I have had some people tell me that Poly art isn't really an art style. They also refer to it as Cubism. The reason for my question is why do they call it Cubism when Picasso for my understanding of it only worked in 3D.
Why is it still called "line art" when it's done with software and paths?
Why is it still called "impressionism" when it's just a photo with a bunch of application filters run, or painted over?
In many instance the traditional name of a style is used, superseding any digital name for the same basic style. If every new "thing" had to have a brand new name, then art of the same style would be much more difficult to categorize.
Simply put, using traditional names helps convey the style without visuals more efficiently.
As for "cubism" and Picasso... it is never mandatory to use software in order to create artwork which appears to use some 3D principals - such as perspective, depth, simple planes, and geometric shapes.. it's these which give Cubism its name.
Difference... to me, "PolyArt" refers to flat geometric shapes. Unlike traditional Cubism, no perspective or depth is conveyed in the shapes directly. PolyArt is more of a simplified form of Cubism. But this is merely my opinion.
I think you mean Low Poly art. It has its origins in the use of polygons in 3D modelling software.
Yes, it is a style of art. You can call almost anything art. Even crap is art.
Cubism was an artistic movement in the early 20th century. Apparently, Picasso was influenced by African tribal masks and other non-Western forms of art.
The two aren't really the same thing in my opinion, nor do they really look that similar, except for the use of angular lines, and they have different origins ultimately. Some people may call "Low Poly" art "Cubism", but I wouldn't personally. That's not to say they are wrong. Art is a very subjective thing. Perhaps worry less about trying to pin exact labels on everything, and just accept the art for what it is.