# tattoos, spikes, punk, and goth in D&D images?



## Quasqueton (Mar 2, 2004)

"Why do all the adventurers in 3e look like they're wearing bondage or S/M clothing?"

"Much of the new artwork (with notable exceptions such as swekel and sardinha) has more modern influence - tattoos, black leather, spikes, punk hairstyles, emaciated monsters."

"As far as I'm concerned, no suit of spike-covered semi-punk armor is ever going to be nearly as evocative as the classic knight in plate."

When some people complain about the new edition of D&D, the artwork style is usually one of the first things pointed at. Even though the appreciation of art is very subjective, and everyone has differing tastes, some things can be objectively discussed. The above comments for instance, taken from just one thread today.

Not just in the above quotes, but just about any comment on D&D art mentions spikes, tattoos, piercings, and punk/goth style. Why don't these items jump out at me when I'm looking through the D&D books. Interestingly, I'm not big on spikes, tattoos, piercings, and anything punk or goth, myself. And I would think that if the D&D books are full of such things, I would have noticed and been annoyed.

So, where exactly are all the images of characters with the above mentioned ornamentations? Just thinking over in my mind, I know the iconic paladin has a "tattoo" on her arm (though I beleive it is mentioned as a brand somewhere in the books). The iconic sorcerer has some kind of weird legging buckles fetish thing. And a character in the DMG has some tattoos. 

When I get home tonight, I think I will look through the books again and actually count the illustrations and see just how many actually have the above "problems". I'm betting this is another case of a bunch of people spouting off something they've seen someone else say, without actually knowing what they are talking about.

And I can look over my old books as well -- if I remember correctly, Erol Otus was the master of spikiness.

Quasqueton


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 2, 2004)

I'm personally a big fan of the new art, especially in relationship to the older editions of D&D.  But one of my mantras is that D&D is fantasy, not medieval, so I should be expected to not necessarily expect "knights in shining armor" as a reasonable artistic choice for D&D.

I also think the complaints about "dungeonpunk" art are vastly overstated anyway.  Very few of the artistic pieces are unrealistic in terms of armor or clothing.  They're simply not medieval European.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 2, 2004)

i can tell you Original Elves in D&D had beards. just look in your 3 booklets again.  


and i hate, yes...i mean that word in this thread....the new art.

it does nothing for me in my imagination of D&D.


----------



## evildm (Mar 2, 2004)

I really like the new art. Like Joshua, I think it emphasizes the Fantasy aspect of the game. It really sparks players' imaginations because it reminds them that your longsword doesn't need to look like every other longsword, etc.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 2, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I also think the complaints about "dungeonpunk" art are vastly overstated anyway.  Very few of the artistic pieces are unrealistic in terms of armor or clothing.  They're simply not medieval European.



For that matter, Medieval European is much broader than many people give it credit for.  A lot of Medieval European is quite exotic looking today.


----------



## Henry (Mar 2, 2004)

Medieval European is quite funky compared to the stuff that 2nd edition put out. Even 1st edition pics were more renaissance than Medieval clothing styles.

The the whole "punk/goth"epithet given to 3E is baseless when compared to the actual pictures that are there. Hennet is the most "S&M/Punk" thing in the book.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 2, 2004)

Right, and besides, buckles != S/M outfit!


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 2, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> The the whole "punk/goth"epithet given to 3E is baseless when compared to the actual pictures that are there. Hennet is the most "S&M/Punk" thing in the book.



And very _very_ noticeable.


			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Right, and besides, buckles != S/M outfit!



But the _number_ of buckles might have something to do with that...


----------



## Gothmog (Mar 2, 2004)

Obviously each person's tastes will differ, but I loathe the new look.  I won't list every piece I dislike (I'd be here all day), but only the ones I find most jarring.  I'd classify the following art as dungeonpunk/fetish/simply foolish looking:

PHB 3.5:
Regdar p38- his armor would restrict his movement, and too many spikes
Alhandra p43- again, silly armor that leaves her abdomin and legs unprotected
Lidda p50- buckle & strap fetish
Hennet p51- buckle & strap fesish/S&M costume
Mialee p56- what the hell is that thing she is wearing? looks like something out of a bad porno- pretty much all pics of Mialee suck
Nebin p57- not as bad, but why the aviator's goggles?
S&M cleric on P93
Devis p105- ok, he's a bard, but even that costume is a little to froo-froo
Armor on p133- once again, spikes restrict movement

DMG 3.5:
Part on P16- just ugh, terrible
Dungeonpunk elves and orcs p22-23
Mialee p39
Dude on p169- just silly looking
Arcane Archer/dominatrix p176
Pregnant Loremaster p191
Anime elf p263

MM 3.5:
For the most part, the 3.5 MM has poor to good art.  Some armor is a little silly looking (like the bugbear), but nothing too bad.  The big improvements here are in the new demon & devil pics (I love the Balor), and some of the new art included in the revision.  I still don't like WAR though.

The art in the splatbooks tends to be worse and more dungeonpunkish, but I won't go through and list every piece there.

My main problem with the new art is that it has no context (no scenes), and simply looks cartoonish or impressionistic (same reason I hate Tony DiTerlizzi).  When I look at a picture, I want to know what that critter or person looks like in that world, not some overly cartoonish, super-stylized, anime-ish looking tripe.  IMO, Easley, Elmore, Parkinson, and some of the old crowd of painters will never be surpassed.  I'm not even asking for historical medieval artwork (though that would be MUCH better than what we have now), but just more realistic depictions of characters.  A lot of historical medieval arms, armor, and clothing would look VERY fantastical to us today (especially Eastern European).  Heck, the costumes in the recent LotR movies were really incredible, were completely fantasy, and don't look anywhere near as foolish as the stuff in the core books.  There are a lot of good artists out there right now.  David Griffith is one of my favorites- he does exceptional scenes, and the faces on his people are very expressive and lifelike.  Brian LeBlanc does some exceptional work for Necromancer- his images are dark, gritty, and very "old school", and have tons of atmosphere and character.  I'd much rather have their B&W stiff than the color work we have coming from WotC now.


----------



## Mark (Mar 2, 2004)

It's rather weird for me.  My need to adhere to the SRD and not being able to use other WotC sources has led to a fair distancing from current D&D artwork.  Still, _Road Warrior_ and _Beyond Thunderdome_ came out in `81 and `85...so it's not like it's anything new... 

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/8230/mm.html

http://www.madmaxcostumes.com/menu.htm


----------



## Malk (Mar 2, 2004)

ok i have a few points.
1: i really love the art in the new addition especialy compared to the art in second edition, and i dont really have any experiance with art in first edition
2: all pictures of mialee bite the big one
3: since when are tatoos considered modern!?  Thats like saying that drinking water is a very modern thing because its all the rage now days....


----------



## kenjib (Mar 2, 2004)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> IMO, Easley, Elmore, Parkinson, and some of the old crowd of painters will never be surpassed.




I can see it now.  A neo-classical movement in the D&D art world hearkening back to the masters of old several decades ago...


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 2, 2004)

For the record, I love Erol Otus' work for AD&D and B/ED&D.

AD&D 1st edition images:

[Edit: some of these links may not work right now, but they were working a few minutes ago. Maybe check back later and they will be up again.]

How about this goofy outfit:






Look at 'em spikeys:





Goofy? Look at the tin can on that fighter.





How's this ensemble piece?






Not Erol Otus, but for diaglo specifically:
Check out this [sarcasm]evocative[/sarcasm] beholder:





Quasqueton


----------



## Malk (Mar 2, 2004)

that'd be really cool if i could see any of the pictures hehe


----------



## Henry (Mar 2, 2004)

Quas, the pictures aren't showing (geocities has that problem). I don't suppose you could attach 'em to the post?


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 2, 2004)

The "spikey armor" complaints about the 3E art actually started with the art previews for 3E that came out in 1999.  It never bothered me and I couldn't see what the big deal was then, and I feel the same way now.  Art is so subjective and there are so many different styles and tastes there's no way everyone can be pleased.  I do like my RPG books to have nice art, and I do like having a variety of artists and styles.  They don't all have to look like Parkinson or Easley or whatever.  I do think it shows when a publisher skimps on the art.


----------



## Quez The Lame (Mar 2, 2004)

D&D artwork did a heavy shift to anime / comic style, compared to the 2nd Ed. AD&D books. The latter contained more scene pictures, like a "ranger" staring down on a far too big footprint in the snow. Now i see lots of stylishly posing creatures that could be taken from Dragonball Z.

There are some books shining over the mass, as do the FR books (especially the FRCS) or Wheel of Time, but most books follow that comic style. I don't like warriors in heavily spiked armors and elven archers/wizards/bladesingers wearing nothing more than a leather or chainmail bikini. That's not inspiring, that's not really nice to look at, or in short, that's useless.

Can't there be a wizard in exensive robes studying in his candle lit laboratory, elven warriors in cloak and (not spiked) leather armor wandering the woods or a halfling rogue throwing darts in the tavern to earn some gold ?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Mar 2, 2004)

I like the leering face on Regdar's armor. And I like the rings in Lidda's hair, even though they'd jingle and screw up her Move Silently. I like the artwork in 3e in general (haven't seen much 3.5). The Draconomicon's art is very very nice, except for the wyrmlings.


----------



## reiella (Mar 2, 2004)

I like the new art a bit myself.

Of course, the OD&D and AD&D art reminds me of religious tracts a bit too much for my tastes .  Or the general pulp comics of the early 80s.


----------



## Wereserpent (Mar 2, 2004)

I like the 3.0/3.5 art.  It looks much more lie something you would find in a fantasy setting.  I have seen some of the art from previous editions, and I do not really like it.  It looks really cheesy to me.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 2, 2004)

Hi Quasetron.  One of the quotes in your original post was mine, and I fear that the meaning has been somewhat altered by quoting it out of context.  In the context of that article, I specifically said that it was my preference only and even acknowledged that I am in the minority.

As regards your counter-example with Erol Otus, his works to me invoke the covers of Weird Tales magazine and I really love them.  If you look through some of this artwork (you can find scans online) then perhaps you will see what I mean.  3e art definitely doesn't evoke the same.  It evokes a different set of sources that doesn't "click" for me, despite the merits that other people find.

It's really that simple for me and in the context of my original post, were you to go back and examine it, you might also notice that I also explicitly stated that I liked the older feel because it invoked older literary influences as listed in the back of the 1e DMG.  If you have access to a copy of the 1e DMG, or a good memory, you might note that many of the authors listed in the back of the DMG, not coincidentally, were prominent contributors to Wierd Tales magazine.

There is no contradiction in my statement and I stand by it.


----------



## Painfully (Mar 2, 2004)

I'm resigned to the fact that the current artwork is the result of cutting costs at WotC.  Cheap artwork means more cartoony pictures and NO background scenery.  Apparently, artists that can draw landscapes cost more money.

*edit*
Mostly, I'm thinking of figures as seen in the WotC galleries, but Dragon Magazine's covers as well.

