My "style"

[SkyPanda]

Firstly, I would like to point out that quality is inherent to style whereas style is not inherent to quality.

Quality is not inherent to style. Style is simply the manner in which things are done. A personal (if you like, unique) style involves doing things differently to other people. Neither carry expectations of quality.

A personal style applied with a certain quality is the very height of creativity.

There is more creativity involved in not having a personal style than in having one. The more rigid your style, the less creative you need to be. The more creative and spontaneous you are, the less defined and distinct your style will be. Creativity and maintaining a personal style are contradictory aims, and every artist will usually either conciously or unconciously find a balance between the two, depending on what they want to get out of their art. Those who pursue recognitition or fame usually aim for having a distinct personal style, while for those who pursue creativity and exploration of the art, the less they try and work within a personal style, the more successful they will be in that aim.

I can make a one-off creative, stand-out map that would be better than the average quality map. This does not require a personal style at all.

No it doesn't, but it does take a certain amount of style to be able to maintain that achievement.

I can make one-off creative maps again and again. No personal style is ever required.

A style in this sense would be in a state of constant flux.

A style in a state of 'constant flux' would be less distinct and less effective than one that is not as changing. One of the common purposes of maintaining a style is recognition and distinction. Refer to my above thoughts on balancing style and creativity. That said, I actually agree with your point here. If someone were to want to have a style, a changing one would be the most desirable. My point stands, however, that a personal style represents boundaries, limitations on creativity- perhaps not immense limitations, depending on the talent of the mapper, but existing and noticable limitations at the least.
There are of course many other reasons why mappers would want to maintain a personal style- perhaps they've found a groove to settle into, perhaps they've hit on a style that's popular, perhaps their style is the only one they enjoy making, or the only way in which they know how to map.

That vision cannot be taught - that it is more inherent in nature, and something that is stumbled upon my a kind of chance - is proven in the fact that the very top of any field is made up of only a small percentage of those attempting to aim for it.

Becoming the top of a field is not the issue here. The statement was "a mapper can be taught how to develop a personal style". This requires imagination, which I believe can be taught and developed (an argument for another thread, perhaps), and application, which as I have explained can be taught easily. Whether or not the person reaches the top of their field afterwards is irrelevant, because there is still a great deal of work and effort required after they've been taught as much as possible.

Striving for a style will most likely lead you to to contrived and clinical design. It's a ridiculous burden to put upon yourself, and will only damage the work you produce.

The problems with having a personal style are not so much based on the manner in which it is created, they are based on the resulting limitations on creativity. You're also making assumptions about how one would go about creating a style. Again, you can't take what applies to you and try to make it fit for everybody.
If a mapper were to decide that having a personal style is what they want, then by all means they can set out to conciously do this. It just requires talent and imagination, and perhaps some guidance ;)

Any artist who's achieved a flair that lets their work stand out above others' of a certain quality will have stumbled upon it without even knowing.

As well as being yet another epic generalisation, this one insults the artist's talent and imagination. :/

Everyone is inspired in different ways. I don't see why you have to hem yourselves in in that argument.

I'm not sure who that was addressed to, but just in case I wasn't clear enough, I was arguing that everyone is inspired differently.
For clarity's sake, here are the points that i've contended:
-it is not a detriment to have a style
-style can not be taught
-style is "the core of what drives the creative ambitions of any creative community"

The first is incorrect, the second is incorrect and the third is a generalisation and in my opinion, an extremely incorrect one.
Developing a personal style will involve some limitations of creativity, but the talented may be able to account for these limitations to an extent.
Style can be taught. Style requires imagination and application, both of which can be taught to varying extents.
Mappers are inspired for a variety of reasons, and their creative ambitions are driven by much more than the presence of or the desire for style.

I think that if recognition is your aim, then having a style can certainly be extremely useful in achieving that, but it's definately not necessary. I'm not completely against having a style, I just believe that they are being credited with more benefit and importance than they actually have, and that people need to recognise the limitations of having a style, even if most of you awesome people will be talented enough to handle it. Furthermore a distinction needs to be made, for those of you a tad confused, between being recognised and making good maps. These two are not the same thing.

