Not Stick To One Style Of Painiting

depends on your goal. if you want to try different things then go for it. but... if you want someone to be able to point out your work - then you'll want a single or a single set of styles. the images you posted up - all look like one style though. i don't see 10 different styles.

often even when you think you changed it, its often not changed enough to see that anything was changed at all.

i personally have about 5 styles i think. each one distinct. don't mistaken a theme for a style. or a subject for a style. some styles i drop, others i keep, others i enhance if they sell well. what's important is - you like it.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

A style by an artist is not doing the same thing over and over but how they approach each painting that looks like it's theirs, Technique ,color subject matter etc.. you can do as many styles as you want if it makes you happy but you might not get consistent collectors or show in a gallery since they want the artist to look like all the work is done by the same person. I don't get bored doing the work I do go look and see my variety but it's all consistent . Hope this helps :).

after what Mike said I went to see your work and he's right. It all looks like your work and it's not different styles so I don't know what you are talking about. I have things that are different styles than yours but still look like mine. I am a humorist/surrealist which can be quite different from each other but they all look like mine. Your work is pretty good so what do you think is different about it from each other?

for me i have the hdr style, i now have colorizing, but i'm veering to the hdr style. my single prints, non hdr - also have a shading i use for everything else. then i have a number of abstracts - one of them uses just lines, another has spirals. i tried fractals, but didn't have control over them. i messed with paints (literally). but i have no style for that. then i have my digital art, but i change methods so each version is a bit different than the last.

for yours i see different themes, but they all have that torn canvas ransom note look, so that's your style. the style is the thing you do, that you naturally gravitate towards.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I can always tell when it's your work Mike. When I look for some references materials with certain key words sometimes your work pops up and I tell myself before I read who's it is ,that looks like Mikes and it is

I would say that if it was good enough for Marc Chagall... wel...

"Marc Zakharovich Chagall was a Russian-French artist. An early modernist, he was associated with several major artistic styles and created works in virtually every artistic medium, including painting, book illustrations, stained glass, stage sets, ceramic, tapestries and fine art prints. "

There is no one way is the right way. There is only your way... you are the artist.... YOU and only you decide what is right for you. Doing what other think you should do or outright tell you what to do is "them..".. it is not you. You have to paint your art and only your art.

Sharath,

I do see how you are working with different approaches.

Style is a word I would drop. In developing your art theory, I in particular would drop the word style.
You need to see how to put things together in depth.

For instance a word that can be dropped is "dysfunctional". A lot of Ph.D dissertations have been titled
with that word "dysfunctional", but if you were studying someone's psychological make up you study the person's
pathologies. His/her personality is made up of different sized parts. What does the person do in response to that make up.
Drop the word "dysfunctional" and you get an answer. Add the word dysfunctional and you are blowing smoke up someone's........

In art studies "style" is such a word. If you banty the word about you can stop thinking altogether about what you do. It will
styme you. It is a title or adjective to describe your art that says nothing.

I have style, you have style, we all have style. I have now said absolutely nothing.

Dave

Floyd that is good advice if only he wants to do his art just for himself with no other goals or if he lived in the years of Chagall, but times are different and there are millions of artists to compete with if one want to be successful .most artists that were successful in different genres usually were majorly successful in one genre first then their name was one before they dabbled in another

Different styles or periods attributed to Picasso:

Protocubism

Cubism—Analytic and Synthetic

Cubist Sculpture

Realist and Surrealist Works

Paintings of the Early 1930s

Guernica

World War II and After

Late Works: Recapitulation

Changing style seemed to work out okay for Pablo

Spanish painter and sculptor, generally considered the greatest artist of the 20th century. He was unique as an inventor of forms, as an innovator of styles and techniques, as a master of various media, and as one of the most prolific artists in history. He created more than 20,000 works. Picasso's genius manifested itself early: at the age of 10 he made his first paintings, and at 15 he performed brilliantly on the entrance examinations to Barcelona's School of Fine Arts. -© 2000 Estate of Pablo Picasso / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York

Floyd ,Picasso was a good example of my point, he did realism first ,worked with pastels and other things went through his white and blue periods with that but didn't become extremely famous till cubism when his name meant something then he was free to do whatever he wanted and it wasn't as competitive back then. I don't think your timeline is right he did realism first :)

Floyd,

Did Picasso say I must now change my style? Or did he say I want to develop how I paint?