Compare those images to anything by Elmore or Parkinson (whom I consider as the most talented artists under TSR's lifetime) and how their figures looked much more believable as living, breathing creatures or persons.  

The new 3e artwork is, "okay" but it has never come alive for me in the same way as many of Elmore's or Parkinson's paintings.  Anyone who cares to look at the original Dragonlance artwork and tells me that they prefer 3e style artwork is going to get some strange looks from me.

*edit again*
What Jody (below) said.


----------



## Jody Butt (Mar 2, 2004)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> My main problem with the new art is that it has no context (no scenes), and simply looks cartoonish or impressionistic (same reason I hate Tony DiTerlizzi).  When I look at a picture, I want to know what that critter or person looks like in that world, not some overly cartoonish, super-stylized, anime-ish looking tripe.  IMO, Easley, Elmore, Parkinson, and some of the old crowd of painters will never be surpassed.  I'm not even asking for historical medieval artwork (though that would be MUCH better than what we have now), but just more realistic depictions of characters.




So true.

99% of 3E artwork is total, low-brow crap (esp. WAR, Martin, BAXA).

I want realistic-looking artwork, not dungeonpunk, anime crap.

Did anyone see the most recent issue of Dungeon (or was it the second most recent issue)?  EVERY picture in there was done in anime style.  It made me vomit.

Do I want to play in the roleplaying game of "dungeonpunk superheroes in anime-land"? NO!

I want the art to portray a world that I would like to visit.  I want it to look realsitic so that I could imagine myself being there.  I don't want to imagine myself in a superhero cartoon . . . which is just what 3E is.

Parkinson, Caldwell, Easley, and Elmore are tops.


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 2, 2004)

Quick, drive-by posting, here.

I was not questioning people's taste or like/dislike of the current styles. I was specifically asking for examples of the spikes, punk/goth, tattoos that so many decry. Only one person so far has actually addressed that issue, but I haven't time yet to check those specific images out.

I don't think there is nearly as much of this stuff in the images as people claim. I again suggest that most people heaping the comments on D&D are not really looking at the images, but are just regurjitating what they've heard others say.

Prove me wrong by pointing out specific images in the core books that have the spikes, tattoos, and punk/goth styles. If you can't name more than two or three out of the dozens, you have no support for your claims.

Quasqueton


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 2, 2004)

Frankly, I love the artwork of the new editions of D&D.  IMO, they are much better than 1e and 2e artwork.  I'm especially fond of the pictures drawn by Todd Lockwood and WAR.  I'd also like to say that Draconomicon has the most impressive artwork I've _ever_ seen in an RPG book.

Oh, and anybody who says that the artwork in 3.x looks anime-ish needs a reality check.  If the 3.x artwork was anime-ish, then all of the men would look like women, and all the women would look about 14-years-old and be wearing schoolgirl outfits. Not to mention that the elves would have three-foot-long ears that stuck out horizontally from their heads.


----------



## Jody Butt (Mar 2, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Quick, drive-by posting, here.
> 
> I was not questioning people's taste or like/dislike of the current styles. I was specifically asking for examples of the spikes, punk/goth, tattoos that so many decry. Only one person so far has actually addressed that issue, but I haven't time yet to check those specific images out.
> 
> ...




It's not only the dungeonpunk stuff.  It's also the heavily stylized, cartoonish/anime style.  This is getting worse and worse.  I can't even pick up a copy of Dungeon anymore.  It makes me sick to my stomach.

WAR, Martin, and Baxa all do the stylized, cartoon crap.  Martin is the worst offender.  WAR is a close second.

Guay (sp?), Hou, and some others that I cannot remember are doing the anime crap.


----------



## Wombat (Mar 2, 2004)

I must admit that _most_ fantasy art turns me cold.

Why?

Well, who would actually go into battle with most of this stuff?  Weapons with pointless cut-outs, spikes and flanges, not to mention too big and too weirdly balanced to be the least bit useful.  Armour that doesn't cover vital areas and has more flares, spikes, and fiddly bits to pull the weapons in to hurt you more.  The non-combat stuff bothers me far less (then it is a matter of aesthetic taste), but the combat stuff really, really bothers me.  

Okay, I've lived around too many re-enactors (of periods ranging from Roman to Medieval to Thirty Years War to American Civil War) as well as armourers, blacksmiths, and swordsmiths, so I tend to be prejudiced towards the functional-over-fancy school...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 2, 2004)

> It makes me sick to my stomach.




Then perhaps you're taking subjective art a bit too seriously, mate.

I'll admit 3e definately needs more 'scenery' style pictures; there's not that many of them.

Aside from that, some of the people who don't like the 'tone' of 3e art rub me the wrong way. I like it. Most people like it. Some people don't.

You don't need to be insulting about it. It's just a preference. It's like saying that a Hershey's bar is a cheap hack form a no-talent confectionary more concerned with profit than with quality, and the only TRUE chocolate is imported Sweedish gourmet stuff that was popular a few years ago, but has mostly fallen out of favor.

There's nothing WRONG with Hershey's. There's nothing BAD about art you don't like. You don't like it. Fine. That doesn't make it a hack-job, it just means you have a different opinion. There's a difference.

In my opinion, 3e art evokes action, fast-paced, quick and dirty, heroic, cinematic, defining encounters, filled with larger-than-life personalities and effects. And I think that's a good thing, because D&D for me is pretty much that.

Realism is overrated. Especially in D&D. Especially in art. Especially in D&D art.


----------



## Melkor (Mar 2, 2004)

Maybe it's the fact that art is my job, and I see a ton of different styles on a daily basis (both at work, and my major hobby - RPGs), but I love things about both the new and old styles.

Erol Otus, Jeff Dee, and Bill Willingham inspired me to pick up a pencil and draw when I was a pre-teen.

Elmore shaped some of the way my Jr. High and High School campaigns "looked" in my mind.

I also think that some of the 3rd Edition art is amazing. Wayne Reynolds (WAR) is probably my favorite 3E artist. The Draconomicon was amazing in my opinion, but I can't say I liked a single picture out of the new Unearthed Arcana.

The low point for me was some of the "semi-realistic" crap that made it's way into 2nd Edition books.....I can open the first run 2nd Edition books, and the later black cover 2nd Edition books - and find several examples of craptastic art.....But even those are housed in beautifully illustrated Jeff Easley covers.....

Cheers.


----------



## Wereserpent (Mar 2, 2004)

Well, as I have already said.  I like the new artwork.  Most of the old stuff looks really campy to me.  I do not know why, but I just LIKE the more cartoonish feel of the new art.


----------



## TheRaven (Mar 3, 2004)

Not a single picture can be refered to as crap, simply because every picture will find someone who likes it. The only thing one can argue about is the choices, that were made by WotC officials. I thinks it is inappropriate to bemoan the pictures themselves. Yeah I know, I'm nitpicking.

I myself don't like the choices that were made with the most recent WotC books. Too much anime style for my taste but anime is currently considered "cool" among the kids and I'm afraid, that WotC won't change their current path of art. Quite the opposite is true.

About the pictures being bdsm. Well, if you give out assignments to the Jon Foster Studio (devis, lidda), what do you expect? I'm personally fond of their work but can understand if some people don't like it. Oh, and someone said something about low cost pictures. I'm quite sure, that WAR and Jon Foster can't be considered low cost.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 3, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Quick, drive-by posting, here.
> 
> I was not questioning people's taste or like/dislike of the current styles. I was specifically asking for examples of the spikes, punk/goth, tattoos that so many decry. Only one person so far has actually addressed that issue, but I haven't time yet to check those specific images out.
> 
> ...




Page numbers are from the 3e books.  I don't have the 3.5 ones.  Also, it's not just the punk/goth stuff but the cartoon style oversized weapons and armor pieces as well as the anachronistically ergonomic look.  Also, many specific examples aren't that much, but it's the cumulative effect of these things being in almost every picture.

PHB:  12 (human buckle, elf spiky), 13 (half-orc piercing), 14, 18, 19, 25 (axe), 28, 34, 44 (pierced ears), 47, 50, 52, 53 (goggles), 64 (axe again), 75, 80, 82, 84, okay at this point I've just referenced easily the majority of all pictures from the first five chapters, and even some of the ones I skipped I'm borderline on, so I'm not going to go on.  Now it's your turn to find me pictures from pages 1-84, not including the Swenkel chapter headers with *don't* have anything buckled, black leathered, dreadlocked, spiky, pierced, or tattoed.

DMG:  9, 15, 19, 21, 23, 28, 32, 36, 39, I'm through only the first two chapters and again I feel like I'm just citing almost every picture I come across.

MM:  This one isn't quite as persistant, but still has some really egregious examples like the manticore and displacer beast.  Mostly here is just that so many things are spiky and/or emaciated (again it's often appropriate, but still it's pervasive in cumulative effect) - 20, 21, 23 (both), 24, 27, 37, 38, 43, 50, 51, 53, 54, 59, 60, etc.

Psionic Handbook:  Every picture.

So all of these page numbers are just from the very beginnings of each book since I didn't see much point in continuing after that point.

btw, I've got absolutely nothing against tattoos and piercings in real life.  My wife has both of them.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 3, 2004)

Why are tattoos and piercings considered to be "modern influences"?  Tattoos and piercings have both been around since ancient times in real life.

And how about those early pilgrims that came to North America?  I mean, they had freakin' buckles on their HATS.  They were so obviously S&M fetishists.


----------



## Oni (Mar 3, 2004)

Personally I think 3e has brought some really great artists to the table.  

Wayne Reynolds
Emily Fiegenschuh
Vinod Rams

I'm not really getting this punk/goth vibe from their work.  Their stuff has an energy that more "realistic" fantasy artwork can seem to muster.  Don't get me wrong I love work by the likes of Keith Parkinson, but that approach to depicting fantasy has kind of become old hat, and it's nice to see new and different takes.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 3, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Why are tattoos and piercings considered to be "modern influences"?  Tattoos and piercings have both been around since ancient times in real life.
> 
> And how about those early pilgrims that came to North America?  I mean, they had freakin' buckles on their HATS.  They were so obviously S&M fetishists.




context and co-association


----------



## Mercule (Mar 3, 2004)

I'm guilty of using the term "dungeonpunk".  I'm not sure that it has any definite meaning to me.  I knew I didn't like the style of the art in 3E, but couldn't put my finger on it.  When someone else used the word, it just kinda stuck in my mind.

The most concise explanation I can give for my use of the term is because the pictures make me think of that tag from Cyberpunk (anyway, that's where I first heard it) of "Style over substance."  Just flipping through the Classes chapter of the PHB, all of the illustrations (except maybe Vadania, Tordek, and Lidda) look like they're preening and posing for a camera.  They're all a bunch of pathetic posers.

Even taking my favorite picture in that chapter, Vadania, I realized that one of the things that draws me to it is that it actually looks like she's doing something.  Same with Lidda.  Tordek looks like he was standing guard and someone did a drive-by photo-op.  Page 240 has Jozan fighting a succubus -- another picture I like.