I hope some of you guys may be able to get something out of the back-and-forth going on here :) Everybody will have different opinions on this and that's cool, just so long as you all think about it for yourselves. I'm starting to see a few regurgitations now, and it makes me upset :/

I really enjoy map theory like this,

Me too! :D

You've no idea how style develops and its actual importance. You're just arguing without thinking now. You've no idea about the value of style and what it really means. Again, you're being very thoughtless. (Blah blah blah, etc).

Atob, i'd really appreciate it if you didn't pepper your otherwise intelligent posts with lame debate techniques. There's a big difference between saying "You are wrong" and "You haven't thought about this". The first works well in arguments, the second is merely personal insult.
Although I suppose I should thank you, arguing with you has helped me learn how to ignore insults and keep my temper in check :)


This is a really huge post so apologies if there's any spelling mistakes or poorly written sections.
o_0

[blue_tetris]

I never understood "style" authors. Doesn't it get boring to churn out more and more of the same product? I'd hardly term that "creative".

[Pheidippides]

The point atob is trying to make is that /good/ style authors /don't/ churn out the same stuff over and over. They find ways to use the elements of their style in new and different ways with each map. This is why I disagree with SkyPanda's statement that mapping with a style eliminates or limits creativity. You need to be creative to keep stylistic maps from stagnating without reinventing the wheel, so to speak. This is what atob means by a style in constant flux. Such a style is also obviously distinct because in another thread GTM, who merely used a mine motif popularized mostly by atob, has been accused of being too atobish. atob's themes are thus very recognizeable, even though he works to keep his style from stagnating. I strive for the same thing in my mapping.

(The rest is directed at SkyPanda's post.)

Also, in making several one-off creative maps, don't you think, as atob said, you'd find yourself using at least a part of what has worked for you in the past? If yes, then you've "stumbled upon" your style. I don't feel that that phrase is at all insulting, because that's what actually happens. You don't realize what works for you until you've been doing it for a while. That's at least what happened for me.

I think it's a bit extreme to call a style a detriment, regardless of what you think, because clearly there are those who have a style that helps their mapping incredibly. You should say that a repetitive, stagnant, generic style is a detriment. This is the limitation I think you're getting at later in your post, and I agree with it. And you're right, mappers should be warned about it.

I'll eventually post about how I feel you can keep your style from stagnating and exactly how they do stagnate, but this post is long enough as is, and that isn't really what's being discussed.

On your clarification, I agree with your point here:

Style can be taught. Style requires imagination and application, both of which can be taught to varying extents.
Mappers are inspired for a variety of reasons, and their creative ambitions are driven by much more than the presence of or the desire for style.

In short, I guess I agree with both you and atob on different points. I hope I've manage to add to the discussion here, it's hard to keep up with all these tower-posts. o,o

[SkyPanda]

(The rest is directed at SkyPanda's amazing, epic, towering post.)

corrected :D

Also, in making several one-off creative maps, don't you think, as atob said, you'd find yourself using at least a part of what has worked for you in the past? If yes, then you've "stumbled upon" your style. I don't feel that that phrase is at all insulting, because that's what actually happens. You don't realize what works for you until you've been doing it for a while. That's at least what happened for me.

No, i've never 'found' that. I plan and make my proper maps very carefully. And when I set out to be random and spontaneous, I really go crazy :P
I'm not trying to say that nobody has ever accidently stumbled upon a style, i'm saying that its an incorrect generalisation to claim "that's what actually happens". By claiming that styles develop accidently, you're undermining/ignoring the techniques and processes that can be used to consciously create a style, and that is not at all helpful considering this thread is about helping somebody develop a personal style. "Just let yourself stumble upon a style" may very well be valid advice, but it would be odd to make out that it is the only method.

I think it's a bit extreme to call a style a detriment, regardless of what you think, because clearly there are those who have a style that helps their mapping incredibly. You should say that a repetitive, stagnant, generic style is a detriment. This is the limitation I think you're getting at later in your post, and I agree with it. And you're right, mappers should be warned about it.

