How Important Is A Recognizable Style?

I think the answer is both. I think for a random one of sale on FAA, it might not matter much.

But for someone to become a repeat customer, for someone to buy multiple pieces of work, I think a discernible style is important and helps.

It depends I think, on where your work is displayed. On a POD site like this it's fine to display different options for buyers. If your work is published or licensed a publisher may prefer to market your work in a particular style.

I agree with Thomas, if the goal is to build a fan base of repeat customers, (ie, develop a niche) then a recognizable style is important.

If it matters a lot, then I'm toast. I'm one of those all-over-the-map folks ... too much fun not to mess around with different techniques. I'd go batty-crazy if I tried to stick to one style. That being said, I'm currently exploring something that I'm having a ton of fun at ... somewhat intricate (at least to my old-lady self) ... but once I master it ... or if I ever master it I should say ... will I get bored and move on? Don't know. Probably, especially if ooo-look-something-new-and-shiny comes along and catches my interest. If I lose buyers along the way ... at least I'm having a LOT of fun at it. And while I'm all about the money, honey, if I don't like doing it, I'm pret-tee sure it would show up in what I present. Bottom line: hope it doesn't matter.

I agree that a recognizable style is important in building a fan base but the confines of sticking with a recognizable style tends to exclude other styles/genres, thus narrowing the customer base to only those who appreciate that particular style.

Recognizable style is a big challenge in photography. Easier to accomplish in other mediums.

I think style draws people in and makes they want to look further at your portfolio. Without a unique style one becomes generic. Which also works but doesn't necessarily lead to repeat business.. A style also divides the lookers, they either like your style or they don't and move on.

Lois, I so relate to everything you said! I swear I'm part Raven too and am esily thrown off track by any shiny object, even the tiniest ball of aluminum foil lodged in the gravel. I never have had the attention span necessary to stick with ANYTHING, let alone a style. It's always about whatever may be waiting around the bend. Does that make my pursuit of sales hopeless?

Kathleen, I see you as one of the best nature photographers out there. Looking at your work, colorful nature photography IS your style. Or is that a subject matter, rather than a style? I'm confused.

What Lois said! When it stops being fun for me, I'm onto something else.

Edward, I concur that the downside of conforming to a set style can limit the audience whereas generic has the potential of a wider appeal but not necessarily what it takes to get repeat buyers. So is it a wash?

Patricia that is rather a subject matter. It would be the style of nature photography that matters. HDR, digital manipulation, color palette, etc.

I don't believe HDR is a style either....its a technique. A lot of my work is HDR.....some would be surprised some images that aren't. A good deal of my work get some of the same treatments whether its HDR or not.

Thank you so much, Pat! But you have always been one of the kindest of the kind here. I laughed out loud when you thought you were being snarky in that other thread! I doubt you have a snarky bone in your body.

Yes, I love nature photography but I think it's more of a subject. I wouldn't even recognize my work as being mine if I hadn't been there at the time.

Glad I'm not the only one, Kathleen and Patricia!!!! I will say, though, that when I'm NOT caught up in the learning and mastering of a new idea or technique, there's something else that keeps me from doing the same kind of thing over and over, and that is, the nature of the image itself. MOST of the time, an image will tell ME how it wants to be processed. My son (who knows everything, of course) informed me the other day that we don't actually THINK in words. Well, maybe he's right. And if that really is the case, then the communication I get from whatever image has caught my eye and made me want to stop and play with it awhile makes more sense. The images guide me ... it's not the other way around.

But again ... sticking to one style?? All the time??

Geeze.

Yawn.

Lois and Pat, your work is all over the map! But what is consistent is the quality of the work throughout so they are great examples of flip side of my question. Buyers will be drawn to individual images and may return because of the quality of the work rather than the consistent style.

But what about a collection of images that are all over the map?
I think you answered your own question. As I look through your portfolio you do take me all over the map. One image is from here and the other one is from way over there etc. Nothing wrong with your quality. Maybe arranging your images within your portfolio so they flow better with the viewer. As I think about it I need to do the same thing. Its easy to think well, let's put the best images in front. All your images are great so you don't have to worry about that.

Thank you, Craig! You brought up a good point. I tend to cram old images I like (some for the memories of the day) with new uploads in the first few pages. My thinking was that displaying variety shows visitors an eclectic mix of subjects so they don't get the idea that I only tend to shoot the same subjects over and over. But you think it would be better to group subjects on the image pages like they would be grouped in galleries?

Building "a style" depends on a greater understanding of aesthetics.

I have said this before, take out the word style.

But what will sell more? a streamlined portfolio or one that moves around a great deal?

That might not be so artist dependent in most cases. It might be far more customer dependent.