If he developed his technique or his use of subject matter yes you can put all that under style and he
would never have to paint again or say anything. He could just say here is my style. No need to think it over.

It is an empty word in the development of art. It is used a lot by museums.

Dave

Leah,

Picasso's Blue Period? How would you define it without the word style?

Do you need the word style to define the Blue Period?

No it is superfluous.

Dave

I would hate to think that artistic talent and creativity are bound to or limited to a certain time frame in history.

If that would be the case, we would never again hear an artist described he was ahead of his time because he would be limited to what was only being done in the here and now. That sounds sad just saying it.


"but times are different and there are millions of artists to compete with if one want to be successful ."

All the more reason to try different things, different styles and experiment.

One would hate to wake up 25 years down the line and realize they chose the wrong one because he never tried anything else.

I agree to be different Floyd lol have you looked at my work? BUT it's still competitive for collectors and galleries , I have a lot of experience with both. still staying true to my weird style and am self taught

Sharath,

You work in ten different styles......your words....my words.....to synthesize new work.

Your work will carry you to new places. You are more than good enough for that to happen.

No need to sweat it.

Dave

Sharath,

Want to go over the top with your work?

I got this lesson only a few weeks or so ago, modern color choices are more expansive than before.
This dates back to the early 1970s in New York City. Use Pink and Orange widely in a work and see what happens.
In nature those two are less widely seen. So you would open up your palette greatly.

Dave

I agree with you Dave.

"Did Picasso say I must now change my style? Or did he say I want to develop how I paint? "

I don't think he ever needed to think about it let alone verbalize it. I think he felt it was inside of him and he needed to get it out.

I think the labels came fro the people that needed to label it to understand it. Or at least understand it the best they could.

Floyd,

Normally it would not matter. But in an artists' forum where people are developing.......

Dave

I have seen your work Leah and it is fantastic. But remember what I said above, "there is no one way is the right way."

Your way is right for you but that does not mean that it is right for everyone. People have to find their own way and I don't they can do that without trying different things and I don't think being it too big a hurry to "find your own style" is the right thing to do.

I also think diversification broadens your marketing potential if done right.

We were just discussing this same thing on another thread. I think versatility is a good thing. Experimenting with a variety of styles can help expand your skills as an artist. There are people within the industry that prefer artists work in a recognizable style. If that style is salable and the artist is able to be consistent and prolific, then more power to him/her. Otherwise, I say an artist should always follow their inspiration.

Art is the one of the few areas where the freedom of experimentation is allowed and celebrated. Go for it!

The art world has not changed as much as some might think. Oh, it goes through twists and turns alright. Competitive? Maybe but I think the perceived competition is that we can all see almost anything being done as it is done online. So for that communication is quicker. That said all the quick communication and information overload is simply as likely to confuse and distract as keep us informed. I'm competitive but more so with my self than others. Sometimes I just can't stand to look at another work and keep focused on my own without distractions. I'm more concerned with slowing myself down than absorbing what others are doing many times. Competition can be distraction. I trust my, "style" to change as I grow. Bouncing from one thing to another is fine when you are beginning.

I trust that my work will change over time whether I push for it or not.

Gerhard Richter, one of the worlds most successful contemporary artists, may be an example of one who arguably may broken the mold of following a style to succeed. He seems able to break the gallery rules very successfully.

https://www.gerhard-richter.com/en/

"I don't think your timeline is right he did realism first :)"

Just for the record, I did not make that time line. It is what is on the official website, in that order, of the people/foundation that own the Picasso copyright.

All artist's styles develop and change over time, however, depending on the market that an artist is seeking he may need to be careful not to change it up too often or too abruptly. If your business is just POD anything goes, however if your plan is to get into high end galleries or even museums you need to develop a style and body of work that is distinctly yours. That doesn't mean you can't play and experiment on the side, (in fact it's necessary for artistic growth) but the face you present to the gallery world needs to be somewhat consistent. There's no reason you can't have dual markets though, the POD side where you put up everything (maybe even under a pseudonym) and the more consistent side for the gallery world, I know there are artists that have had similar business models.

