<p>Your work can be understood as a form of <strong>Contemporary Drawing</strong>:</p>
<p>&quot;<em>instead of seeing drawing as a preparatory form, as has been its traditional role, these artists invest time, skill and care in the production of finished pieces&quot;</em> - <a href="https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/display/focus-slow-looking-contemporary-drawing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Tate on Contemporary Drawing</a>.</p>
<p>Have a look at the <a href="https://drawingcenter.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Drawing Centre</a> in New York, the <a href="https://www.drawingnowartfair.com/?lang=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Salon du Dessin Contemporain</a> in Paris and the Phaidon publications <a href="https://www.phaidon.com/store/art/vitamin-d-9780714857138/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vitamin D - New Perspectives on Drawing</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-25T17:47:28.190Z
Hi WithRegards. Contemporary drawing as used in the title of the show you link to is simply that: drawing of this time. It is no style, even though similarities between drawings will naturally occur. Besides, for future answers, it is beneficial to explain *why* you think your answer is correct - the quotation doesn't link your answer to the drawing in the question's post.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-26T01:40:53.320Z
Hi Joachim, please explain why you believe what I said, which was 'a form of Contemporary Drawing' is identical to what you have presented it as; style.
WithRegards
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-26T07:43:27.573Z
You're right in that the OP didn't explicitly ask for the style of his artwork to be identified. But that specific tag is used, and the way the question is written seems to indicate the OP wants his artwork's style identified. Your answer isn't technically wrong, it's just that it's overly broad and not very helpful as such, and it lacks argumentation.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-26T07:59:45.873Z
The OP explicitly asked whether his 'drawing falls in any well known form of art', which is precisely what I responded to.  My answer is neither wrong nor broad.  

As to lacking argumentation, your statement that 'Contemporary drawing... is no style' was pure opinion.  If you wish for your criticism to be taken seriously, you need to set a better example.
WithRegards
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-26T18:45:44.373Z
Contemporary drawing is not a form of art. Neither is it a style. That's not opinion, but fact (for example, cubism is an art form, and used to be a form of contemporary art), and also not a reason to forego the argumentation of your answer. Be sure to check the [Tour](https://crafts.stackexchange.com/tour) and [Help section on answering](https://crafts.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer) to improve your answer.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-28T08:16:28.773Z
What I said, which was 'your work can be understood as a form of Contemporary Drawing' and what you have now presented it as, 'Contemporary Drawing is a form of art' are not equivalent statements.  It is not ok to misrepresent the words of others.  Responding to arguments that nobody made is utterly unproductive.
WithRegards
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-28T11:02:24.550Z
In my first comment I mention that you don't make an argument for the correctness of your answer, which you still haven't done, in my second comment that your answer, while being hard to disprove, doesn't really add anything to the matter at hand. Admitting to your last comment will prove your answer is not really an answer, but a comment. I never misrepresented anything. Giving feedback is a feature of this platform to improve the overall quality. If that is not something you can deal with, I'm afraid this is not the right platform for you. Please update your answer.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-01T15:14:34.520Z
We have observed a significant gap between what actually I wrote and how you presented what I wrote.  Highlighting this as a concern of yours - the possibility of there being more than one interpretation -  while demonstrating an ability to acknowledge that multiple viewpoints exist is an example of valid feedback that you could have provided, with respect to a specific goal in mind.  As it stands, your responses do not present as feedback and cannot be treated as such.
WithRegards
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-01T15:35:10.577Z
That seems to be an extremely convoluted way of saying that you think the only valid form of feedback is to acknowledge something might have been misunderstood. If so: I might have misunderstood, could you please clarify your answer? That's what I asked you to begin with, so I don't really see the problem here. Also: who are 'we'?
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-25T14:17:29.793Z
2020-11-25T14:17:29.793Z
WithRegards
<p>If you're referring to the technique, that's <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stippling" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stippling</a> or <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointillism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pointillism</a> if made in color. Images created in this style are composed of numerous dots that form a picture if viewed from afar.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Stippling is the creation of a pattern simulating varying degrees of solidity or shading by using small dots</p>
</blockquote>

<p>rebusB helpfully pointed out that it seems to be a picture created in Photoshop or similar software. <strong>That makes is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_art" rel="nofollow noreferrer">digital art</a>, no matter what other technique it resembles.</strong> The reason is that creating artwork on a computer is fundamentally different from creating the same artwork with paint or pencils.</p>

<p>If you're referring to the content of your image, unfortunately I cannot help you. It <em>might</em> be <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Expressionism</a>, but I'm not sure it <em>can</em> be categorized clearly as any art form or style because it doesn't have much to categorize. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad or anything, it's just not enough there to call it "realism" or "neo-classicism" or anything like that.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-20T23:57:44.557Z
Furthermore, it looks like a digitally simulated version of stippling created with a photoshop filter, not actually drawn using the stippling technique.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-17T19:17:53.270Z
2019-03-22T07:32:04.530Z
2019-03-22T07:32:04.530Z
Elmy
<p>I wanted to draw something subtle yet loud and ended up with the following. I am not classically trained at all and do not have much knowledge regarding styles and schools of art. After this drawing I was very interested to know if my drawing falls in any well known form of art and how can I better myself at it.</p>
<p>The referred drawing:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/qVGAv.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/qVGAv.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

<style-identification>
Is there a formal name for an artwork such as this?
Arjo
# Is there a formal name for an artwork such as this?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-17)

I wanted to draw something subtle yet loud and ended up with the following. I am not classically trained at all and do not have much knowledge regarding styles and schools of art. After this drawing I was very interested to know if my drawing falls in any well known form of art and how can I better myself at it.