When I imagine my characters, I don't imagine them posing for the cover of a magazine.  I imagine them in action.  Most of the pictures I mentioned are pretty much the antithesis of what I'm looking for.  The same could be said about the covers of Dragon (although those have been better lately, IMHO).

I like background.  It adds context to the picture.  It also makes them feel more complete.  Having some pictures w/o a background is fine, but not too many, please.

I really, really, really hate the drawing style of anime/manga.  I used to think it was just the big eyes, small mouth, etc., but there is more to it that that.  Anime, IME, tends to have a lot of this posturing that I was talking about.  There's also 'action' shots that have a background that is blank or looks vaguely like Star Trek warp speed.  I'll admit that the actual shape of the drawings in 3E isn't anime, but a lot of the poses are similar.  Add to it the cartoony feel and I can see why people would say it looks like anime.

Throw it all together, and you've got some negative (perceived) traits that are very hard to put into full voice because they are only a bit here and a bit there.  The basic feeling, though, is obvious to those of us who dislike it, and that makes it really easy to throw quick, generalized, close-but-not quite quips about the art.

There's art in 3E I like and there is art in 3E I strongly dislike.  The average across all art in 3E is, IMO, not as good as in 2E or even 1E.  There were some bad bits in previous editions, but they weren't as offensive -- probably because it was immediately apparent that it was budget work.  There are some good bits in 3E, but they really don't "wow" me like some of the work done by Elmore, et al.

I'll take the silliness (and it is silly) of an airbrushed lady in a chainmail bikini, where I can see muscle definition and action, over some watercolor cartoon of a prettyboy barbarian preening for a camera anyday.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 3, 2004)

Every professional artist has strengths and weaknesses, which should be catered to.  For a clear example, I will say once again that, oh _my_ God, Jeff Easley cannot paint people.  He does not seem to know what a skin tone is, let alone the fact that flesh does not grow in lumps.  But he does nice monsters, and his forms are pretty good, even if I find his color palette is too red for my tastes.  He could do water elementals and they'd be brown.

Rebecca Guay is the most talented artist I know for evoking beautiful, magical scenes.  I'm curious what her take would be on a scene of violence and combat, but I don't worry about it, because I'm content to look at her illustrations of fey and other mystical and mythical creatures, and just sigh at their beauty.  I loved her back when she did the Homelands comic for Magic: the Gathering, and she has come a long way in the past six years.

Wayne Reynolds can capture action and intensity incredily well, and he can even do some rather pretty static images (see: Mialee studying spells, Tome & Blood).  But he does like to stylize everything, which may get on some people's nerves; he uses linework and shading more than heavily texturing his pieces.  My personal pet peeve with his work is what I call The Wayne Reynolds Shuffle.  Take a look at the feet on pretty much every illustration he's done in which people are walking.  They're invariably hunched over one way, feet and legs angled as if they're scuttling sideways.  I find it endearing.

Elmore has beautiful images, sometimes, but I think he relies far too much on static models.  I've seen some of his pieces that are full of intensity (one in particular has a man getting ready to fend off the attack by a cat-warrior that is perched on an overturned wagon), but a lot of times he just has characters standing in a background.  It's all very posed, and very pretty, but rather rigid.  The 3.0 versions of the Nymph and Titan are key examples of this.

Who's the best fantasy artist now?  Todd Lockwood.  Look at his work on the cover of Malhavoc's warfare book?  That's a classic knight in classic armor, in a dramatic pose, dramatically lit, yet in a style of realism like something from a Baroque painter.  Then take a look at (I drool as I think of it) the cover to The Forge of Fury.  That's the defining image of D&D adventures to me.  I think the only things I dislike about Lockwood are those things he did at the behest of WotC's designers, like having horse-faced Mialee.  Look at his pic of Elven Chainmail in the 3.5 DMG, and you can see he knows how to draw beautiful women as well as beautiful armor (and beautifully rugged men, though I've never seen him do any bishounen men).  He's a very talented artist, capable of handling numerous different styles of fantasy, from classic medievalism to the UnderGoth covers of the dark Elf and mind flayer books.

Finally, let's consider some art by up and comings in the d20 field.  First, we have Claudio Pozas (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/hosted/Pozas/).  No offense to Claudio, he's a great guy, but his characters are too flat.  Even though he clearly derives his style from classic comic books, something, particularly about the faces, never seems quite fully realized.  Also, because he works heavily in computer art, and doesn't seem interested in drawing and inking backgrounds first, I'm never really satisfied with any of the backgrounds in his pieces.  But he does 'cool' fairly well, and he's certainly prolific.

Next, we have a friend of mine, J.L. Jones (http://www.jljonesfantasyart.com).  Jessie's art is more cartoonish than is the norm for modern RPG supplements, and she seems loathe to adopt the dungeonpunk style many people here are opposed to.  Her greatest strength, I think, is that she can capture a variety of expression very well, something you really don't see that often in fantasy art.  Often you just have characters looking intense or confused, but rarely happy, sad, or otherwise emotional.  Though she doesn't heavily detail her characters, she's confident in her linework.  Her inspirations are most heavily from ElfQuest and Strangers in Paradise.

I'd post more, but I'm out of time and have to head off this computer.  Hopefully we can discuss different artists, and what we particularly like or dislike about their styles, and what they're good at, _not_ whether they suck.  I know artists who suck.  A lot of them are inexperienced.  Once you're experienced, though, the only thing I think is worth criticizing is one's originality.


----------



## Wereserpent (Mar 3, 2004)

Sorry to post again, but I have to get this out of my system.

I gre up on animeish skinny pretty boys weilding unweildy swords with ease.  As well as  animeish women wearing little to no armor going into battle.  And all I have to say is that.

I LIKE IT DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Just flipping through the Classes chapter of the PHB, all of the illustrations (except maybe Vadania, Tordek, and Lidda) look like they're preening and posing for a camera.  They're all a bunch of pathetic posers.
> 
> Even taking my favorite picture in that chapter, Vadania, I realized that one of the things that draws me to it is that it actually looks like she's doing something.  Same with Lidda.  Tordek looks like he was standing guard and someone did a drive-by photo-op.  Page 240 has Jozan fighting a succubus -- another picture I like.
> 
> ...










Hmmm.


----------



## Melkor (Mar 3, 2004)

TheRaven said:
			
		

> Not a single picture can be refered to as crap, simply because every picture will find someone who likes it. The only thing one can argue about is the choices, that were made by WotC officials. I thinks it is inappropriate to bemoan the pictures themselves.




Taste in art is subjective, but I can look at a piece of art and call it crap when I see obvious signs that it was rushed, and required no real artistic skill to produce.....but that is probably an argument for another thread.

Like I said, I believe that a lot of the art in the 2nd Edition main books is complete crap.


----------



## Ghostmoon (Mar 3, 2004)

Galeros said:
			
		

> Sorry to post again, but I have to get this out of my system.
> 
> I gre up on animeish skinny pretty boys weilding unweildy swords with ease.  As well as  animeish women wearing little to no armor going into battle.  And all I have to say is that.
> 
> I LIKE IT DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



 And there I believe is what mostly drives what styles of art you like: What you grew up with.  My youth was spent watching 80's cartoons and pouring over moldering 1st edition AD&D books.  While I love much of the art in D&D 3E (and for that matter 2nd Edition), I will always have a great fondness for those earlier styles, such as Erol Otus, that are tied closest to my earliest memories of the game and genre.

Along with that thought, I am pretty sure the art in 3E is not aimed at me, the long time gamer.  Rather, it is aimed at the younger gamer, who probably grew up (or is growing up  ) with all sorts of anime on the TV, manga-styled superhero comics, etc.  I am sure that many of them will be complaining in 10 years from now, that whatever the art style morphs into, is not as good as back in good old days of D&D 3e.


----------



## Numion (Mar 3, 2004)

Piercings, tattoos and even orange mohican hairstyle can be done with style in a fantasy setting. Like Dwarven Troll-Slayers in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay   

The art in that book was really great. The way they had different styles combined didn't bother at all . . just increased the division between normal folk and the chaos powers. Oh and I so liked the pictures of the different NPCs in the Enemy Within Campaign .. uh oh.


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> Piercings, tattoos and even orange mohican hairstyle can be done with style in a fantasy setting. Like Dwarven Troll-Slayers in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay



The first 3E game I played in featured a dwarf barbarian modelled on the trollslayers, mohawk and all. He was cool.


----------



## ManicFuel (Mar 3, 2004)

My main beef with the artwork in 3.x isn't that there are piercings, tattoos, buckles and spikes, but that there are so many piercings, tattoos, buckles and spikes. I would be fine with this if it were more limited. For example, the gnoll in the 3.0 MM has 4 ear piercings. A gnoll has that? The magmin, athach, bugbear, centaur, dryad, efreet (but not the djinn), gnome, goblin, hobgoblin, etc have piercings. The kobold has a silly spiked ring on his tail. The locathah has a buckle that he couldn't possibly have clasped with his fin-hands. Check out the iconics and you'll see lots of piercings. My favorite though is the winter wolf with a pierced ear. Now who would do that?

As for buckles and spikes, I think it's a cool character concept, but most of the iconics must wake up at 4 in the morning just to get ready. It isn't cool if everyone's doing it. And how in the world does Hennet go to the bathroom? Not that it's safe for him to go - look at the fingernails on that guy!

The other thing I've noticed is the number of exotic weapons being wielded. Again, nothing wrong with the concept, just overused. Spiked chains, dire flails, and any other weapons that looks like it could harm the wielder more often than the target are not my cup of tea.

Not that 1e was so much better (I skipped 2e and can't comment there). I'm sure late-comers would be bored to tears seeing all the pot helms and longswords. Same issue - too much of one concept. I'd like the art to reflect my game, like all of us, but we all play different games. So I'd like to see more diverse themes in the artwork.

As for the styles, I'm pretty open there, as long as it tells a story. As mentioned already, there are lots of pics of scowling, posing creatures, which is a very kung fu movie thing to do. I guess that's the point. But I'd like to see less badass posturing and more badass action.


----------



## Numion (Mar 3, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> The first 3E game I played in featured a dwarf barbarian modelled on the trollslayers, mohawk and all. He was cool.




Could such a dwarf ever not be cool? Or, at least, I wouldn't say it to his face


----------



## francisca (Mar 3, 2004)

Recently I was looking through my buddy's Dragon collection.  It seems to me the Hennet style art was already showing up in Dragon a few years before 3E was released.  I don't think this trend started with 3E, it was just one particular style that was common at the time.

I personally don't like the new art much, but that's OK.  It really doesn't affect my opinion of the system and I certainly do not have an eye for art.  

Frankly, I think I like the 3E stuff better than all of the Dragon-slayer Barbie stuff prevelent in 1E and 2E era material.

Now for those of you who dislike the 3E art, do you also dislike elaborate dungeon-punk style minis as well?


----------



## Olive (Mar 3, 2004)

I love WAR, but I can see why you wouldn't liek the stylised aspect of it. Given that, his art is generally more 'realistic' than alot of other artists.

The only 3e artists I truely dispise the work of is Crabapple. Hate it.