Well I didn't call style a detriment :p Style can do wonders for an author's recognition and popularity, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread.
I said that mapping to a personal style will involve a degree of limitation. In order to map to an overall style, your next map needs to be connected somehow to your previous map in a distinct and recognisable way. The strength of this connection determines how well you'll maintain a personal style and how much your creativity is limited. By introducing the concept of a non-stagnant style, you're weakening the connection between your maps. This reduces the distinctiveness of your style, but on the plus side, it gives you more creative freedom. So yes, I agree that this concept of a changing style can be used to balance personal style with creativity.

I'll eventually post about how I feel you can keep your style from stagnating and exactly how they do stagnate, but this post is long enough as is, and that isn't really what's being discussed.

That would be cool and helpful, lookin' forward to it :)

tower-posts. o,o

More like, towering inferno posts! :D

[Pheidippides]

No, i've never 'found' that. I plan and make my proper maps very carefully. And when I set out to be random and spontaneous, I really go crazy :P
I'm not trying to say that nobody has ever accidently stumbled upon a style, i'm saying that its an incorrect generalisation to claim "that's what actually happens". By claiming that styles develop accidently, you're undermining/ignoring the techniques and processes that can be used to consciously create a style, and that is not at all helpful considering this thread is about helping somebody develop a personal style. "Just let yourself stumble upon a style" may very well be valid advice, but it would be odd to make out that it is the only method.

I guess I should say, then, that one generally develops a style through practice, whether that practice be an active attempt to define a personal style or simply the practice of making maps. It's my opinion that "stumbling upon" a style is the better way to go about it. If you simply make maps, you're bound to find your groove at some point, and do not limit yourself or run the risk of trying too hard in the process. I'd say that letting your style come to you, so to speak, is certainly valid advice for a budding mapper. Make maps to get better at making maps, and your style should find itself. There are other ways to do it, of course, but that's my advice. That, and bring some inspiration to the proverbial table when you map, but that's something for another time. I have a lot to say on that.

I said that mapping to a personal style will involve a degree of limitation. In order to map to an overall style, your next map needs to be connected somehow to your previous map in a distinct and recognisable way. The strength of this connection determines how well you'll maintain a personal style and how much your creativity is limited. By introducing the concept of a non-stagnant style, you're weakening the connection between your maps. This reduces the distinctiveness of your style, but on the plus side, it gives you more creative freedom. So yes, I agree that this concept of a changing style can be used to balance personal style with creativity.

In reference to the bolded, exactly. That's what every style author should aim for in maps, moreso than recognizability, because recognizability will follow out of your own creativity and the simple things that tie your maps together. Top mappers such as Yahoozy and atob don't stagnate, but their maps are still very easily recognized. That's why I disagree that a non-stagnant style will make your maps harder to recognize.

That would be cool and helpful, lookin' forward to it :)

Maybe I'll write something up over my winter break. I think about this kind of stuff quite a bit, it'd be fun to share with you guys.

tower-posts. o,o

More like, towering inferno posts! :D

Tell me about it. o,o

[a happy song]

Firstly:

Atob, i'd really appreciate it if you didn't pepper your otherwise intelligent posts with lame debate techniques. There's a big difference between saying "You are wrong" and "You haven't thought about this". The first works well in arguments, the second is merely personal insult.
Although I suppose I should thank you, arguing with you has helped me learn how to ignore insults and keep my temper in check :)

You've made replies without actually digesting the point of the paragraphs you've replied to in some instances, hence "you haven't thought about this". It was an observation, not an insult. That you're actually having to keep your 'anger in check' over an internet debate could be the root of this.

You've also been taking quotes of mine out of context and separate from the thread of their paragraphs to create yourself an opening for your opinions to slip in with more impact instead of arguing against the full value of the points.

This is a much lamer debate technique.

The evidence is all above, feel free to find it for yourself.

-

The evidence is in my favour: every single author who is regarded by most as being great has a defined style that's evolved through various forms over time (unless their stay here was too brief for that to happen - Zorn, for example).

And style doesn't simply apply to the aesthetic. Style is the look, the play, or a mix of both.

There is not one single author out there who produces maps past a certain degree of quality who doesn't develop a style (Hence quality being inherent to style is a working statement within the context of this argument).

