Why are there so many artists who, even when apparently very

>>3035805
It's called a comfort zone.

You get comfortable with and design one kind of body or face that you like to draw, and don't bother experiementing and using ref I think.

I try to avoid it.

File: 468003-61b44dae7a94429691d2ab461928f6bc.png.jpg (312KB, 600x840px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 600x840px

So their art is recognisable

Lots of reason really.
It could be its what they just like drawing, they feel comfort in it, they want to be recognized or feel they can not draw something too far off that kind of look.
Also take in the fact it might be their style and no matter how hard they try they just can't seem to change the look by much.
I'd say its going to be a bit of what everyone suggests to you.

>>3035805
In the context of artists who do storytelling such as cartoons or comics, the main characters are typically their "default" character design because every other character's traits are in relation to that character. There is no absolute short, tall, skinny, or fat. There is only taller, shorter, fatter, or skinnier than the main character. Keeping the main character design close to the artist's ideal default gives him more room to maneuver and push the designs of other characters, in the same way that painting from a grey canvas lets you push into light and dark.

There is of course also the concern of style. As an author, having a recognizable brand is at times more important than displaying technical range and proficiency. If you're an artist without a visual brand, you'll only ever be a cog.

>>3035805
99% of those artists can draw whatever face or bodytype they want, they just happen to have aesthetic preferences they fall back on. Rule of thumb is, if the artist can draw a beautiful male / female default face and an anatomically correct fitness model type body, they can draw anything else. Deviating from the standard and making things uglier, less symmetric, older, fatter, rougher etc is easy because it gives you more room for inaccuracies.

It's kind of like looking at an artist who can draw really accurate, advanced machinery and industrial design and saying "why can't he draw fluffly clouds and rocks?"

>>3035883
That's incorrect. Being able to exaggerate the proportions in a grotesque matter is a skill to be learned. Just because you can draw qt anime grills doesn't mean you'll be able to draw some bad ass looking ogres.

They fall for the 'having your own style' meme and they forget that having your own style doesn't mean you have to draw the same face every time

>>3035928
what does a style constitute of exactly

>>3035929
Style is just exaggeration/diminishing of certain features.

>>3035892
Obviously ogres and stuff like that fall halfway into creature design, so you need to learn different things. That wasn't the topic at hand though. If you understand how faces actually work and you can draw the default Loomis model-face, you can easily draw an ugly version of it and a variety of faces inbetween.

File: ilya36.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>3035805
>pic related

>>3035883
Most artists can depending on what it is, or if they have reference .It's no secret that a lot of shoujo artists have trouble drawing people over the age of 30, especially old people. So I do think that different faces require people to study a bit so that they can recreate them from imagination. And by the way this doesn't just happen to people who draw pretty people, the opposite is true too. I've seen people that can't draw a pretty female/male to save their life.

But yeah, most people draw the same face because that is what they like to draw, and what they find pleasing. It's a comfort zone, that depending on what you draw/why you draw, doesn't really need to addressed.

>>3036063
gagged a lil

>>3036063
FUCK ILYA!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

>>3035805
Because fat people are ugly, xe.

>>3036063
I praise Ilya for sticking to a style and taking it one step further in more than one area, but it gets disgustingly boring eventually. Good on him for atleast changing the medium/aesthetic style though.

>>3035819
>>3035805

it's called everyone has their own thing they do best. If you want to look at pictures of trains, there are artists that love painting trains. Don't be a fucking retard and bitch about how an artist like Mucha painted prettyed ladies but no trains.

what's so hard to understand about this? why are you people so fucking stupid?

>>3036587
Pretty sure Kron wasn't that one that did that.

Cough

cough

cough

>>3035805
Hiroaki Samura is an example of that right?

File: Coronation_of_Emperor_Dušan,_in_-The_Slavonic_Epic-_(1926)-1.jpg (183KB, 1024x870px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1024x870px

>>3036607
Mucha didn't just paint ladies - his commercial work is better known, but he was a great painter, and he's known for his series "The Slav Epic" as much as he's known for his poster work.

>>3036839
He was known for the ladies anon.

What you posted there is his later work.

Besides, the complaint isn't a "always" but "mostly"

>>3035805
It happens to me and honestly I don't notice until I'm done and compare it to other drawings. I got to actively think about drawing faces differently.