But cartoony siollyness surely reached it's hieght in the mad magazineesque side pieces of the 1e DMG?

Plus Gothmog, I think that you're looking for something that isn't there, while I agree with a lot of your opionions, the p93 cleric is wearing a butcher's apron, not S/M gear...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 3, 2004)

I have to say, I love all the art. I've learned a lot from looking over all the styles, and its helped me to develop my OWN style....but really, WAR and Lockwood rock. 

One thing I've learned from other things though, is that for some reason, anime is a style that people either love or hate. The interesting thing about this style is that when you look at a static picture, it breaks down. It just looks all wrong. This style shines in MOTION...so I guess I'd fall in the camp of not liking that in books. Well, unless we get moving pictures in our books.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 3, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> Piercings, tattoos and even orange mohican hairstyle can be done with style in a fantasy setting. Like Dwarven Troll-Slayers in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay



Ya know, now that you mention it, I never much cared for the art in Warhammer, either.  I can't remember a single image of Warhammer that fit my taste.  Technically skilled, yes, but not "cool".  The art may very well have contributed to my never even browsing the rules.


----------



## Gnarlo (Mar 3, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> One thing I've learned from other things though, is that for some reason, anime is a style that people either love or hate. The interesting thing about this style is that when you look at a static picture, it breaks down. It just looks all wrong. This style shines in MOTION...so I guess I'd fall in the camp of not liking that in books. Well, unless we get moving pictures in our books.




Even this is not cut and dried, though  I like anime style for sci-fi future and modern games. Hate it for fantasy games.


----------



## Pants (Mar 3, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I don't think there is nearly as much of this stuff in the images as people claim. I again suggest that most people heaping the comments on D&D are not really looking at the images, but are just regurjitating what they've heard others say.
> Quasqueton



It's a knee-jerk reaction.  I see it a lot on the internet.
One of my biggest problems with the art criticisms is how everyone jumps on the already overflowing bandwagon to call 3e art 'anime.'  Obviously, anyone who says such a thing has no real clue about anime at all, it seems to have become an all-encompassing term for 'art I hate.'

And of course emaciated creatures automatically equals dungeon punk...



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> I love WAR, but I can see why you wouldn't liek the stylised aspect of it. Given that, his art is generally more 'realistic' than alot of other artists.



I feel the same way about Erol Otus.  You either love his style... or you hate it.  I find it distasteful.



			
				francisca said:
			
		

> Recently I was looking through my buddy's Dragon collection. It seems to me the Hennet style art was already showing up in Dragon a few years before 3E was released. I don't think this trend started with 3E, it was just one particular style that was common at the time.



I believe the 'dungeon-punk' style started either with DiTerlizzi or Planescape... or both.  It was definitely around before 3e was even planned by WotC.

I totally agree with everything RangerWickett said.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Mar 3, 2004)

I'm going to have to profess extreme confusion.

When I fist opened my 3E Monster Manual for the first time, I was *thrilled* with the art.  I thought that it was an unbelievable improvement over the 2E Monstrous Manual, because the Monstrous Manual pictures were cartoonish and had no backgrounds (ever), and the 3E Monster Manual pictures often had backgrounds and weren't cartoonish.

Obviously, taste in art is subjective, but can anyone tell me what is going on here?  3E as "cartoonish"?  Where does this idea come from?

I'm flipping through my core books, and I just don't see it.

Here's a bit of Monstrous Manual art (chosen at random) for comparison:
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/sphinx.gif
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/basilisk.gif
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/brndragn.gif
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/impmeph.gif
http://positron.jfet.org/adnd/monster/mindflay.gif

Using these pictures (or others, if you prefer), can someone explain why 3E is more cartoonish?  Please?

Am I just missing some complicated joke?


----------



## rounser (Mar 3, 2004)

It doesn't matter if it's cartoony or anime-ish to me so long as it captures a D&D vibe.  Photoshopped, colourised posing character portraits don't do that, through fault of the art direction, not the artists themselves.  WAR, for instance, has the potential to capture a D&D vibe when he wants to (look at his black and white work in _Deep Dwarven Delve_.)

Another example of cartoony but what I consider to be definitely D&D in feel is the work of the Brothers Fraim, for instance (http://www.brosfraim.com/hack.html).  Made less gory, I consider this style far preferable to what ended up in the core 3E books.  Your mileage may vary.  Unfortunately, B&W in the core books is lost to the game forever because colour sells more apparently...and that's teh bottom line.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 3, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> It's a knee-jerk reaction.  I see it a lot on the internet.
> One of my biggest problems with the art criticisms is how everyone jumps on the already overflowing bandwagon to call 3e art 'anime.'  Obviously, anyone who says such a thing has no real clue about anime at all, it seems to have become an all-encompassing term for 'art I hate.'




3e D&D elf:






Anime elf:





3e D&D human male:





Anime human male:






That, my friend, is why it's hard for me to take seriously people who claim that the artwork in 3e D&D books is anime-ish.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 3, 2004)

While I don't think the 3e artwork is really all that anime, I do think that the oversized weapons and armor are.


----------



## ergeheilalt (Mar 3, 2004)

I for one, am a big fan of the new 3/3.5e art. I loved the full color, full page art in 2e. I even enjoyed the rather cartooned look that the old AD&D books (black cover with the demon idol and deal lizard men). Before I really got into D&D, I was into the art by the Brothers Hildebrant (the Sword of Shannara pose especially).

When I got into D&D, the PHB I had was the AD&D demon idol version. The black and white art on the overly thick pages was passing at best. The one picture that stands out in my mind as absolutely laughable was the old racial comparison. The “paladin in hell” was probably the best.

When I saw the 3e version I was astonished. Most of the book was full of colored pictures and what was presented was a vast improvement in a professional look. No longer did it look like TSR scoured the local middle school for “talent” but there was actual honest to goodness artistic talent.

Say what you will about how the art makes you feel, but the quality of the artwork is pretty good. Comic book, anime-inspired, (I’d say less than .5% of the art I’ve see in WotC books is really anime)  - some, yes. I do not see the problem with the buckle on the human’s shirt nor the “spikes” on the elf’s tunic in the racial profile. I’ve always drawn my own elves with slightly leafy looking stoles, sleeves, and cuffs. I wouldn’t call that anymore spiky than I would call Redgar a bookish wizard.

Sweeping generalizations of “Dungeon Punk” and “Anime Art” isn’t cool. I think WotC’s art choices are not entirely geared towards the Elmore generation, but towards the people who have yet to experience the joy that is D&D (  ). In a day and age where games are described with pixels, FPS, and min-system requirements; the art is going to be what attracts younger players. 

Like it or not, people judge books by the pictures. WotC realizes it’s not going to find a market with the dilettante’s of the art world, but with the what the kids like these days – yup you guessed it – Anime and Comic Book Style “Punk and Spikes and Piercing… etc”. We’ve all been snared. We like the game based on the contents – maybe not the art.

Lockwood, WAR, Elmore – all have a different style. All of us have our favorites (I like the elegance of Lockwood and the grit and menace of WAR, while I find Elmore’s stuff that needs to be framed, not stuck in an RPG book). I’ve taken one too many art classes to not have an appreciation for art. It bugs me when people call art crap. Now I’ve seen crap art – and it is just crap because I don’t like it. 

I think I’m rambling, so I’ll cut it short here.

Erge … rambling on to himself


----------



## Mark (Mar 3, 2004)

Bakshi's stuff in 1977's Wizards used to smack of a cross between anime and punk, IMO.

Here's a site with cells from the film -

http://www.thegremlin.com/bakshi.wizards.cels.html

And some particular ones I wanted to point out -

http://www.thegremlin.com/BAKSHI/12947bk.JPG

http://www.thegremlin.com/BAKSHI/12949bk.JPG

http://www.thegremlin.com/BAKSHI/12918bk.JPG

http://www.thegremlin.com/BAKSHI/12915bk.JPG

http://www.thegremlin.com/BAKSHI/12902bk.JPG

For no particular reason...


----------



## rounser (Mar 3, 2004)

Addendum to my post above...the FRCS has a heaps better feel to it than the core books, IMO.  If they have to go colour again for next edition (and they will), I reckon that's a much preferable look for D&D as far as style goes.


> While I don't think the 3e artwork is really all that anime, I do think that the oversized weapons and armor are.



Oversized weapons are what I'd generally associate more with Warhammer.


----------



## Anime Kidd (Mar 3, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Snip*
> 
> Oh, and anybody who says that the artwork in 3.x looks anime-ish needs a reality check.  If the 3.x artwork was anime-ish, then all of the men would look like women, and all the women would look about 14-years-old and be wearing schoolgirl outfits. Not to mention that the elves would have three-foot-long ears that stuck out horizontally from their heads.




There ain't nothing wrong elves with foot long ears is there? I actually prefer anime elves to the oh-so-slightly-pointed-ears of D&D's vulca ... err elves. 

As for 3E art, I like some of it but there are too many spikes involved. As for anime-ish looks... I don't see it. I do see a little influence creeping in, but not enough to merit such a label.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 3, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Not Erol Otus, but for diaglo specifically:
> Check out this [sarcasm]evocative[/sarcasm]




Erol Otus was mostly after my time.   

Try Keenan Powell.


----------



## Mystery Man (Mar 3, 2004)

Spikes, punk, goth, peircing...

If you look at the styles of 2E you see a lot of bad 80's haircuts. The art reflects on the trends of the times. 10 years from now the art will retro back to the bad haircuts of the 80's. 

I think you need to give the artists of today a bit more credit where credit it is due. I think a lot of the armor worn by the figures in the drawings has much potential to be functional. You have to start somewhere as an artist, that is you have to have a point of reference from which to do your research. I'll bet artists like Todd Lockwood and others have scetchbooks filled with drawings of real armor from every possible angle etc. At least from an artists perspective (I'm more the pre/post WWII New York school type) this is what I would be doing.


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 3, 2004)

> Erol Otus was mostly after my time.
> 
> Try Keenan Powell.




I fixed the link on the first page, but here the pic is again, just for you. . .







Quasqueton


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 3, 2004)

So far, I've liked most of the new art I've seen. I think I remember even seeing in one of the early previews for 3E that the art was specifically chosen to evoke that sense of 'this is new' and 'this is different'.

For the anime influences... I don't really see them, but if they are there.. fantastic. A lot of people talk about bringing in younger gamers. Guess what? Younger people don't buy comics very much at all.. but they do buy manga. They buy a fricking ton of it. Go to a bookstore and go to their graphic novel section. Look at the small traditional comics section, then look at those full top-to-bottom racks of bound translated manga. That is going to be the art influence of your next couple generations of gamers, and that's going to be what they look for.


----------



## Aaron L (Mar 3, 2004)

I just want to say that I love the art for 3E, especially Todd Lockwood and Wayne Reynolds.  I also have to say that a lot of people through around the term "anime style" art without having a clue as to what it means.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 3, 2004)

I have to get this of my chest:

I LOVE ANIME!