You suggest that it's more creative to produce standalone quality maps that are separate from the last as much as possible. Well I can counter this with evidence. Every single author who attempts this falls into one (or both) of two categories:

1) Their independent maps are derivative and generic in style.
2) They fall into the 'abstract automatically = intelligent design' trap

Point two (within the context of adopting this way of working as a device to avoid style) is a perfect example of irony in motion. The abstract nature becomes a style that in most cases - due to the lack of an artistic thread - is the most confining of them all and more often leads to contrived and pretentious works.

An artistic thread is important. Artists use sketchbooks to evolve their ideas, their works will develop over time in chapters of style. These chapters plot an artists journey and allow them a direction for their vision. A vision without this direction will stagnate and cause more detriment than anything, most likely leading to pretentiousness or generic design as the artist becomes frustrated without a clear path to follow.

My point is that flitting between an entirely different creative idea each time allows for no real development of design and is a shallow and rather fruitless way to produce work. An artist working like this will not allow themselves the chance to take an idea and develop it to its fullest potential.

In essence we're arguing the same thing: that it's more creative to produce new ideas rather than stagnate. Whereas you say flit and flirt from map to map, I say let a design idea mature and grow like a sketchbook does to a final piece and that once you've taken that idea to it's fullest conclusion you find new inspiration and start a new chapter.

Over time this will allow an artist to develop that intangible thread that runs through their works, that, even though there's no overly apparent link from start to finish, their works stands out as their own. Without this an artist's work will be left floundering in a shallow 'style' that is bound more by the repetition of pretentiousness and contrived design than the freedom of growth that's allowed through proper development.

[SkyPanda]

You've made replies without actually digesting the point of the paragraphs you've replied to in some instances, hence "you haven't thought about this". It was an observation, not an insult. You've also been taking quotes of mine out of context and separate from the thread of their paragraphs to create yourself an opening for your opinions to slip in with more impact instead of arguing against the full value the points. The evidence is all above, feel free to find it for yourself.

If you feel I haven't addressed your points properly, please point these instances out to me and I will readily clarify for you, and account for any misunderstanding on my part. I'm not going to find it for myself, that's deliberate unhelpfulness on your part, and its very possible you're imagining these misunderstandings anyway.
Also, its natural to feel that the other person in an argument doesn't understand your points. Bleating about this does not contribute to anything, unless you are willing to work to aid understanding.

The evidence is in my favour: every single author who is regarded by most as being great has a defined style that's evolved through various forms over time (unless their stay here was too brief for that to happen - Zorn, for example).

Evidence for what, that a personal style is a requirement to be 'great'? Many people do indeed conciously or unconciously have a style, for a multitude of reasons. Necessity, I believe, is not automatically always going to be one of those reasons, nor should it be.

There is not one single author out there who produces maps past a certain degree of quality who doesn't develop a style (Hence quality being inherent to style is a working statement within the context of this argument).

What are you trying to argue- that a personal style is necessary to create quality maps? Quality and style can develop in isolation, as proven by there being many authors out there that have a personal style but do not make quality maps, and also many authors who have made quality maps that are not within their personal style. Furthermore, as I have said- I can make a quality map without needing to have a personal style.
Or are you trying to argue that style is necessary to achieve recognition/fame? It is certainly one of the most useful methods, but I also believe that its possible to achieve fame simply by consistently producing damn good maps.

And style doesn't simply apply to the aesthetic. Style is the look, the play, or a mix of both.

Of course. I originally had a large post at the beginning of this thread detailing some of the ways to create and develop a style, and play was something I went into. Didn't end up ever posting it, but I might some day if I can fix up the writing a bit.

You suggest that it's more creative to produce standalone quality maps that are separate from the last as much as possible. Well I can counter this with evidence. Every single author who attempts this falls into one (or both) of two categories:

1) Their independent maps are derivative and generic in style.
2) They fall into the 'abstract automatically = intelligent design' trap

Point two (within the context of adopting this way of working as a device to avoid style) is a perfect example of irony in motion. The abstract nature becomes a style that in most cases - due to the lack of an artistic thread - is the most confining of them all and more often leads to contrived and pretentious works.

I've played a motherload of maps on numa and I can confidently say that this is not always the case, although i'd have my work cut out finding links- if I can find the time, i'll do that for you.
Having said that, this is a very intelligent section you've written here, and I agree. The second one is a trap that many indeed fall into, and it would be good to advise mappers to watch out for that.