We have member here that are doing just exactly that, marketing totally different styles. One artist come to mind that has stuff from all over the board including painting, photography and digital art including fractuals. They pop up on the recently sold page about every third day I run through the page. But she is not the only one.

There are people that when you open their AW they have galleries sorted according to the the different things they do. Photographs, paintings, digital art.

There is nothing saying you cannot market it all. I don't think it is wise to open up different memberships. Now you have two AW's you have to advertise. But the buying public is perfectly capable of choosing for themselves once you get them to you AW.

I wish I could post those links to these galleries but the rules prevent that and I am not sure it would be the cool thing to do even it they did not.

its not about selling or not selling its about identification. creating totally different styles makes it hard to have a consistent look to your work. some people like collecting work that all has a certain look - and will buy them as a series. and others are simply recognizing its your stuff as soon as its seen. and you really want that more than anything. right now he has that one style. whether others likes it, is unknown, but it can be recognized.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

DK,

The high end galleries are more interested in how an artist adds to art theory. Just my take on it.


Dave

DB, high end galleries care about selling, like any gallery. I think you are confusing high end galleries with museums.

You are dismissing art theory.

that seems like an oxymoron. its a theory - we can dismiss it.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Art theory has a practical side to it.

The theory helps in an artist's development.

Dave

addition in the NYC market people trade on the theory by and large.

I'm not dismissing theory, I just think for a gallery, business trumps it.

DK,

Not in the NYC market.

Dave

Sharath, without reading any of the other responses, lol, sorry ... not being disrespectful here, just sayin' ... I agree. I'd go crazy if I felt like I had to do the same thing in the same way over and over. I don't know how that woman, Anne Geddes, does what she does without pulling her hair right out of her head.

"its not about selling or not selling its about identification. creating totally different styles makes it hard to have a consistent look to your work.'

Well, it kind of is about the selling at least here on FAA.

And, ya, a different style is an inconsistency to your work. That is what is bing discussed, is it necessary to have that consistent look. History of some pretty good artist and ever artist of today have pretty much proven that is not.

But it is done and it is done very successfully by a whole lot of people.

But as stated above... what is right for one person is not automatically right for everyone else.

Telling an artist, a painter, that they should only stick with one style is like telling a photographer they should only stick with one subject.

If you do seascapes, you should never do wildlife. If you do portraits, you should never do landscapes, if you do still lifes you should never do never do.... and so on and so forth.

As Lois says go wild!!

When I page through some people's portfolio and I see one thing after another that pretty much looks the same as the one before it, I leave fairly quick.

That is like if you have seen one Law & Order episode you have pretty much seen them all no matter how many different titles they stick on the end of the Law & Order spin offs.

subject and style are different things. people have a way of doing things.


a photographer might be known for crazy lighting. or a certain stillness. always shot a certain time of day or with a certain lens. it might be an in your face street shot or a very busy location. you can usually tell who did it at a glance - that's a style. paintings are the same way. you do it a certain way, not because you have to, because you simply do. its like how you talk, you have an accent according to others, but you don't know any different because its always how you've done it. and while you can try adopting a new accent the old one will always slip out.

you'll see it in commercials too. the old spice commercials - i've seen that same style advertise cable companies and a few others. or how people draw cartoons - the theme is different but you can tell who made it based on how they made it.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I think a style is something you gradually develop - often without consciously setting out to do so. In the beginning you try a lot of things. Some you enjoy more than others. Eventually your work is recognizable. Do anything you want to, keep working, keep practicing and maybe one day you will be surprised to look back at what you've done and see you already have a style all your own. Artificially limiting yourself too soon probably won't help much. Just my thoughts.

Using the seven design elements as your own you develop a "style".

The longer you are working in the arts the more experience you have with the seven design elements. So
yes a style emerges. But telling artists they need a style is clearly telling someone who is just developing to
skip the experience of developing. It is arse backwards advice.

The seven design elements are used in conjunction with the subject matter. The effect on the subject matter is complete.

Style is a vacuous word.

Dave

An advertising commercial is the same thing over and over again and is not the ultimate artist expression. In fact it is the direct opposite. One the format or look is set, they want to keep doing it for total different reasons that have little or nothing to do with art.