I agree with everyone who has said that art is "subjective". One person's masterpiece is another person's crap. Just because I like something, doesn't necessarily mean that it is better than what someone else likes, and vice-versa.

That being said, I love the current trend in 3.0/3.5 art today.

The way I see it, art is an ever-changing and "evolving" process. Art, in my opinion, is about change, creation, and inspiration. Would art really be art if it were to remain, static, unchanging, and year after year after year, artists produced the same type of work without any semblance of change?

I took a few art classes in college and am somewhat into art, but I'm no expert but correct me if I am wrong .

Take for instance some of the very first pieces of visual art: cave paintings. Those cave paintings, while still art, have "evolved" into the types of "art" that we are familiar with in modern times. In order for art to evolve, artists must experiment with new techniques, poses, subjects, ideas, etc. If artists didn't experiment, would we still be using cave paintings as our preferred medium? 

If I remember correctly, certain aspects of art were slowly discovered, such as perspective. Before the discovery of perspective, much of the art at the time had a 2D feel to it. For example, the "stereotypical" Egyptian art. Only after the discovery of perspective, did pictures start having a more "organic" feel, more depth.

That being said, I'm sure there were probably people during those times that didn't like these "new" forms of coming out. They might have "hated" the whole idea of perspective and wanted what they were accustomed to: 2D art and flat pictures.

I guess what I am trying to say is that most art is always changing. You can look at some illustrations from a few decades ago and can see a marked difference in style when compared with our "modern" art. This can be seen anywhere from the way cars look, to the way people dress, etc. Times change, people change, art changes. We can hate it, like it, but things will change whether we want them to or not.

Hence BASIC, Advanced, 2nd Edition, 3.0, and now, 3.5 

*I hope everyone got something meaningful out of this?


----------



## drnuncheon (Mar 3, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> I believe the 'dungeon-punk' style started either with DiTerlizzi or Planescape... or both.  It was definitely around before 3e was even planned by WotC.




I didn't mind it as much in Planescape, I think simply because that was meant to be a very unusual setting.  The various spikes and piercings and the like somehow fit in with all the other elements, where they don't jibe as well with "traditional" D&D.

J


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 3, 2004)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Obviously each person's tastes will differ, but I loathe the new look.  I won't list every piece I dislike (I'd be here all day), but only the ones I find most jarring.  I'd classify the following art as dungeonpunk/fetish/simply foolish looking:
> 
> PHB 3.5:
> Regdar p38- his armor would restrict his movement, and too many spikes
> ...




I totally agree - I have a Parkinson painting in my living room.  And I love Elmore - mostly because of the realism.  Looking at the old artwork from days gone by - like in 1st Ed especially, there was a sense of realism there.  

The punkish/cartoonish stuff just totally rubs me the wrong way.  I hate it.  It just isn't the right flavor for D&D.  It looks like some cheap anime.


----------



## Jody Butt (Mar 3, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> I totally agree - I have a Parkinson painting in my living room.  And I love Elmore - mostly because of the realism.  Looking at the old artwork from days gone by - like in 1st Ed especially, there was a sense of realism there.
> 
> The punkish/cartoonish stuff just totally rubs me the wrong way.  I hate it.  It just isn't the right flavor for D&D.  It looks like some cheap anime.




I have a Parkinson painting and an Elmore painting hanging on my wall, as well!  (I mean lithographs of the paintings, not the original paintings!)

I could never imagine hanging something by WAR on my wall.  Yuck.

Parkinson=fine art suitable for framing
WAR=cartoon crap not suitable for displaying on your wall


----------



## Kesh (Mar 3, 2004)

Ghostmoon said:
			
		

> And there I believe is what mostly drives what styles of art you like: What you grew up with.  My youth was spent watching 80's cartoons and pouring over moldering 1st edition AD&D books.  While I love much of the art in D&D 3E (and for that matter 2nd Edition), I will always have a great fondness for those earlier styles, such as Erol Otus, that are tied closest to my earliest memories of the game and genre.
> 
> Along with that thought, I am pretty sure the art in 3E is not aimed at me, the long time gamer.  Rather, it is aimed at the younger gamer, who probably grew up (or is growing up  ) with all sorts of anime on the TV, manga-styled superhero comics, etc.  I am sure that many of them will be complaining in 10 years from now, that whatever the art style morphs into, is not as good as back in good old days of D&D 3e.



 Er... I grew up on 80's cartoons and occasional glances through a friend's 1e books.

And I _like_ anime/manga.  Suffice to say, tastes can change. I still fondly remember the 'orc seige' painting from the 2e books, but I still like most of the 3e artwork as well. And the new orcs are a lot better than the pig-men, anyhow.


----------



## Kesh (Mar 3, 2004)

Jody Butt said:
			
		

> I have a Parkinson painting and an Elmore painting hanging on my wall, as well!  (I mean lithographs of the paintings, not the original paintings!)
> 
> I could never imagine hanging something by WAR on my wall.  Yuck.
> 
> ...



 Well, I completely disagree. Elmore is good, but so is WAR. I wouldn't mind having artwork by _both_ on my wall.

One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say.


----------



## Pants (Mar 3, 2004)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> I didn't mind it as much in Planescape, I think simply because that was meant to be a very unusual setting.  The various spikes and piercings and the like somehow fit in with all the other elements, where they don't jibe as well with "traditional" D&D.
> 
> J



Then again 'traditional' D&D is so very far from 'a realistic medieval world' that I find it weird that people are complaining about non-functional, more stylish armor, when robed figures are blowing up goblins in the background.  

EDIT: My sentence made no sense...


----------



## Mystic_23 (Mar 3, 2004)

I say that the only problem I have is the elves with their goofy oversize ears.  I like elves with pointy ears, just not pointy and...huge!


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 3, 2004)

Mystic_23 said:
			
		

> I say that the only problem I have is the elves with their goofy oversize ears.  I like elves with pointy ears, just not pointy and...huge!




Yes, and Leonard Nimoy should have played Legolas.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 3, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Yes, and Leonard Nimoy should have played Legolas.




no...Dr. Who...Tom Baker


----------



## Henry (Mar 3, 2004)

Y'know, If ENWorld survives for, say, another ten years, I'm going to smile knowingly when someone starts a thread by saying,

_"Y'know, what ever happened to the good, firey, classic art of 3rd edition?!?! This new crap drawn by Jorge Newmoon or Courtney Firriel isn't fit to line my garbage can!!! Whatever happened to Wayne Reynolds, or Todd Lockwood!! Now that was some art that fired my imagination! No Progressive Hennet or Alhandra here - Just these new iconics and their looks like they belong in a TV commercial! C'mon, White Wolf, what about the good stuff??!"_


----------



## buzz (Mar 3, 2004)

Quick summary of Buzz's opinion:

*Love* WAR, Lockwood, Wood, et al.
*Strongly dislike* Elmore, Parkinson, et al. Easley has his good and bad days.

Basically, I'm a chainmail-bikini-hater. Always have been, always will be. 

Nonetheless, I did think that the WoT RPG had more of a "classic" look I might have preferred for the core D&D books. The "dungeonpunk," though I generally like it, smacks me as more suited to FR.

My only complaint re: art is that WotC's products have been a little mediocre in this area recently, e.g., UA, CW, BoED, etc. I was really impressed with the art in the Eberron GenCon handout, but the recent, full-color previews they released were sorta disappointing, IMHO. I really can't understand why they never use Wood or Lockwood any more, or why they conitnue to throw work David Roach's way. Roach is simply terrible.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 3, 2004)

Larry Elmore is definately good, and one of the better D&D artists of all time.  Although I still don't like him as much as Lockwood or WAR.  Still, if I could point out something that puzzles me about Elmore's artwork, it would be this:  Has anybody else noticed that he seems to have a fixation with 1980s hairstyles?  I mean, even in his more recent paintings, the models all look like they stepped out of the mid-80s.

Or maybe it's just my imagination.


----------



## buzz (Mar 3, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Or maybe it's just my imagination.



Nope.

I'd say more, but I'd probably just annoy a lot of Elmore fans here.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Y'know, If ENWorld survives for, say, another ten years, I'm going to smile knowingly when someone starts a thread by saying,
> 
> _"Y'know, what ever happened to the good, firey, classic art of 3rd edition?!?! This new crap drawn by Jorge Newmoon or Courtney Firriel isn't fit to line my garbage can!!! Whatever happened to Wayne Reynolds, or Todd Lockwood!! Now that was some art that fired my imagination! No Progressive Hennet or Alhandra here - Just these new iconics and their looks like they belong in a TV commercial! C'mon, White Wolf, what about the good stuff??!"_



Well, that's just it, isn't it?  The reason some folks don't like the new art is because it doesn't "resonate" with some deep-seated idea they have with what D&D is.  And maybe that's part of the reason I _do_ like it; I never particularly "resonated" with D&D until 3e anyway; I was increasingly frustrated by the D&Disms in 1e to the point that I left for other games before 2e even came out.

I have to admit, though, that many of the replies here smack of complete illogic.  CRGreathouse already demonstrated quite well that calling 3e art cartoonish and critizising it for lacking backgrounds is frankly, somewhat ludicrous in light of the older art.  Saying, on the other hand, that you miss the occasional "flavor" piece of art that does nothing but provide flavor (and I'd argue that there's still some of that in the modern books anyway, although not much) on the other hand gets passed the emotional hyperbole and is actually something that we can all nod, and agree or disagree with on the specifics.  In other words, it's a much more useful type of post to make.


----------



## 13luAcid (Mar 3, 2004)

ok well i only got to half way through the second page of these posts...i couldn't take much more whining...ok let me first point out several things that should be fairly obvious...first this is a game that takes place in a fantasy world that we make up in our head...secondly no art is crap it is art and art is nothing but a preference...all this dungeon punk and goth whining is real really annoying...if you don't like it thats fine...sence it really doesn't exist you are really only whining because someone else said something and you want to be accepted...thirdly many of you simply missed the point of this thread and just repeat what the people before you said which reiterates what i stated above...fourthly wotc did not skimp on anything they simply made a decision that they thought would best benefit us. Its called compromise people...the artwork is alot more realistic then what it has been in the past, there is slight cartoonish theme but that isn't in everything...none of it however is anime in any sence whatsoever any who say different are just being ignorant fools. Only people looking for something to whine about don't like the new artwork...

now, my thoughts are a little jumbled so bare with me. this is mainly about what i said as the first statement. This game is played in your imagination. You don't need artists to tell you what happens in your imaginary world and if you hold all those pictures to be the letter of the law for how your world looks then it isn't really your world anyway and you missing the big  point of d&d which is total freedom. for the most part thats all i have to say. i hope most you will read this and learn something for the rest of you...well i just hope you learn that being ignorant to stupidity is just retarded=) now spend years figuring out what that means.


----------



## Red Spire Press (Mar 3, 2004)

Personally, Adrian Smith is my favorite artist. But then again, I'm biassed.  Oh, and here's an exclusive Adrian Smith Dark Legacies image just for fun (and to contribute to the thread):


----------



## kenjib (Mar 3, 2004)

13luAcid said:
			
		

> ok well i only got to half way through the second page of these posts...i couldn't take much more whining...




