Destram I like your idea of a recurring simplistic symbol or theme running through a texture whether the texture is complex/messy or a continuation of the simplicity. It is an interesting observation that as long as a central point or symbol is simple then it can improve the entire texture.

The difference in price makes perfect sense to me. IN MY OPINION the high detail sets SHOULD cost more if done well (keeping artistic opinions on how they look compared to simplistic aside). This isn't because they look better because that is irrelevant. The reason High detail is more expensive is that it takes more time for the artist. It requires much more attention to detail and takes much longer to do the job. Therefor it should cost more as long as it is done well and is to your liking. Its like comparing a commercial brand to an actual work of art, such as a painting depicting a city-scape during a sunset. Clearly you can tell wich between the two took longer, and required more effort/skill. You may not remember the city scape painting like you would a brand but brands are made to be simple and easily consumed by the brain, not a deep and comprehensive work of art.

On the discussion of the super hero topic, these are also meant to be iconic. Something easily remembered. I would assume the artist was paid more to do a detailed beautiful portrait of superman for a poster than he was paid to create the concept of the costume.

However you pay for the vision of the artist, so this isn't meant to say that a simplistic approach on a vision couldn't beat out a poor vision done in high detail.

if someone ask me to advice which set he can make im usually say to him "make it minimalistic, do background of ur textures in the color of force that u have"

Mondrain, one of the most famous painters, tried to simplify the world and the landscape. He painted a canal as about 15 rectangles only a few of which were coloured with simple block colours. These paintings are probably worth a lot more that some paintings which are realistic and of the same kind of thing. You may argue that this is because nobody had done what Mondrain did before and therefore it was surprising but I do not believe this is the case. if you look at his paintings they do inspire beauty and are immensely satisfying to look at. What makes his work good is the genius and style of their composure. I would use the example of Rothko but he added great detail and many layers to the squares and cared more about layering of colours than simplifying the world, as far as I know he was not trying to depict anything. This brings me onto another point, it is very important to get the correct selections of colours in your texture. If you have a very complicated texture of black and red this might result in people thinking you are and arrogant douchebag depending on the texture. The placement of colours is as important as the colours themselves in my opinion. Bright colours which are in contrast to the background will draw the eye to that point so should be at important, central or symmetrical (not necessarily all of these but one of the three).

I have no idea what I am talking about by the way. My parents just take me to a lot of art galleries.

Proton:


I think if the vision is good, and it is done simply, then that is a much harder feat to achieve than a detailed piece. Simple can be beautiful and still have depth, it is just extremely difficult to achieve. I agree with a simplistic artist creating very valuable art. In general however the more detailed pieces are more expensive because of the effort put into the piece.

I think I understand what you are saying better now sissy kick thank you.

ImmortalPig: Yeah, I suppose I'm not advocating for one over the other, but rather just for intelligent design. It's just as easy to screw up a set by adding too few details as by adding too many.

Destram: Yes, and I would agree that your set was done well. The eyes are very obviously the focal point of the set and the patterns make it interesting without being an eyesore - it's easy to see how Mrsloom123/Ponomy could have gone overboard and added too much.

Sissykick: Ignoring price because price is largely a matter of taste - "more details" really doesn't equate to "more time" or "more effort" though. It's a common assumption that minimalist sets are easy to make - but in reality a well-executed one takes just as much effort as a detailed one, just in different processes. Consider poetry. By your logic the poetry of, say, e e cummings was easy to write and didn't take that long. But well-written poetry is really hard to do because you're trying to convey complicated and nuanced ideas as simply as you can. Minimalist textures are similar - you're trying to show complicated features with simple details and that's not easy.

Quality design isn't just "wow so details", it isn't "wow so minimal". As you acknowledged both can be good, but it's not a matter of how much time you spent. It's knowing how to convey ideas efficiently. It's intelligent use of both positive and negative space. It's knowing when to stop, as Beta pointed out. I think your 'vision' argument is the same as mine here - good vision takes the things I've listed. Poorly executed vision often leads to screwing them up.

I'd go for simple textures that look good

Too much detail will hurt the eyes.



:0 see dat?

there both the same lol its all just opinion

The one thing I don't agree with is the "knowing when to stop" I'm a fan of the quote "A piece of art is never finished, only abandoned" You can always do more.

In toribash textures case i would say simplistic is great and ideal seeing as the amount of space to work with is quite small and limiting when it comes to details

Why does less detail take less skill?
thats the whole point of this discussion?