But no one I have seen has said that artist that chose to create a style and stick with it is wrong or should not do it. If that is the right thing for that artist, then it's the right thing

I just don't think it is the right thing for everyone. And like previously mentioned there are thousands and thousands of examples out there where it has worked very well for some artist.

An artist that rushes to develop a style is like a rush to judgement. In fact it actually is a rush to judgement.

All to often it is a mistake....

How do you choose a style?

There is no thinking for that. Or at best the thinking is haphazard.

Instead you develop your use of the design elements. A mouthful that museums skip over.

Floyd, we discussed Picasso last night. He clearly knew how to develop his use of the design elements. He
was very very analytical. His work did not just come out of him. He constantly developed his work. He never
settled on a style. The idea was open ended development.

Dave

we in some point i do agree with you guys and in some i am not sure what dave talked about high end gallery but i do agree with dk but still not all the gallery as dave said is true

Sharath,

People paying the truly big money in NYC want the latest thing in the arts. You need to be building on theory to get that audience.

The work they are buying.....they hope will be a part of developing western culture...so the work is supposed to be part of western history.

Currently that is not so easy. The abstractionists movements are waning.

Clearly digital work is the future, but digital work does not have high values based on rarity. Digital work means mass copying.

If you want to study the practical side of art theory study the seven design elements. Think of how you use them and how you would like
to develop your take on subject matter and cultural matters. And your art will be furthered.

The seven design elements are basic and can be googled.

Style is a vacuous road block as a word.

Dave

Best of luck to you Sharatha on whatever you decide to do...

thank you devid thank you floyd i think all your advice will be useful to me
and i do take them warmly

Where most here do not have this problem, it can become one. When an artist becomes successful and is selling on a regular basis. The issue can arise that you are no longer inspired by that style that has made you successful. Do you keep producing something that you no longer feel excited by but sells well or do you follow your inspiration or challenge yourself despite the gamble that you may not sell by changing your, "style?" For many that is the point at which the decision becomes more difficult. Would you be able to give up an income you are living with and change your style sacrificing your income in the process?

DR, that's definitely a potential trap. I know a landscape artist that would like to explore abstraction but she's entirely dependent on her art income and has developed a very faithful collector base for her landscape art which she would most likely lose if she switched subjects or significantly changed her style, it could take years to develop that same following for a different type/style of art so she simply can't afford to quit painting those landscapes.

generally the style choose you.

but its hard to know whether its the style you have or some other factor and that's not the reason its selling. such as they love the work but hate the shipping prices. when i try something new i'll either make a few to test the waters, or i'll make a lot because i know it will do well, it just takes time before people see them.

it takes a long time to perfect a style and even longer to advertise it. it's like starting out as a totally new artist.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I brought this up because not many of us could see this kind of thing coming. I knew a very successful sculptor selling in some of the high end galleries in NYC that had to contend with it. He really had guts. He was making very geometric abstract steel sculptures selling in the $50,000. range back in the 70's but wished to explore more organic shapes. He had to abandon his prestigious gallery, find another and then re-establish himself which took several years before his work was again selling. I'm sure having established his career once helped him in reinventing himself but it was not easy financially for him and his family.

I 100% agree with Leah. Do look at her work she is a perfect example of having an identifiable style, but not stuck in a rut of doing the same thing over and over. Her sameness is in humor, a play on words and surrealism and even colors. Everything else is all over the map.

By all means play with different styles and subjects and medias. Your style will eventually shine through. The key is to do lots of everything you are experimenting with. Paint, paint, paint. Create, create, create. You, the very unique you, will shine through with practice.

Don't forget to enjoy the process in the meantime.

well said David Randall i agree with you to i have seen this with lot of artist there are many artist doing the same thing from the past 25 years and wonder how it is possible to stick one method of working really felt like they are reproducing their own work again and again, for the money yes they must even if become one of them i might do the same thing but wonder how it is possible, and leah what said which made me happy because i was may be under the impression they are not in the same style (leah hope you have seen my city scape, mother and child with 2 deferent elements there is one with human figure and other one is with elephant, and if you guys feel they all still looks like my work what els and artist need ( after all i am still in confusion but thanks to every one, who made this discussion alive

I define style as a signature of sorts, simply meaning that there is an identifiable element that connects or associates the work to you. Style is not subject .

OK