Now why am I supposed to read the rest of your post?  If you want me to take the time to read your argument, please give me the same respect.


----------



## Mystery Man (Mar 3, 2004)

13luAcid said:
			
		

> ok
> 
> now, my thoughts are a little jumbled.



No way!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 3, 2004)

3e art is MORE cartoonish?

I'm sorry, what was it, about the 1e Monster Manual, around the "L's" where they took basically a comic strip and used it for the monster picture?

I think people had it right when they called a lot of 1e and some 2e art "pulpy." It definately felt that way to me...and I didn't groove on it so much...

And I think perhaps some of the reason this art is being called 'cartoony' is because it is very....active....you don't get a sense of these guy sitting around in a setting, you get a sense of them caught in the action, like a photograph, or an animation cell...these pictures do look like they should be moving....and that's a good thing.


----------



## Gothmog (Mar 3, 2004)

Red Spire Press said:
			
		

> Personally, Adrian Smith is my favorite artist. But then again, I'm biassed.  Oh, and here's an exclusive Adrian Smith Dark Legacies image just for fun (and to contribute to the thread):




I love it!  Much better than the bland, uninspired crap WotC is putting in their books now.  It has atmosphere, soul, and you can feel the tension as the cleric/paladin and his chort face down two shadowy creatures.  Very nice!  Who says you need color to be great.

One of the guys I really like now who does a lot of work for FFG, Mongoose, and Green Ronin is David Griffith.  His art uses a more more modern style, but but captures action, excitement, nostalgia, and actually has soul unlike the WotC stuff by WAR, Lockwood, or Wood.  His poses and facial expressions are also superb- his art doesn't seem fake or modeled, but rather like you are there in the moment.  I also read on David's homepage that he recently got a commission by WotC to work on their books!  About time!  Congrats David, and I'm hoping to see a lot more of your work.  Here is a sample of some of his work that really captures the spirit of D&D:


----------



## Pants (Mar 3, 2004)

Red Spire Press:
Oh my god, look at that spikey armor, that's so dungeon-punky and anime styled! 

Pretty nice actually, although I don't like those faces...

David Griffith looks pretty mediocre.  Nothing really stands out as bad or good... at all.  Although, it does remind me of the cartoony 1st edition illustrations.


----------



## rounser (Mar 4, 2004)

> Oh my god, look at that spikey armor, that's so dungeon-punky and anime styled!
> 
> Pretty nice actually, although I don't like those faces...



It screams Warhammer (John Blanche doing charcoals in particular) to me.  Extra-chunky ornate armour and grim/ugly faces all in greys.  The metal star on his belt box and the hanging chains are Games Workshop art trademarks.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the inspiration for Mr Smith.


----------



## Red Spire Press (Mar 4, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Red Spire Press:
> Oh my god, look at that spikey armor, that's so dungeon-punky and anime styled!



Hey I've never once complained about spikey armor!  As far as facial detail goes, it needs to be seen up close in full resolution to be appreciated. Adrian's attention to detai is mind boggling.


----------



## Red Spire Press (Mar 4, 2004)

rounser said:
			
		

> It screams Warhammer (John Blanche doing charcoals in particular) to me.  Extra-chunky ornate armour and grim/ugly faces all in greys.  The metal star on his belt box and the hanging chains are Games Workshop art trademarks.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the inspiration for Mr Smith.



Other way around actually. Adrian brings his style to all of his projects, which is why we chose him for Dark Legacies. It perfectly suited the dark, realistic, pseudo-modern vibe we were going for.


----------



## Pants (Mar 4, 2004)

Red Spire Press said:
			
		

> Hey I've never once complained about spikey armor!



I know.   
More of a jab at those who do.


----------



## rounser (Mar 4, 2004)

> Other way around actually. Adrian brings his style to all of his projects, which is why we chose him for Dark Legacies. It perfectly suited the dark, realistic, pseudo-modern vibe we were going for.



I stand corrected for getting it backwards.  He _is_ a Warhammer artist, no wonder it looks familiar.


----------



## Buttercup (Mar 4, 2004)

Jody Butt said:
			
		

> 99% of 3E artwork is total, low-brow crap



See, this proves that appreciation for any sort of art is totally subjective.  I like the new art, and while I want to avoid insulting anyone's taste, surely no one is suggesting that Larry Elmore's work is high brow?  I mean come on.  

The New Yorker is high brow. The pieces in the Museum of Modern Art or the Guggenheim are high brow.  D&D artwork, from any edition, by any artist, is not.

Oh, and for the record, I can't stand Elmore's work.


----------



## Parlan (Mar 4, 2004)

rounser said:
			
		

> I stand corrected for getting it backwards.  He _is_ a Warhammer artist, no wonder it looks familiar.




That s funny. I’ve been reading all these posts thinking “well, I like the 3rd ed art okay, but it doesn’t truly evoke fantasy for me. I wonder what does?”

Saw Red Spire Press’ pictures (Even before reading rounser’s posts) and thought “bingo, WFRP!” I LOVE the art in that thing. Dark, moody charcoals. Chunky armor. And chains, lots of hanging chains!!!


----------



## Red Spire Press (Mar 4, 2004)

Parlan said:
			
		

> That s funny. I’ve been reading all these posts thinking “well, I like the 3rd ed art okay, but it doesn’t truly evoke fantasy for me. I wonder what does?”
> 
> Saw Red Spire Press’ pictures (Even before reading rounser’s posts) and thought “bingo, WFRP!” I LOVE the art in that thing. Dark, moody charcoals. Chunky armor. And chains, lots of hanging chains!!!



Indeed. Which is why we're bringing it over to the d20 realm. Dark Legacies needed art to match the rich, deep, gritty atmosphere of the setting.

Edi: sorry for hijacking the thread, folks.


----------



## ergeheilalt (Mar 4, 2004)

Why is it that people who don't like the current artwork adorning the WotC books call it crap? This is one of my peeves. Art is not crap, it just is. (with the exception of that one piece covered with elephant dung - that was crap  ). 

Any good discussion presents facts, and ladies, gentlemen - I can tell you with the utmost certainty, that the art in the PHB, DMG, MM, etc is not crap. I see no excriment hanging from the pages og my books - nor do I catch the oder either. Could we forgo the "crap" flinging, I just don't think it's showing respect for otherr people's opinions.

Erge


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 4, 2004)

ergeheilalt said:
			
		

> Why is it that people who don't like the current artwork adorning the WotC books call it crap? This is one of my peeves. Art is not crap, it just is. (with the exception of that one piece covered with elephant dung - that was crap  ).
> 
> Any good discussion presents facts, and ladies, gentlemen - I can tell you with the utmost certainty, that the art in the PHB, DMG, MM, etc is not crap. I see no excriment hanging from the pages og my books - nor do I catch the oder either. Could we forgo the "crap" flinging, I just don't think it's showing respect for otherr people's opinions.
> 
> Erge



 Although I like the art in the 3e books, I think that the people who hate it still have the right to refer to it as crap if they want to.  If you're going to spend time on internet forums, one of the first things you'll have to learn how to do is accept that people are gonna say things that you don't like.

For example, I have some friends who are fans of the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion.  They love it and think it's great.  I, on the other hand, consider it to be pretentious crap, and have not sugar-coated my words when they asked me about it.

So, I don't mind if people refer to 3e artwork as crap, even though I love it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 4, 2004)

> So, I don't mind if people refer to 3e artwork as crap, even though I love it.




Going with that idea, do you mind if we refer to the arguments against 3e artwork as being crap? What about the people pushing those ideas? 

It's a slippery slope...I think expressing why you don't like art goes a lot further to being a contribution to the discussion than just griping and insulting it....people like things you don't sometimes, and you not liking them doesn't make them crap.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 4, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Going with that idea, do you mind if we refer to the arguments against 3e artwork as being crap? What about the people pushing those ideas?




Go right ahead. 



> It's a slippery slope...I think expressing why you don't like art goes a lot further to being a contribution to the discussion than just griping and insulting it....people like things you don't sometimes, and you not liking them doesn't make them crap.




Agreed.  Giving reasons about why you think a piece of art is crap makes your post a lot more credible than just saying "3e artwork sucks.  1e and 2e artwork is superior in every way."

Although to me, using buzzwords like "dungeonpunk" as a way of equating 3e artwork to crap isn't a very compelling argument.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 4, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> I really can't understand why they never use Wood or Lockwood any more,



Lockwood was let go by WotC some time ago.  I'm not sure if Sam Wood is still a staff member there but probably not if you're not seeing any work from him.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 4, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Lockwood was let go by WotC some time ago.  I'm not sure if Sam Wood is still a staff member there but probably not if you're not seeing any work from him.



 Well, Lockwood did do artwork in Draconomicon, so it appears that he still does occasionally do illustrations for WotC.


----------



## buzz (Mar 4, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Lockwood was let go by WotC some time ago.  I'm not sure if Sam Wood is still a staff member there but probably not if you're not seeing any work from him.



Right, but I figure most artists freelance. They don't need to be on the payroll for WotC to use them. They're certanly better than a lot of the artists who get spotlight time now, IMHO.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

Uhh... nevermind.  I should read further before I post, right?


----------



## buzz (Mar 4, 2004)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> See, this proves that appreciation for any sort of art is totally subjective.



Keep in mind, though, that Jody's whole purpose in life is to chime in on 3e/3.5e threads and tell everyone how much all aspects of them suck. 

But, yeah, it's all pretty subjective.

I still don't like Elmore, though.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Well, Lockwood did do artwork in Draconomicon, so it appears that he still does occasionally do illustrations for WotC.



So did Sam Wood.  Both are freelancing, though.  Sam Wood is doing a lot of Malhavoc Press artwork, for instance.

For what it's worth, I like Sam WOod quite a bit better than Lockwood or WAR -- to me, _he's_ the iconic 3e artist.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 4, 2004)

To-may-to, to-mah-to. 

I like the art in every edition, although I'm not very familiar with 2e's art, as I never played that addition, except for seeing covers and the like.

What I truly loved about 1e art: the evocation of adventurous images, and not just heroic character studies or still-shots. Pictures like Emiricol the Chaotic riding hard through town, being chased, or the cover of the PHB...you were looking at a story _in progress_, a tale being told that you wanted to know more about. 3e has fewer examples of this, though it does have it. One of my favorites is Tordek and Regdar attacking the drow wizard with the staff as the ground explodes around them, for example. The picture of the adventurers in the tavern, checking the map is another.

The incorrect assignment of the term 'anime' to the current art has already been discussed multiple times, so I won't go into it again, other than to point out that if you placed Hamtaro, Master Keaton, FLCL, Lupin III and Fist of the Northstar side-by-side...you wouldn't make that claim as readily, if at all.