An artistic thread is important. Artists use sketchbooks to evolve their ideas, their works will develop over time in chapters of style. These chapters plot an artists journey and allow them a direction for their vision. A vision without this direction will stagnate and cause more detriment than anything, most likely leading to pretentiousness or generic design as the artist becomes frustrated without a clear path to follow.

This is simply not true. For some, direction is needed for them to create, for others, undirected imagination leads to the most wonderful creations. I think the key difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you seem to be trying to pin down an infinity of creative methods into simple statements and pass them off as how things are and how things should be, whereas I advocate everybody finding techniques, methods, directions that suit them. There is no simple answer that will apply to or help everybody, and pretending that there is will only be a detriment to new mappers.
Rather than saying "artists use sketchbooks",
instead consider, "artists CAN use sketchbooks", or "some artists choose to use sketchbooks".
Apologies if I am mistaking your intentions from your choice of words, but this is what I see you doing in a lot of your instruction and guidance in threads like these.

My point is that flitting between an entirely different creative idea each time allows for no real development of design and is a shallow and rather fruitless way to produce work. An artist working like this will not allow themselves the chance to take an idea and develop it to its fullest potential.

No. Firstly, you're assuming that the finished product required no extensive design process. A single one-off creative map could be the product of hours upon hours of work, during which the idea can be developed to its best extent, at least from that particular author.
Furthermore, there is no reason why authors cannot revist old mechanics and placement they have used, and build upon their old maps at their leisure. To assume that this requires a personal style however, would be overkill. Just because I disagree with your generalistions and claims does not mean that I advocate the complete opposite, as I think you are realising with your latest post. Success is often found in the middle ground, and every author will find balances and methods that suit them.

[crescor]

You've made replies without actually digesting the point of the paragraphs you've replied to in some instances, hence "you haven't thought about this". It was an observation, not an insult. You've also been taking quotes of mine out of context and separate from the thread of their paragraphs to create yourself an opening for your opinions to slip in with more impact instead of arguing against the full value the points. The evidence is all above, feel free to find it for yourself.

No offence, but you do this yourself all the time.

[a happy song]

If you feel I haven't addressed your points properly, please point these instances out to me and I will readily clarify for you, and account for any misunderstanding on my part. I'm not going to find it for myself, that's deliberate unhelpfulness on your part, and its very possible you're imagining these misunderstandings anyway.

I flagged it for others reading this thread to find for themselves. If you can't be bothered to pay attention, I'm not going to hold your hand about it ;)

Evidence for what, that a personal style is a requirement to be 'great'? Many people do indeed conciously or unconciously have a style, for a multitude of reasons. Necessity, I believe, is not automatically always going to be one of those reasons, nor should it be.

Adding an individuality to your work is essential to produce something that's essential itself. This is a given.

In the absence of individuality all that's left is the generic.

What are you trying to argue- that a personal style is necessary to create quality maps? Quality and style can develop in isolation, as proven by there being many authors out there that have a personal style but do not make quality maps, and also many authors who have made quality maps that are not within their personal style. Furthermore, as I have said- I can make a quality map without needing to have a personal style.
Or are you trying to argue that style is necessary to achieve recognition/fame? It is certainly one of the most useful methods, but I also believe that its possible to achieve fame simply by consistently producing damn good maps.

You wanted me to point out where you're not paying attention? Ok, here's a perfect example. I'll quote a previous post that has already addressed this point and clarified what I mean:

Almost anyone can learn to produce 'quality' maps. All you need to do to learn to produce quality gameplay and slick aesthetics is a decent sense of what makes a level enjoyable in both of these regards and motivation.

Only a small percentage of authors can go beyond that and add a level of artistry (either in terms of gameplay, aesthetics, or both..) to their work that makes it more than the average 'quality' map. These are the authors who develop their own style. This is something that you're either creative enough to achieve or you're not.

This is why the vast majority of higher quality maps on NUMA blend into each other entirely, this is why the vast majority of music sounds like an amalgamation of derivative sound rather than anything fresh, this is why most films retread old ground and devices, and why most games rehash mechanics and structure.

I hope that's cleared things up.

