Re: Why does illustration look like illustration?
Like other technologies, the history of the ability to print pictures has gone through an evolution, from Gutenberg- like woodcuts, to etching, to camera color separation of various fineness. When pictures are made for mass production, they must be printed, and so you need to work with the printing technology available to you. I think that the genre of comic book was based on the ability of older newspaper printing set-ups (this goes for old Marvel's. DC's and other brands). Now, the ability to print is not based as much on the whole dot-patterns, and more "high fidelity" used in nearly photographic glossy magazine-style printing, using other technology of color separation is possible. However since the flat and simple style is the genre's "thing" to say it simply, most illustrators stick with that. Pictures really need no "embellishing." The style you do is generally the one (or near the one, with artistic license involved), that is traditional to your genre. For instance, wildlife artists, render minute detail, whereas impressionists use bold and unhinged brush strokes and colors untrue to the object they depict (if that makes sense).
I am more school of Frank Frazetta, so I actually like the more realistic style, but I respect others of different schools as well. You do what you feel that is the artists way. Never get forced into a hole if you do not belong there.
Making art since 1973-ish
Blog under reconstruction
Last edited by Use Her Name : 02-05-2018 at 12:35 PM.