What I do think they need to scale back some in 3e art: too much mish-mash. No one has a simple set of armor any longer. They're all like Hennet, with what looks like pieces of four different outfits thrown on at the same time. Some leather here, some chain there....that's fine once in a while, but could we occasionally just have a guy with chain and a tabard, wielding a weapon, for pity's sake?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 4, 2004)

A Man With Wisdom said:
			
		

> Although to me, using buzzwords like "dungeonpunk" as a way of equating 3e artwork to crap isn't a very compelling argument.




Indeed, "dungeonpunk" makes me think good things....this ain't yo father's sword and sorcery kind of deal....it's new,it's fresh....if 3e is dungeonpunk, sign me up as a fan. 



> Keep in mind, though, that Jody's whole purpose in life is to chime in on 3e/3.5e threads and tell everyone how much all aspects of them suck.




But....but....Jody Butt is not dialgo is he?


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 4, 2004)

ergeheilalt said:
			
		

> Why is it that people who don't like the current artwork adorning the WotC books call it crap? This is one of my peeves. Art is not crap, it just is. (with the exception of that one piece covered with elephant dung - that was crap  ).
> 
> Any good discussion presents facts, and ladies, gentlemen - I can tell you with the utmost certainty, that the art in the PHB, DMG, MM, etc is not crap. I see no excriment hanging from the pages og my books - nor do I catch the oder either. Could we forgo the "crap" flinging, I just don't think it's showing respect for otherr people's opinions.
> 
> Erge




I don't recall calling it "crap" - I said I hated it, for the reason that it just doesn't fit my notion of D&D, carefully cultivated over 20+ years.  

Not all of it, though I can't recall any 3E art in the main books that I particularly liked - that could be because I haven't had time to crack a book in two years.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> I don't recall calling it "crap" - I said I hated it, for the reason that it just doesn't fit my notion of D&D, carefully cultivated over 20+ years.



Carefully cultivated?  Really?  I'd expect for most folks, it's rather haphazardly and subconsciously cultivated.

And, as has been pointed out already, it's not like this kind of art was new to 3e, so your "careful cultivation" has apparently missed the last 5-10 years of a significant chunk of D&D art.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 4, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> What I truly loved about 1e art: the evocation of adventurous images, and not just heroic character studies or still-shots. Pictures like Emiricol the Chaotic riding hard through town, being chased, or the cover of the PHB...you were looking at a story _in progress_, a tale being told that you wanted to know more about. 3e has fewer examples of this, though it does have it. One of my favorites is Tordek and Regdar attacking the drow wizard with the staff as the ground explodes around them, for example. The picture of the adventurers in the tavern, checking the map is another.




I have to agree with an earlier comment that the iconics have detracted from the inspirational quality of the artwork in the book, and it really ties into this statement.  Even when there are adventurous images, all of the motion lies in what they are doing rather than the mystery of who they are, what they are thinking, and why they are doing what they are doing (which is really what makes Emiricol the Chaotic such a good picture).

Unfortunately, the iconics are valuable branding/marketing tools.  While I don't think it was intentional, I think we are seeing a loss of inspiration to serve marketing purposes.  3e has had, overall, an amazing slick marketting machine far beyond industry standards to date.


----------



## evildm (Mar 4, 2004)

I find the general style to be interesting and evocative of one's imagination far more than any old Easley or Elmore picture, and Elmore's always been one of my favorite artists. 

I also don't agree with the statments that the art is anime-like. It's not. Not all of it, anyway. In recent FR books, a few of the illustrations have had anime-like elements to them, but not much. Additionally, this art is the exeption, not the rule.

Here's an example from Races of Faerun: 






These sorts of pictures are few and far between. As for me? I actually like them quite a bit. I think they put a much needed spin on D&D that classic artists just can't provide.

The place you'll find the most anime art in D&D right now is in Dungeon and Dragon mags, because these guys have been doing illustrations: http://www.weewung.com/, and frankly, I think they're really talented artists.


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 4, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> I have to agree with an earlier comment that the iconics have detracted from the inspirational quality of the artwork in the book, and it really ties into this statement.  Even when there are adventurous images, all of the motion lies in what they are doing rather than the mystery of who they are, what they are thinking, and why they are doing what they are doing (which is really what makes Emiricol the Chaotic such a good picture).
> 
> Unfortunately, the iconics are valuable branding/marketing tools.  While I don't think it was intentional, I think we are seeing a loss of inspiration to serve marketing purposes.  3e has had, overall, an amazing slick marketting machine far beyond industry standards to date.




You just nailed it.  I liked the mysterious feeling one would get from much of the 1E art.  It was just there, often without much explanation.  A small scene in some shadowed dungeon or lowly field on a windswept plain.  Like some rough sketch made of a real event, one long forgotten, you would look at it and try and determine what they were thinking, what was happening?  It really captured the imagination - something you can't do where you just have cartoonish looking (sometimes by style, sometimes by content - lots of buckles and spikes in armor being the proverbial example) iconic looking straight at you in a portrait that makes it clear the only thoughts involved are "look at me, I'm a cool iconic."  There just isn't any mystery there.  There isn't anything to capture the imagination in quite the way you could where there are so many questions left unanswered in a scenic artwork (as opposed to a portrait).  Perhaps that is the big distinction - the 1E books had many "scenes" of indeterminate nature while 3E just has lots of illustrations / portraits.  The style just makes it that much less palatable to me.


----------



## buzz (Mar 4, 2004)

evildm said:
			
		

> The place you'll find the most anime art in D&D right now is in Dungeon and Dragon mags, because these guys have been doing illustrations: http://www.weewung.com/, and frankly, I think they're really talented artists.



Me, too. The last few issues of _Dungeon_ have rocked, art-wise, IMHO. And they have plenty of evocative scenes, e.g, the halflings posting the circus poster in the latest (108 or 109). I wish the books I pay $34.95 could look as good as these magazines that I pay $7.00 for.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> You just nailed it.  I liked the mysterious feeling one would get from much of the 1E art.  It was just there, often without much explanation.  A small scene in some shadowed dungeon or lowly field on a windswept plain.



Altalazar, I sincerely hope you're not trying to argue that a picture of a _frikkin' field_ is a better addition to a D&D book than what we have today.


----------



## Jody Butt (Mar 4, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Me, too. The last few issues of _Dungeon_ have rocked, art-wise, IMHO. And they have plenty of evocative scenes, e.g, the halflings posting the circus poster in the latest (108 or 109). I wish the books I pay $34.95 could look as good as these magazines that I pay $7.00 for.




Rebecca Guay (sp?) and those four Asian guys that are doing all of the art in Dungeon these days was what I was alluding to by the anime comment.

Anime sucks.  Keep it out of D&D.

It seems that D&D is designed for kids that like this sort of cartoon crap . . . ridiculously huge swords, and disproportionate everything!

The art, the miniatures, and the 3.$ moneygrab are the three reasons I left D&D.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 4, 2004)

You guys might like to take a peek at this:

The Secord Files: Top 10 Greatest Pieces of 1st Edition Art 
http://www.fierydragon.com/DB/DB_JUL09_2003.htm

Me? I like Elmore (his skies are breathtaking), Parkinson (the original ToEE cover, Lord Soth's Charge), DiTerlizzi (loved Planescape), Brom (ditto on Dark Sun), Todd Lockwood, Sam Wood and Wayne Reynolds.


----------



## Wereserpent (Mar 4, 2004)

Jody Butt said:
			
		

> Rebecca Guay (sp?) and those four Asian guys that are doing all of the art in Dungeon these days was what I was alluding to by the anime comment.
> 
> Anime sucks.  Keep it out of D&D.
> 
> ...




Anime>You

Nah, just playing.  I have nothing else to do but wonder the forums.


----------



## buzz (Mar 4, 2004)

FYI, Rebecca Guay is about as anime as Norman Rockwell.


----------



## buzz (Mar 4, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You guys might like to take a peek at this:
> 
> The Secord Files: Top 10 Greatest Pieces of 1st Edition Art
> http://www.fierydragon.com/DB/DB_JUL09_2003.htm



You DAMN right that Trampier's got the top four slots!!! 

Buzz, who bought the _Dragon_ CD-ROM archive mainly so he'd have a complete collection of "Wormy."


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The Secord Files: Top 10 Greatest Pieces of 1st Edition Art
> http://www.fierydragon.com/DB/DB_JUL09_2003.htm



For most of those, I really have to wonder why they are considered great, classic works of D&D art.  I don't like many of them at all.


----------



## Mystery Man (Mar 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For most of those, I really have to wonder why they are considered great, classic works of D&D art. I don't like many of them at all.



I'd go with "great" on all but #3. The ink job was not done well. Should have gone the charcoal route.
The choice of word "greatest" is definitely subjective.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> I'd go with "great" on all but #3. The ink job was not done well. Should have gone the charcoal route.
> The choice of word "greatest" is definitely subjective.



Oh, sure it's subjective.  But as far as I'm concerned, the technique on most of those older pieces is atrocious.  The proportions, the perspective, the composition, the technique --- all bad.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Mar 4, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> You just nailed it. I liked the mysterious feeling one would get from much of the 1E art. It was just there, often without much explanation. A small scene in some shadowed dungeon or lowly field on a windswept plain. Like some rough sketch made of a real event, one long forgotten, you would look at it and try and determine what they were thinking, what was happening? It really captured the imagination - something you can't do where you just have cartoonish looking (sometimes by style, sometimes by content - lots of buckles and spikes in armor being the proverbial example) iconic looking straight at you in a portrait that makes it clear the only thoughts involved are "look at me, I'm a cool iconic." There just isn't any mystery there. There isn't anything to capture the imagination in quite the way you could where there are so many questions left unanswered in a scenic artwork (as opposed to a portrait). Perhaps that is the big distinction - the 1E books had many "scenes" of indeterminate nature while 3E just has lots of illustrations / portraits. The style just makes it that much less palatable to me.




Art which invokes mystery to me:


----------



## buzz (Mar 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh, sure it's subjective.  But as far as I'm concerned, the technique on most of those older pieces is atrocious.  The proportions, the perspective, the composition, the technique --- all bad.



If I understand you correctly, you're dissing Dave Trampier.

Boo!!! Worst Joshua Dyal evar.


----------



## buzz (Mar 4, 2004)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> Art which invokes mystery to me...



Pics 1 and 3 are good exmaples of what I consider to be the creeping mediocrity in recent WotC books. 2 is quite good, and 4 (the WAR piece) rocks.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Boo!!! Worst Joshua Dyal evar.




Sorry, buzz, I just can't take that seriously.  Now, if you'd said:


> B00!!!!!!1111!!!  WROST JOSHA DYALL EVAR!!!!!!111!!



on the other hand, I might think you had something.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 4, 2004)

I really hate calling the D&D artwork Anime. You want anime? THIS is (sorta) anime!


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 4, 2004)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> PHB 3.5:
> Alhandra p43- again, silly armor that leaves her abdomin and legs unprotected
> Devis p105- ok, he's a bard, but even that costume is a little to froo-froo




p 105. Dude, I just got back from a Ren Fest, trust me, to modern eyes a lot of historic costumes look quite froo-froo. Hell, I was wearing authentic outfit with no less than five buckles up the front and I barely avoided having a costume nazi put me in tights.

pg. 43, yeah, because Elmore never did the same.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 4, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> ....left unanswered in a scenic artwork (as opposed to a portrait). Perhaps that is the big distinction - the 1E books had many "scenes" of indeterminate nature while 3E just has lots of illustrations / portraits. The style just makes it that much less palatable to me.