This is simply not true. For some, direction is needed for them to create, for others, undirected imagination leads to the most wonderful creations. I think the key difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you seem to be trying to pin down an infinity of creative methods into simple statements and pass them off as how things are and how things should be, whereas I advocate everybody finding techniques, methods, directions that suit them. There is no simple answer that will apply to or help everybody, and pretending that there is will only be a detriment to new mappers.
Rather than saying "artists use sketchbooks",
instead consider, "artists CAN use sketchbooks", or "some artists choose to use sketchbooks".
Apologies if I am mistaking your intentions from your choice of words, but this is what I see you doing in a lot of your instruction and guidance in threads like these.

Ok, aside from the sketchbook being a metaphor within an analogy (which was messy of me - I'll try and be clearer from now on, my bad.), what is 'undirected imagination'?

If imagination doesn't have direction, it flounders and withers.

Also, while there is an infinity of ways to build the process itself, the only type of essential and inspiring art is that which is individual. The only way to create an individuality is to produce a style. That style could differ from piece to piece, or continue and evolve in chapters, but it's the core of an artists individuality.

Pretending that creating an individuality with your work is not essential is the most responsible purveyor of generic design that there is.

No. Firstly, you're assuming that the finished product required no extensive design process. A single one-off creative map could be the product of hours upon hours of work, during which the idea can be developed to its best extent, at least from that particular author.
Furthermore, there is no reason why authors cannot revist old mechanics and placement they have used, and build upon their old maps at their leisure. To assume that this requires a personal style however, would be overkill. Just because I disagree with your generalistions and claims does not mean that I advocate the complete opposite, as I think you are realising with your latest post. Success is often found in the middle ground, and every author will find balances and methods that suit them.

Yes.

Firstly: obviously.

Secondly: it's not a generalisation to say that a sense of individuality (own style) is one of the most (if not the most) important aspects of essential design. Why champion the production of anything less?

[SkyPanda]

I flagged it for others reading this thread to find for themselves. If you can't be bothered to pay attention, I'm not going to hold your hand about it ;)

Yeah, you could instead make an accusation and then utterly fail to back it up, just like you're doing right now. :/ :/ :/

Adding an individuality to your work is essential to produce something that's essential itself. This is a given.

In the absence of individuality all that's left is the generic.

I'm not sure what you refer to by 'something that is essential itself'.

The absense of individuality will only result in a generic product if there is also an absence of uniqueness. A personal style is not required to create something unique. This is also a reply to much of what you said later in your post on this subject.

You wanted me to point out where you're not paying attention? Ok, here's a perfect example. I'll quote a previous post that has already addressed this point and clarified what I mean:

Sorry, that doesn't clarify what you mean. Net discussions sure can get confusing.
And i've answered this post alreadyyyyy.

what is 'undirected imagination'?

You said that vision without the direction of a personal style will result in stagnation, to which I replied that for some artists, imagination/vision without that direction is how they work creatively.

If imagination doesn't have direction, it flounders and withers.

Uh, what? o_0

the only type of essential and inspiring art is that which is individual.

Well.. err.. good luck justifying that one.
Art does not need to be individual to inspire. For example, it could be simply unique.

Secondly: it's not a generalisation to say that a sense of individuality (own style) is one of the most (if not the most) important aspects of essential design.

That's not one of the generalisations i'm referring to, and i've explained in this post why I think you are wrong in this.
Here are some of the generalisations I contended:
-style is "the core of what drives the creative ambitions of any creative community"
-"Any artist who's achieved a flair that lets their work stand out above others' of a certain quality will have stumbled upon it without even knowing."
-"It's the stage that comes when you've practised and refined your art to the finest point possible for that period. It's an intelligent and unconscious amalgamation..."
etc, I think there's more i've missed.

[a happy song]

I flagged it for others reading this thread to find for themselves. If you can't be bothered to pay attention, I'm not going to hold your hand about it ;)

Yeah, you could instead make an accusation and then utterly fail to back it up, just like you're doing right now. :/ :/ :/

I tell you what, if you're really having difficulty finding what I'm suggesting and you want me to highlight, let's take it to PMs. This has the potential to break down into needless bickering. It's my fault, I should have made specific points of specific examples.

