Better to be GOOD or UNIQUE?

[mousehole]

An artist friend recently told me that I need to find a more unique art style - the premise being that my works look too obviously influenced by other artists.

I don't think I'm a bad artist at all, while at the same time not claiming to be the best. I just happen to have a style that I'm very comfortable with, and I think I'm good at what I do.

So the big question - as an artist, what do you think serves you more? To be GOOD (but derivative of someone else) or to be UNIQUE (but technically not-so-great)?

As a comic book metaphor - Neal Adams was one of the most technically proficient artists of his era, but never achieved the superstar status of Jack Kirby, who had a very goofy, misproportioned style. Rob Liefeld was a horrible renderer, but was the biggest breakout superstar of the early 90s, as opposed to a Bart Sears, who had great fundamentals but not much else.

[briareos]

Anybody can be good. It can be learned, practiced.

Being unique, that's another thing. Your uniqueness also becomes your signature.

Thus one can easily identify, if sufficiently learned, a Degas from a Renoir or a Monet.

Same goes with industrial design. You'd have no difficulty identifying a Ferrari, or a Jaguar if you take away all their badges. But, you'd be scratching your head bald identifying the make of 90% of the other cars. Or an Apple or IBM/Lenovo compared to other laptops in the market.

[dominiquejames]

But, isn't being unique a dangerous thing, as someone has pointed out previously? And that it wouldn't sell or it's a big huge risk factor, hence, may not be a practical thing? So which, really, is desirable: to be safe and be a copy or to risk to be different?

[dep28]

just be who you are. period. don't try to be unique to the point that what you're creating is no longer you.

[Salaryman Ryan]

Why can't you be both? Good and Unique are not mutually exclusive things.

Ah, as for Rob Liefeld. He was considered cool by comic reading teens back in the 90s but his artstyle did not age well. If you google his name and search in forums, people everywhere are mocking his work and terrible sense of human anatomy. Yes he did pander to the lowest common denominator and earned money but in the long run it pretty much gave him a nasty rep and his name will go down in history as a terrible artist. For now do what you are comfortable doing. Also remember, succeeding in any industry has many factors and not only excellent technical skill - including in the creative fields such as comics industry and such. There are also things such as luck, developing good industry connections, knowing what people want etc. So you can't really exactly pinpoint ones success upon a single skill alone.

Also - if you are not happy with your style - change and experiment and make mistakes - you make it sound like it is a life and death situation, its not, so enjoy yourself developing both a good and uniqe style!

[lawrencebosox45]

kobe bryant is a michael jordan clone and maybe a little more evolved... really he is... but he's still at the top of his game..


im sure you know of the artist murakami look how his career seems to mirror andy wharol's but with the economic side even better implemented. there was a freaking louie vitton store in the middle of his exhibit to mostly critical accolades thats unique and gutsy and gross (to see old blue haired NYC socialites buying 6,000$ bags and actually becoming part of the show as just gross). warhol was hawking his "silk screen prints" that he didn't actually even paint for a fortune to NYC socialites..

check out how murakami actually set up stalls of guys selling fake louie vitton bags outside the museum only it turned out that they were just actors (black latino and asian) set up to look like street market greenhills style and the bags were the real thing with real prices.... that was unique...


you can probably be both...

[super_ed]

creativity is presenting familiarity in a unique way.

arts, design for the past 100 years has been a result of man's quest for perfection, aesthetics and beauty. an art movement, style for example is an off-shoot or anti-thesis of the current norm of a certain period.

no one can actually claim authorship as this as well is influenced by a lot of factors on varying degrees.

going back to creativity, being creative isn't necessarily mean being good at his own style or technically skillful but more of being able to think concepts and ideas as foundation of his craft.

[koppee1]

being good and unique is the best combination. As for your art being influenced by other artists, don't you think that the end result is still unique to you? ALthough it may be similar to others, it's still your own.

Just strive to better what you are doing now.

[Kelvin]

Be good in terms of skill but be fresh and unique in terms of ideas.

You have to be good so that you have the necessary tools to execute your ideas. Creativity is taken to a different level when both skill and vision go hand in hand – everything just flows

[dfused]

age & experiences will guide you to your own style, don't rush it just enjoy what your doing.