Artists should not lose track of the viewers.

Dave

Galleries want to see a consistent body of work. They want assurance that a sold painting will be replaced by one that is in concert with the rest of the work on display and not a departure so different as to not have that artists style, palette or tecnique recognizable. I think that is true gor most artwork sold online or anywhere. If people buy your work then they are drawn to that style and when they come back to it later, have an expectation of the art style they are looking for. This doesn't mean that you are limited or locked into one subject. Working in series helps.


Photography is not all that different in my opinion. Consistency (in my opinion) shows professionalism.

So what is your answer, David? Is one way more effective than another given that the style is not only recognizable but the quality is good? I used Mike for an example earlier because I think his work is high quality but there are also those here with recognizable styles whose work, IMO, lacks quality. Would they also have an edge just because they have a recognizable style?

Loretta, I can see how having a consistent style would be important for artists showing in galleries. A sharp departure from traditional offerings could tend to be disorienting to those who are familiar with previous work. But that may be a different scenario because a brick and mortar gallery would have a narrower visitor base and maybe a greater percentage of that base would be repeat visitors who have certain expectations. Would that hold true on a POD?

I was thinking that you should do that within some of the galleries. Maybe take a look at how many images crossover into the different galleries. I try not to add the same image to more than 2 galleries. As for what David mentioned maybe a gallery of Most popular based on views. But how many galleries do we need? I don't think you need a recently added or personal favorites but that's just me.

I had these discussions with slide photographers back in the day. We did very little darkroom work as our finished product was the developed slide, viewed through a loupe or projected. Yes we made illfochromes and even scans. Yes post processing is a style, but what you do behind a lens is a big part. And subject does matter. Choice of subject matter can be what sets apart one from another. I can think of lots of example in art. Are we to say that babies are not part of Anne Geddes style? How do you separate subject from style. And more importantly how you approach it. Perspective and point of view. Composition as well and not just simplistic 2 dimensional rule of thirds. How you expose is part of it and choice of film or sensor, camera and lens and format all go to make up style. Art majors can argue that but I know a style when I see it.

I could back in the 90s recognize in an instant any of the photographers I admired. Both the famous and the local. I still can for the most part. I view hundreds of images a day and i am very well familiar with all the sellers here and their styles. I don't need to see a signature. I can tell a JC or a TZ and a whole lot of other who never post. I also see style in the way Kathleen composes. The way she sets up background with subject. It carries through most of her work.

Its fine to do a variety of styles. Yo don't have to show everyone everything. Really though there is almost always a common thread.

Just as there's more than one type of artist, there's more than one type of art buyer.

The buyers who are not married to a style, the ones with minds as eclectic and curious as my own -- that's my preferred demographic. I have repeat buyers who've chosen more than one 'style' from my portfolio; sometimes, within the same order.

There are certainly 'elements' (shapes, colors, themes) that are frequently repeated within my body of work, but my brain would explode if I tried to stick to a 'style'!

"Style is besides the point. Nobody would pay attention if one always said the same thing, in the same words and the same tone of voice."
-- Pablo Picasso

Ah, but Lois, you DO have a recognizable style whether that is your intention or not. Your subjects change, your places change but overall, I still recognize a Lois Bryan piece when I see it.

I am all over the map on subjects and places myself, quite literally. My recognizable style is not present in all the images I create but it is there nonetheless.

So yeah, nothing wrong with being all over the map but I personally prefer to do so within my own style.

@Kathleen. I believe that holds true for online galleries and POD sites. I'm not a photographer but I can tell you it takes a long time to build a style. Not something you intentionally create but a combination of mastery of technique, subject, composition. When all the important elements start to get mastered then the artist style starts to emerge. I'm a painter and still consider myself evolving.

The famous photographers all have/had a consistency in their work. That's what made them stand out. Right?

BBL - water issues again.

I agree with what Loretta said. I don't think a style is something you consciously create. I think it evolves organically out of doing what you love and mastering it. I believe most people who have been practicing their art for a while have a style, even though they themselves may not realize or recognize it. In fact I saw an article about this just the other day.

https://luminous-landscape.com/developing-a-personal-style/

I agree with JC, I think you can photograph several subjects, but I think for most of us an apparent style shows through in most of our photos...I would think, sometimes I am not sure I have a style and maybe that's why I don't sell so well, I think it is harder for us to tell about our own work than it is to know about others work.

I am not sure how much any of it matters anyway, I look at a lot of photography and I see a lot of big names, I assume they must sell well, they charge thousands for their workshops, and fill up on them, then I see work here that is, in my opinion superior to theirs and they don't seam to show up in the recently sold pages, so either I have a bad eye, or there is more at work here than just being good. I am sure a lot of it is marketing, and I will be the first to admit I am very, very bad at marketing.

