. That means he's a working professional that can pay bills from a seemingly skill-less style. As an adult that needs to put bread on the table, that's good enough.

No matter what style, it takes a lot of introspection, discipline, and trial and error to hit a personal visual language that's right for the job. Take a look at the Mattotti again. No two shapes are alike. Negative spaces are interesting. Look at how the black shapes are arranged. Interesting proportions. The best thing of all, are the looks the girls are giving to eachother, and to the viewer. It's a well -designed- piece. I wouldn't have the chutzpah to make this AND get paid for it. Mattotti influenced alot of people. Comic artists, vis dev artists in the industry. Normal print illustrators. Back when I was at school his artbooks were regularly checked out from the library.

Make no mistake all of art is hard but It DOESN'T take a lot of skill to photobash and render for 100+hrs. I do that at work and I have to go on autopilot or else I'll kill myself. But this shit? You can tell that it's fucking fun to do this. And that your mind has to be on in order to make sure you don't make noob design mistakes like equal spacing or equal shapes. It's impeccably designed (but badly cropped). Design is hard. And the simpler and more shape based your image is, the easier it is to fuck up design.

>>2387215
>>2387208
>>2387229


10/10
You got me good btw. But it's really for other artists and not you.

File: mattotti.jpg (443KB, 564x5624px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 564x5624px

Here's an image scrawl of mattotti. You might not like it, but this is sick. If I made this myself, i'd be very proud of myself.