Thankyou to all those who shared their stories and opinions on my last journal, I haven't gotten around to replying to everyone but I have read every comment.
Another topic I want to discuss? A bit of a dead-horse? but then again I haven't really had a chance to talk much about this issue and I would like to hear other peoples opinions and whether or not they agree or disagree.
Overtime I have noticed an attitude regarding artwork and peoples means of determining how talented and skilled an artists is. By this I mean people have an attitude that if an artwork doesn't feature correct anatomy or the artists doesn't practise realism then they are a novice and are limiting themselves artistically. I have lost count on how many comments I have gotten along the lines of " your art is good, but I think its time to move on to more professional stuff, start doing some still life, portraits and landscapes". Obviously I encourage going out of your comfort zone and drawing stuff you wouldn't usually draw to expand your style and skill. I guess what I am trying to say is that painting photo realistically doesn't make you a better artist than someone who is very good at drawing in a cartoon style or a very abstract style.
Also if someone does realize they are limiting their ability to only one style? then isn't having one very refined style is ok? As far as I know there are no specific guidelines or universal rules on what makes you a good artist other than the personal opinion of each individual viewer. From what I have learnt, drawing from the imagination is much more difficult than drawing from observation thought observational drawings are considered more skilled?
So..the question is? what do you think? Is creative skill or technical skill more important? or does that depend completely on the individual?