There is one particular photographer, he is not represented here on FAA, I look at his photographs and am not impressed, they lack so much, here again in my opinion but he sells millions of dollars worth of photographs a year...not Lik!!
So I guess the bottom line is...I don't have a clue.

TL Mair
tlmair.com

it really depends on your buyer and what your selling. if you have lots of random, then it may sell just fine. however, you may never be recognized as an artist. a style is like having a comic strip, each one has its own look, and you can ID who made it, simply by the style. and i think that can be important.

i don't think i could change it if i could, i will always lean in a certain direction.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I have more than one recognizable style....People recognize my Black Magic, Pure Water, Labor of Love, Color Fusion and Stone Rock'd. I also have people tell me "I recognized your art." all of the time even if it doesn't fall into one of my main styles. So maybe there is an overall style to my work that is memorable, but I also have pieces that are very different than most of my other work. It all sells and licenses just fine, so I think it doesn't really matter. With the Internet, you CAN have both worlds....I have repeat buyers who stick to one of my established styles and I have repeat buyers who buy randomly. And random buyers who only buy one. Personally, I would be bored silly just sticking to one style....Not caring if I never become famous as a result. ;)

I see my work going generally in two directions as far as style goes, my acrylic paintings and my mixed media paintings (pen, watercolor, colored pencil and occasionally a bit of gouache). I'm thinking I might focus more on the mixed media. The acrylic paintings vary a little in style (sometimes palette knife, sometimes no) but people tell me I have a definitive style, it's not quite so obvious to me. I have a clear style with the pencil sketches but I don't focus on them since they aren't popular, eventually I'll probably be deleting them from my portfolio. My subjects are fairly consistent as well, vehicles, (mostly old trucks and tractors) and landscapes both natural and rural. Can't say I've garnered much of a following though.

Thanks, Kathleen. That is very nice of you. I like what Bradford said about "common thread." And thanks to others who set me straight on the difference between style and subject. I'm finding these posts quite informative. Now I'm off to see if I can find some "common thread" in my portfolio.

I have had the same questions in the past, and I also get bored easily. I do anything from realism to fantasy, I work in a lot of different mediums and love trying new things and don't like to limit myself. As far as selling I kind of like to having a little bit for everyone. I do a lot of series work though which has built up to more than one body of work, in different styles.

I have been told by people that when they see my art online they immediately know it's mine so I guess I must be doing something right? I have just decided to stay true to myself and how I love to create and my style will follow naturally.

That's it Shana! If people can recognize your work, then that is all that is needed. Even if you have multiple styles and a lot of experimental work....It shows that "you" are coming through in whatever work you are doing. Your "style" cannot be put into a tidy little box. :)

a style doesn't have to be the same subject. its just the way you make things. and you develop a style whether you realize it or not. usually you don't know your making it the same way every time. when i thought i was changing how i was doing it. apparently it made no difference. and it is a good thing to have a style. you want people to recognize your work, even without seeing your name.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I think "style" evolves over time. It's not a drastic change, but both my art and photography is much more "fine art" than it was over 4 years ago when I started my galleries here.

I was once told by an artist in Hamburg that my work wouldn't sell unless I had a style.
I've also been told to "sex up" my images.

I've ignored both bits of advice, and I've had a few sales on FAA. I've had a lot more at art shows and craft fairs, where you can actually talk to the buyer. And guess what, they don't care if you have a style when they walk past your stand. They just see an image they want, and after a bit of haggling on the price they (hopefully) walk away with it.

So, I don't think having a style is important, what is, is the quality of the artwork and a bit of luck matching it to a potential buyer.

I think its fair to say style is what comes after "Artist X is known for their......"

It could be a subject or a technique or a medium or color palette. For example William Wegman is known for his dog photos but also his use of color, large Polaroid images and conceptual ideas. Subject, medium, etc all contribute to his well know style.

....

Can you have both worlds? The Internet craves diversity and a long tail approach - you can be in several markets at the same time. More traditional markets like galleries want to be able to peg you into a category me thinks.

That's what I think too Sharon!! That's why I just stay true to me, seriously my profile is my self portrait. Almost every piece speaks to my tastes and who I am (I seriously was just posting this in another thread the other day.) I think that's they only way, is to stay genuine. Then the "style" just falls into place. It doesn't have to be forced.

@Mike I totally agree, style does come naturally. Especially if you aren't too busy trying to be like another artist just to make money. Just be yourself, the rest will follow naturally.

I think as artists we overthink these things too much sometimes..

