Read on Twitter
i've asked myself the same often before. i once pitched my videogame fanart to a german artsy videogame mag and the art director gave me a "no" with the statement "i should find my own style first". being too versatile was considered a flaw here... (a thread 1/14) https://twitter.com/ourtinyservant/status/1252706675548618758
i worked ~6 years for the advertising industry as an illustrator/designer, so changing my style was often a must for every client. if a client needed a mascot, i often had to mimic their existing CI/CD or come up with something completely new... some examples (2009-2012) (2/14)
it is slightly different as a concept artist in the game industry (~5y). the style isn't that important! you have to deliver the idea and the concept has to work in the production chain. you switch styles for ui/achievements, ingame-fake brands, graffiti, characters, etc. (3/14)
the final product has to be coherent and you have guidelines for a franchise/project on what it should look like: cartoony, realistic, desaturated, colourful, etc. but not every concept piece you create has to have the same "style" to serve its purpose. examples: surge 1&2 (4/14)
you have to switch from rough & sketchy (to point out ideas fast, test things out), to realistic and finalised (for production, pitches and promo stuff). it would actually hinder you and others, if you only had one "style" to work with in that field imho... (5/14)
especially, if the next project is going to be something completely different in terms of style. but still: do i need a unique style to be an artist? to be recognized? i struggled with the reason for that "no" from the AD mentioned earlier for some time, but not anymore... (6/14)
if you open up a mag with "cool" illustrations in it, most of them only reflect what is considered the trend in that field at the time. they want to sell mags, so they simply adapt. only a few will/can risk a failure in the attempt to feed the audience something new,... (7/14)
so for most clients to make $ fast, you have to be able to deliver exactly what they are looking for. that one modern "style" of the moment, otherwise they don't hit the trend, people won't buy, they will go bankrupt and you won't get payed. bad. (8/14)
if you want to survive as an artist in that field, you need versatility! trends change, and so does the demand for a trend. if they risk to go with something new and succeed, they sell even more and others will try to get a piece of the cake by being copycats again. (9/14)
you can stick to one style and at one point you might deliver exactly what the world needs, but who's gonna pay your rent until then? i feel like i repeat myself but that principle can be transferred between almost every product of the industry in capitalism. (10/14)
so would a random person recognise all of my work like from the late van gogh, dali, monet or picasso? maybe not, but i don't feel like a person who want's to stick to one style just to be recognized by everyone. (11/14)
i have to change my style in the field i work in, i stick to a style if i like it for some time and can come back to it if i want to, but i don't think i have to be compulsive about my style and limit myself if it hurts the result/my goal... (12/14)
that doesn't mean that i am forced to adapt to trendy styles others created. i think it happens naturally and is okay. we are all influenced by others and their styles, so you probably will recognise other artists in my art too.. (13/14)
i think there is no truly unique style and sticking to one means beeing static which can't be healthy, because nothing in nature is. a wise man once sayed if you copy a style, you only copy a copy. originality is fiction. every father is a son. late night thoughts... 
(14/14)
(14/14)
