Commissions are OPEN.My Tumblr
How do you determine what a "beginner" "intermediate" "advanced" and "master" artist is? Do you take into account only technical skill? How about the ideas behind it? What about the range of skill sets they have or how successful their career has been?
I want to see what your ideas of a "beginner" "intermediate" "advanced" and "master" artist/artwork is. Link me to an image or an artist that you think fits each one! I'll do the same myself after a few responses :>Edit:
This is a bit of a challenging question for a number of reasons, and I think you guys get it. It's hard to articulate our personal criteria as to what makes an artist good or bad--and it's even harder to present that criteria in a manner that sounds fair, objective, and void of personal biases, haha!
I don't believe art, especially illustration, is subjective as people like to say it is. I think everyone with a properly functioning brain can tell that your six year old cousin's attempt at depicting a giraffe will be less successful and DaVinci's best effort at depicting of a giraffe. There's nothing subjective about that at all, and I'm kinda glad no one has retorted to me that "all art is subjective" because in the realm of illustration, that just doesn't fly.
I think when a lot of people weigh an artist and the quality of their work, they only consider what's immediately visible to them, which is fair! But I feel like that's only part of what determines the quality of an artist and their body of work. A very large part, definitely, but it's not the only thing worth considering!
I feel another important aspect to consider is process. Some artists can have masterful work, but a poor and impeding process that prevents them from producing/completing a lot of their ideas. On the flip side, other artists might have a great process, but a poor end result. See, technical mastery doesn't just end with knowing how to draw or paint something. It also includes knowing your tool set, and knowing how to use and manipulate them to varying degrees of effectiveness and efficiency.
Hypothetical example: say we have two artists who are like art twins
when it comes to the final product. They can produce the exact same image with the exact same visual quality, and they are both very, very good! But one of the twins takes several months and countless revisions to get that product, while the other artist has a much more streamlined process that results in less second-guessing and utilizes their tools more effectively and more efficiently so that they can get their work done in, say, three days. Are they still the same skill level then? Or is one more advanced than the other due to a more refined understanding of their tools?
With that said and considered! My ideas of each:Beginner: [link]
"The longer I work on something, the better it is and this took me two whole hours so it must be pretty great!!"Intermediate: [link]
"I don't like drawing backgrounds because I'm not sure of how to tackle them, but learning anatomy is what's most important now so I'm trying to focus on that."Advanced Artist: [link]
"Improving isn't just about focusing on one aspect at a time, it's about looking at your work as a whole, finding the all-around strength and weaknesses, and building on it all together. I draw every day, and I will never stop studying."Master Artist: [link]
"I still draw every day and am more critical about my work now than ever, but I know it's important to have a process that fits my ideas, my time constraints, and my personal tastes. My work is consistent, and I take pride, but not at the expense of getting my ideas and concepts out there in a timely and effective manner."
__________________________________________________________________background image by *ashwara