I think style also has a lot to do with how we view the world. I tend to be a glass half full kind of girl, very sentimental at times, and like to believe that magic exists in the most unexpected places. I think that all reflects in my work quite often, and actually my art has even taught me a lot about myself.

To answer the question:
Many years ago ( probably close to 30), I sold one of my birdness paintings to a client. We prominently hung it on a wall that you could see when you first walked into her home.
She called the next week to tell me that she had a party and one of her guests walked in and said "OH! You own a Marlene Burns!"
My client was thrilled, of course, and in her mind, the value went way up.
Was it ultimately important to me as the artist?
uh...nope.
It is what it is. My eye sees the world in abstractions, whether I am painting or taking pix. I use the same standards for composition, color and design in both.
I got style.

I think Thomas summed it up nicely with the first reply: for a one-off sale it doesn't matter but if you want to build a following you probably need a distinctive style.

Personally, I create whatever I feel like so I'm eclectic, to say the least. Oddly enough I do have several repeat sales. Go figure?

Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

I've really enjoyed everyone's take on this and you've all made valid points. I still don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer. For an established artist with a known style it may be risky to deviate too far from what others expect of you but on the other hand if they already love your work they may be excited to see you take it in a new direction. For those without an established style there may be more freedom to produce random stuff because no one has set expectations. On the other hand, they aren't producing anything that sets them apart but it may be part of their process to find a unique style. Others may never find their own style because they've learned to copy styles of successful sellers instead. Can we agree that all the top sellers do have a signature style and without one, an artist will never be a top seller?

I remember when I first started out, many harped on about needing to develop a style. Figured that would come in time and was low on the list of things to learn. Yet it got to the point where I almost stopped moving forward, because many said without a style, might as well give up on photography. It didn't matter if my work was good or not, style meant more. Didn't quite agree with that, as I've seen many images that are pretty bad on the internet from photogs that think they're great.

Still don't have a style and perhaps I'll never be a top seller, cuz I'm all over the map. Personally, I love what I'm doing and strive to get better at it. Who knows, maybe getting into large format photography will show my style. Must say though, I'm pleased with the sales I have and in time hope they grow, with or without a style of my own. ;)

~ Charly

Well said, Charly! In my opinion as long as you enjoy creating your art then what's the problem. Maybe it's my scientific background but I love experimenting with different approaches, themes and techniques and prefer not to be boxed into one style. My work sells, and that's good enough for me.
One could perhaps argue that by not having a distinctive style people may come back and say, "what's (s)he going to produce next?"

Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

Kathleen,

I do not have a one size fits all answer.

Bradford,

Your use of the word style applies, but is more aptly discussed as elements.

Dave

If an artist is seeking to make a name for him/herself, it will be in their repetitive style. If they are just testing the market for sales, they will be all over the place.

"If they are just testing the market for sales, they will be all over the place."

Or they could just be expressing themselves, enjoying themselves, and learning new things too... ;-)

Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

Often we forget your Art is who you are, your thinking and taste, past history of your life, everything reflects on your Art.
You choose certain color, subject, composition because how you think and make choices. So in my opinion everyone has a style. Some are more noticeable than the other.
by other people's definitions. So many incidents that I said to myself, I really like this painting I just did. but No one really cares you cannot say you don't have a style because other people don't see it. Everyone has a style as everyone is different. Art is good for that reason. An expression of who you are.
Commercializing Art made us think that we have to put certain style in the box or you need to show your style but
to me heck with it. I'll continue to do what I like . If it doesn't sell because no one recognized my Art due to non noticeable style.. I'll make money another way... Now that is my style! :)

Danl, I would have to disagree with your statement. I'm not testing the market for sales, but am a fairly new photog that is still learning and honing my skills. I think it's a bit different for painters having a recognized style than a photographer.

Yes there is specialized work, like Mike who does more digital work on images or those who do a lot of HDR, like Thomas or others that go with a retro feel to all photos. So are those of us who either don't know how to do specialized work or prefer more natural images destined to not make a name for themselves? Why does one have to be boxed into one genre or style to succeed? I've been told to focus on many different genres of photography; Architecture, Portraits, Travel, etc. But why do I have to choose just one? Seems to me that limits one drastically.

Architecture is a tough one to get right, yet once I did that brought forth honing other skills. Portraits are another tough one, as getting the light right is so important. Yet though Portrait photography, I've honed my skills as to how to see and use light outside a studio. Travel is also tough, as capturing the Essence, Heart and Soul of a place is very important. With Ireland, I fell in love with photography and didn't pay much attention to many things. But when I spent a month driving around Italy, I knew more and have been told often I had what so many other photos lack; showing Italy as if I lived there all my life.

So I'd rather not conform to what others think and travel my own path, always trying new things and hopefully become a better photog in the process. :)

~ Charly