This is quite an exhausting thread as it is, I just got lazy. Apologies if it came across insulting.

-

Ok, I actually missed something that is essential to this entire debate. You wrote:

Quality and style can develop in isolation, as proven by there being many authors out there that have a personal style but do not make quality maps

When I say that style is essential to produce essential maps, that style obviously incorporates a degree of quality that is held by the majority as being sufficient.

What I mean is:

To produce a good map you must achive a certain level of quality.

To produce a great map, you have to apply that quality to a level of individuality.

If imagination doesn't have direction, it flounders and withers.

Uh, what? o_0

Creative imagination is no use to anyone unless it's motivated. You can only store so many ideas without applying them before you lose track of important aspects. It's only through directing these ideas with a clear vision that they realise their potential and evolve accordingly.

Undirected imagination is just aimless dreaming.

The absense of individuality will only result in a generic product if there is also an absence of uniqueness. A personal style is not required to create something unique. This is also a reply to much of what you said later in your post on this subject.

Ahh, see here is a confusion!

An author can create a map that is unique within their personal archive, but they still need to apply an individual style to that map or - within the context of the community - it will have be generic.

Sorry, that doesn't clarify what you mean.

Of course it does! I'll spell it out for you though, if you really need me to.

What are you trying to argue- that a personal style is necessary to create quality maps?

No. I wrote: "Almost anyone can learn to produce 'quality' maps. All you need to do to learn to produce quality gameplay and slick aesthetics is a decent sense of what makes a level enjoyable in both of these regards and motivation."

Or are you trying to argue that style is necessary to achieve recognition/fame? It is certainly one of the most useful methods, but I also believe that its possible to achieve fame simply by consistently producing damn good maps.

I wrote: "Only a small percentage of authors can go beyond that and add a level of artistry (either in terms of gameplay, aesthetics, or both..) to their work that makes it more than the average 'quality' map. These are the authors who develop their own style. This is something that you're either creative enough to achieve or you're not.

This is why the vast majority of higher quality maps on NUMA blend into each other entirely, this is why the vast majority of music sounds like an amalgamation of derivative sound rather than anything fresh, this is why most films retread old ground and devices, and why most games rehash mechanics and structure."

What the above is suggesting is that individuality - a personal style - is needed to produce works that stand out above the average level of quality that is considered essential.

the only type of essential and inspiring art is that which is individual.

Well.. err.. good luck justifying that one.
Art does not need to be individual to inspire. For example, it could be simply unique.

Something can't be truly individual without it being unique, but it can be unique without being truly individual.

As explained above: regardless how unique a map is to your personal archive, if it's without a personal style, then, when it's held up against the community, it will be generic.

-

As for the claims of generalisation:

-style is "the core of what drives the creative ambitions of any creative community"

Not a generalisation:

The core drive of a creative community lies in the work of its leaders. Those who the rest of the community look to for inspiration. These leaders will have developed an individuality that sets them apart from the generic and inspires their peers with new ideas and fresh designs.

-"Any artist who's achieved a flair that lets their work stand out above others' of a certain quality will have stumbled upon it without even knowing."

Not a generalisation:

Anyone who's developed a true individuality in design - one that isn't contrived and is pretense free - would have achieved that through a constant amalgamation and evolution of ideas and wouldn't have been aiming for it specifically. How could they have? The idea of something individual cannot be created on the spot and out of nothing! All of our ideas are born by inspiration, something is fed to us that triggers an imaginative response. It's through the intelligent development of this response that the artist could potentially find themselves in the uncharted territory of individual design.

How would an artist even know they were close to this until the idea hit them from out of the blue?

-"It's the stage that comes when you've practised and refined your art to the finest point possible for that period. It's an intelligent and unconscious amalgamation...".

Not a generalisation:

Individual style is exactly this: a pinnacle of a period of study and application that produces a personal way of developing ideas that stands out from the generic quality.

[Kablizzy]

No offence, but you do this yourself all the time.

Who are you, and why do I let you stay here?

[SkyPanda]

To produce a great map, you have to apply that quality to a level of individuality.