The referred drawing:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/qVGAv.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/qVGAv.jpg)

**Tags:** style-identification


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-03-17. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

If you're referring to the technique, that's [Stippling](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stippling) or [Pointillism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointillism) if made in color. Images created in this style are composed of numerous dots that form a picture if viewed from afar.

> Stippling is the creation of a pattern simulating varying degrees of solidity or shading by using small dots

username_4 helpfully pointed out that it seems to be a picture created in Photoshop or similar software. **That makes is [digital art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_art), no matter what other technique it resembles.** The reason is that creating artwork on a computer is fundamentally different from creating the same artwork with paint or pencils.

If you're referring to the content of your image, unfortunately I cannot help you. It *might* be [Expressionism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionism), but I'm not sure it *can* be categorized clearly as any art form or style because it doesn't have much to categorize. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad or anything, it's just not enough there to call it "realism" or "neo-classicism" or anything like that.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Furthermore, it looks like a digitally simulated version of stippling created with a photoshop filter, not actually drawn using the stippling technique.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-11-25. Score: -2

Your work can be understood as a form of **Contemporary Drawing**:

"*instead of seeing drawing as a preparatory form, as has been its traditional role, these artists invest time, skill and care in the production of finished pieces"* - [The Tate on Contemporary Drawing](https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/display/focus-slow-looking-contemporary-drawing).

Have a look at the [Drawing Centre](https://drawingcenter.org/) in New York, the [Salon du Dessin Contemporain](https://www.drawingnowartfair.com/?lang=en) in Paris and the Phaidon publications [Vitamin D - New Perspectives on Drawing](https://www.phaidon.com/store/art/vitamin-d-9780714857138/).

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Hi username_1. Contemporary drawing as used in the title of the show you link to is simply that: drawing of this time. It is no style, even though similarities between drawings will naturally occur. Besides, for future answers, it is beneficial to explain *why* you think your answer is correct - the quotation doesn't link your answer to the drawing in the question's post.  
> **username_1**: Hi username_2, please explain why you believe what I said, which was 'a form of Contemporary Drawing' is identical to what you have presented it as; style.  
> **username_2**: You're right in that the OP didn't explicitly ask for the style of his artwork to be identified. But that specific tag is used, and the way the question is written seems to indicate the OP wants his artwork's style identified. Your answer isn't technically wrong, it's just that it's overly broad and not very helpful as such, and it lacks argumentation.  
> **username_1**: The OP explicitly asked whether his 'drawing falls in any well known form of art', which is precisely what I responded to.  My answer is neither wrong nor broad.    As to lacking argumentation, your statement that 'Contemporary drawing... is no style' was pure opinion.  If you wish for your criticism to be taken seriously, you need to set a better example.  
> **username_2**: Contemporary drawing is not a form of art. Neither is it a style. That's not opinion, but fact (for example, cubism is an art form, and used to be a form of contemporary art), and also not a reason to forego the argumentation of your answer. Be sure to check the [Tour](https://crafts.stackexchange.com/tour) and [Help section on answering](https://crafts.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer) to improve your answer.  
> **username_1**: What I said, which was 'your work can be understood as a form of Contemporary Drawing' and what you have now presented it as, 'Contemporary Drawing is a form of art' are not equivalent statements.  It is not ok to misrepresent the words of others.  Responding to arguments that nobody made is utterly unproductive.  
> **username_2**: In my first comment I mention that you don't make an argument for the correctness of your answer, which you still haven't done, in my second comment that your answer, while being hard to disprove, doesn't really add anything to the matter at hand. Admitting to your last comment will prove your answer is not really an answer, but a comment. I never misrepresented anything. Giving feedback is a feature of this platform to improve the overall quality. If that is not something you can deal with, I'm afraid this is not the right platform for you. Please update your answer.  
> **username_1**: We have observed a significant gap between what actually I wrote and how you presented what I wrote.  Highlighting this as a concern of yours - the possibility of there being more than one interpretation -  while demonstrating an ability to acknowledge that multiple viewpoints exist is an example of valid feedback that you could have provided, with respect to a specific goal in mind.  As it stands, your responses do not present as feedback and cannot be treated as such.  
> **username_2**: That seems to be an extremely convoluted way of saying that you think the only valid form of feedback is to acknowledge something might have been misunderstood. If so: I might have misunderstood, could you please clarify your answer? That's what I asked you to begin with, so I don't really see the problem here. Also: who are 'we'?  

---

