Thought / Work: Are realistic videogame assets easy enough anyone can do it, no method or design, especially the very best ones? Don't know what's so special about these Naughty Dog guys then!
Meaning: A tree is a tree. You look at it, your brain recognizes it, you attribute the meaning of "tree" to it. Maybe "pretty tree" or "weird tree", but that's how it goes. There's your meaning.
And you can't think of a "stylists tree" that looks worse than an actual tree? Do you like kindergarten drawings better than walks in the woods? Much stylists.
There is a big different of the kind of enjoyment you get from a kindergarten drawing and a real life tree, since one is the interpretation of an human being and the other the wonder of nature. This is also the reason why a stylists tree will always be better in a art medium, then a realistic simulation of a tree, even if its horrible drawn.
With a stylists tree you always know that some artist somewhere thought about it and made a decision based of his artistic vision and his interpretation of the theme of the game, his life and other factors of his human nature. While by the realistic representation of a tree a person said down and tried to recreate nature in a strict science approach.
Art is the image of an human being and his interpretation of the world around him, that's why an stylists tree always has a little of the essence of a person in it. No matter if its a good or bad drawing and even if its only meant to be a tree.
This doesn't devalues the work, style or the need for realistic trees. Only if you try to directly compare both kind of styles, like in this thread, the "stylists tree" should always win, because in its very nature there is so much more art, personalty and humanity represented in it.