Suppose a map is astoundingly fun, has great replayability, looks amazing and is unique in both aesthetic and gameplay. This map is enjoyed by all who play it and has inspired countless other maps. The style in this map is not used in subsequent maps by this author, however. What odd definition of 'great' would this map fall short of?
A personal style isn't about making a particular map great, its about image and the overall feel of an author's entire portfolio. Personal styles have no bearing whatsoever on the quality or 'greatness' of a given map.

An author can create a map that is unique within their personal archive, but they still need to apply an individual style to that map or - within the context of the community - it will have be generic.

I wasn't talking about being within their personal archive. If an author creates a map that is unique to numa, it is by definition non-generic. A personal style is not required to make a unique map. A unique style would be required, but if this style is not repeated in subsequent or prior maps, then it remains a unique style, rather than an individual style. Hence, individual style = not required. This section is in reply to most of what you have said about individuality and uniqueness.

These leaders will have developed an individuality that sets them apart from the generic and inspires their peers with new ideas and fresh designs.

This is based on the same notion as the original generalisation, that individuality -personal style- is the only thing that can inspire.
Also one more time, for emphasis: a personal style is not required to make a map non-generic.

Anyone who's developed a true individuality in design - one that isn't contrived and is pretense free - would have achieved that through a constant amalgamation and evolution of ideas and wouldn't have been aiming for it specifically. How could they have?

So now you're asking the original thread question, how to create a personal style.
I don't think we'll be very much in disagreement here at all, but i'll clarify anyway:

An example of how a personal style can be created without stumbling upon it randomly-
A mapper could decide that part of the things he will do to make his maps stand out will involve using a pattern of gold placement that no-one else has ever used before. To do this, he takes a look at the gold placement of other authors, to get a rough idea of what's common and uncommon, what works and what doesn't, what he likes and what he dislikes. He then uses his imagination and inspirations, you mentioned this, to devise a unique gold placement. He then moves on to other ways he plans to develop his individual style- perhaps a particular tile aesthetic, or a gameplay speed, or another pattern of object placement, etc. This is how an artist who is structured and ordered in their methods could consciously and purposefully develop a personal style.
Of course, there is usually many ways to do something, in this case develop a personal style.

How would an artist even know they were close to this until the idea hit them from out of the blue?

As Pheidi said, advising a new mapper to work at their maps until they find they've unconciously developed a personal style is good advice and will definately work for many.
For other artists however, those who are more structured and ordered in their methods perhaps, using techniques and methods to consciously develop a style will be how they produce their best work.

Individual style is exactly this: a pinnacle of a period of study and application that produces a personal way of developing ideas that stands out from the generic quality.

No, a personal style is not necessarily better than the generic quality.
There also need be no study, personal styles are developed consciously and unconsciously for a multitude of reasons, as i'm sure i've explained, although I agree that application will feature strongly in most methods.


On some of the points where we are repeating ourselves, perhaps its time to agree that none of what we say can persuade the other, although there's still some points that could do with some further explanation.

[a happy song]

We're not going to agree (obviously), so there's little point carrying this on.

B_T has requested I step down, so I will. Apologies if I took it too far.

[Radium]

I like it when you flex your intuitive muscle atob.

[SkyPanda]

I think B_t was talking more about insults and defensiveness and stuff. There's no harm in talking about mapping, all we've really done here is make people scroll through pages of stuff :P

[a happy song]

I think B_t was talking more about insults and defensiveness and stuff. There's no harm in talking about mapping, all we've really done here is make people scroll through pages of stuff :P

Oh, none of it was meant as insult but the defensiveness is certainly some bullshit issue. I guess I just get too carried away thinking 'I'm right and that's the end of it' :p

[MattKestrel]

I guess I just get too carried away thinking 'I'm right and that's the end of it' :p

But that's why we love you atob... <3

[Lightning55]

I just killed about an hour of my life reading this. And in the end, style isn't really something you can measure of judge. It is a manner of doing something.

I think B_t was talking more about insults and defensiveness and stuff. There's no harm in talking about mapping, all we've really done here is make people scroll through pages of stuff :P

Oh, none of it was meant as insult but the defensiveness is certainly some bullshit issue. I guess I just get too carried away thinking 'I'm right and that's the end of it' :p

You did make me go through pages of bullshit and I still don't think that any one person is right. I just read on and on and I still have nothing to better my mapmaking ;_;