Generally I like the portraits just as well as anything else; more so, sometimes. I'm always looking for representations of various characters and with a portrait type, with a minimum of background, it's a lot easier to say 'That's the mayor of the town', or 'That's the young man you rescued last adventure'.


----------



## Hawkshere (Mar 4, 2004)

My fave Trampier for mood setting remains his DM Screen montage.  I still use my old 1st edition DM screen today.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 4, 2004)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Oh, and for the record, I can't stand Elmore's work.




Wow, 9 times out of 10 if I see a Buttercup post it's almost what I would say.

Except I like Elmore...but my favorite /cringe is Caldwell.  Most people don't like him for some reason.

Also like Frazzetta, Royo, Escher....


----------



## Olive (Mar 4, 2004)

I can't believe that the people who are complaining about modern 3e art being too anime are the same people who like 1e art. Look at Jeff Dee's 'Paladin' piece. That helmet is like something out of _battle for the planet_! And the jumpsuit!

But basically I thinkt he technical proficiency of modern artists blows away the 1e ones, which, havign looked at that thread, I find way too cartoony to be evocative in any way.


----------



## buzz (Mar 5, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Sorry, buzz, I just can't take that seriously.



Indeed. Your smiley-fu is stronger than my own. I have brought shame upon my house...


----------



## Lela (Mar 5, 2004)

The first thing my group does when someone tosses a new book the table is go through and look at the pictures.  Usually it's just one person at a time but just about everyone does it.  Eventually we all start making comments.

What we've really come down to is that there's very often a huge amount of detail left out of the images.  Background, texture, equipment.  It's just not there.  Personally, it drives me nuts.  There's so little emotion projected from those images.  But when I run across a good one I know it.

Quasqueton: Take a look at Mystra in F&P.  Normally, I don't care much about the spikes or basic outfit but that is definitally not how Mystra would dress.  She has a personality that's been defined by multiple FR books.  The books, incidentally, have described her outfits on occation.  That's not it.  Or anywhere close.
Now, she may one day be forced to subsume the Shaddow Weave into herself and there are several mentions of what that would do to her personality.  That picture could easily represent that new her, should it ever come about.


----------



## s/LaSH (Mar 5, 2004)

A question regarding the 'lack of background' critique:

Where _are_ the iconic characters standing?

In front of a shining white castle that would put Disneyland to shame?

Upon the windswept wastes of a sunblighted, dying world?

By the King's Arms tavern?

In the creepy old woods, under the gaze of a thousand tiny eyes?

All of the above...?

Does lack of background stifle or stimulate imagination, and promote the creation of new worlds? And did the 3e dev team have this in mind when their ad campaign encouraged you to think outside the box?



A question regarding the assimilation of manga-inspired action and verve into illustrative style:

What do you look forward to describing in game?

Twelve days of trudging across the moors?

Ducking under a gnoll's halberd thrust, feeling it part your hair?

Standing with your back to a scenic vista, looking pretty?

Screaming defiance at the dragon?

Working late into the night in your lab, doing things that will never be used on an adventure?

Hitting the orc so hard he falls to the ground three times?

Odd-numbered options are old-school illustrations. Even-numbered options are things I tend to do in-game, and have noticed a distinct trend towards the portrayal thereof recently. Say what you will about WAR, action and energy are something I've always wanted in my campaigns.



I freely acknowledge that I'm using _reducio ad absurdum_ here; it's my argumentative equivalent of a two-by-four with a nail in it (unsubtle and undiscriminating, but everyone takes notice). Not all my points are strictly accurate. But I do believe they're worth considering...

(And I love Caldwell's work.)


----------



## Oni (Mar 5, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You guys might like to take a peek at this:
> 
> The Secord Files: Top 10 Greatest Pieces of 1st Edition Art
> http://www.fierydragon.com/DB/DB_JUL09_2003.htm





Out of that whole list the only pics that spark any real interest in me are the Caldwell, and the Parkinson.  

I'd heard so much about this Emirikol the Chaotic image, and had really built up an exciting picture in my head, and to finally see it is a real let down.  It isn't at all the mysterious and exciting picture I keep hearing about.  I think nostalgia is playing a large part here in the perception of quality and storytelling.  Obviously this very much suits some peoples taste, but I'm very glad that the art of the game has moved away from this.


----------



## rounser (Mar 5, 2004)

> Altalazar, I sincerely hope you're not trying to argue that a picture of a frikkin' field is a better addition to a D&D book than what we have today.



Oh for goodness sake, now you're just being silly...some examples from 1E:

1) The adventurers peering greedily over a skull skirted chest in the MM next to the treasure tables.
2) The adventurers looking at a magic mouth in the PHB.
3) The troll winding up a ball of twine as it follows a hapless adventurer through a maze in the PHB.
4) The catoblepases (catoplebi? catoblepussies?) in the marsh which some adventurers are confronting in the PHB.
5) The theif mugging someone in the DMG.

What few setpieces the 3E books do have lack the atmosphere of these, and seem to be largely devoid of context and personality.  YMMD.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 5, 2004)

For those of you who hate the 3E art, is there any recent artwork put out nowadays you DO like? And why all the anime bashing?

In my opinion, I think this thread is similar to the old "why my edition is better than your edition" thread. Just add "art" into the equation.

There are always going to be people who swear by the "good-ol-days" and who hate the newest thing that comes out, and vice-versa.

Live with it!


----------



## kenjib (Mar 5, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> For those of you who hate the 3E art, is there any recent artwork put out nowadays you DO like? And why all the anime bashing?
> 
> In my opinion, I think this thread is similar to the old "why my edition is better than your edition" thread. Just add "art" into the equation.
> 
> ...




I like lots of the stuff coming from d20 publishers.  It's mostly the WotC stuff that I've been addressing, really.

EDIT:  And I mentioned Sardihna and Swekel from WotC as stuff I like, too.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 5, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> I like lots of the stuff coming from d20 publishers.  It's mostly the WotC stuff that I've been addressing, really.
> 
> EDIT:  And I mentioned Sardihna and Swekel from WotC as stuff I like, too.




Cool, I'll have to check these artists out.

I could be wrong, my general feel was that many of the people who did not like the art from 3E, meant the art in general, including WoTC and other d20 publishers.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 5, 2004)

rounser said:
			
		

> Oh for goodness sake, now you're just being silly...some examples from 1E:
> 
> 1) The adventurers peering greedily over a skull skirted chest in the MM next to the treasure tables.
> 2) The adventurers looking at a magic mouth in the PHB.
> ...




I always did love that troll.

Well teh setpieces I see in the 3E books (don't have the 3.5) are things people have already said "oh that sucks!" like the punk orcs and elves fighting ina dungeon in the DMG.  Personally I picture Lidda with the backfired magic item as having been either in combat and had it backfire or she was sneaking along an alley and needed to use it to get past someone.  Granted the blown back hair and singes looks like something out of Looney Tunes, but I always loved that too so I'm kinda fine with that.

Hagen


----------



## Lela (Mar 5, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> For those of you who hate the 3E art, is there any recent artwork put out nowadays you DO like? And why all the anime bashing?
> 
> In my opinion, I think this thread is similar to the old "why my edition is better than your edition" thread. Just add "art" into the equation.




Oh, posh.  Keep the Straw Man and Ad Hominem out of this.

Actually, I enjoy anime.  Usually, though, they tend to tell a story and have other elements besides the character involved.  Depending on the anime they even add realistic textures.

To take an extreme D&D example, open up F&P to the sections on lesser known deities.  Notice that they look like they were done in water color.  I don't mind watercolor (though it isn't my favorite) but that's not what I'm looking for to spark my imagnination.  The 3E core books all feel like that to some degree.  At least to my group.  It feels like they were a rush to put something down and move on.  I realize it's necisary but that doesn't mean I would give them an award for art.

3.5e is quite different.  They really put time into the new artwork and I get a much better feeling from it.  Especially in the MM.  The monsters actually feel like they're coming alive and being all monstery.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 5, 2004)

Lela said:
			
		

> Oh, posh.  Keep the Straw Man and Ad Hominem out of this.




Sure, if you can tell me what the above means. Although, I don't think I will like the answer.


----------



## rounser (Mar 5, 2004)

> For those of you who hate the 3E art, is there any recent artwork put out nowadays you DO like? And why all the anime bashing?



Yup.  Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.  Same artists, different style.  And I'm not one of the "anime bashers" and don't agree that it looks like anime (anime art with a D&D vibe would look quite cool I think).


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 5, 2004)

rounser said:
			
		

> Yup.  Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.  Same artists, different style.  And I'm not one of the "anime bashers" and don't agree that it looks like anime (anime art with a D&D vibe would look quite cool I think).




It does, it's called Record of Lodoss War (first series I've seen, not the second).

Lost my train of thought.  For the guy bitching about the way Mystra loks in the Faiths and Pantheons book I have to strongly disagree.  I mean she just got dumped by a real stiff (well he IS Lord Death ya know) and now it's time for her to strut her stuff and show off.  Or,  a bit more seriously, consideri t this way.  Mystra has MANY different followers and wouldn't the goddess present herself to her followers in a fashion that fits with their beliefs and such rather than always staying some boring sorceress in a robe?  I think it's a very cool picture and a defnite change for Mystra.  I liked it and wouldn't mind seeing more of it.  At the time I first saw this image, WOTC had announced that novel on Loviatar and my wife and I were perusing the book for ideas and saw their respective pix and thought they were both rather cool.

I have an overactive imagination.  Scenes can be cool from time to time, but I imagine some very cool stuff with the more open pictures 3E provided

Hagen


----------



## Pants (Mar 5, 2004)

Trampier =  teh suck, the proportions, the shading, all awful.
Otus = I hate his style
Parkinson = rocks.  Parkinson has always been good.
Caldwell = pretty damn impressive
Dee = man, that paladin has the most illogical looking helmet ever.  Besides, what kind of armor is THAT? 
Sutherland = read my analysis of Trampier

All IMO of course.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 5, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> For those of you who hate the 3E art, is there any recent artwork put out nowadays you DO like? And why all the anime bashing?



Probably some of the best art I've seen in a non-WOTC product is in _Dark Haven Legends: The Eldest Son_ (artists Tim Collier and James Burrell), and in the Malhavok Press books.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 5, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Probably some of the best art I've seen in a non-WOTC product is in _Dark Haven Legends: The Eldest Son_ (artists Tim Collier and James Burrell), and in the Malhavok Press books.




And on a vaguely related thread, here's a quick pimp move:my friend Chris Boll does the best cartography work out there.  He works for Necromancer Games mostly but he has also done some other work....a recent CoC book had a remake of an old map and they had Chris do that in trade for some goodies.  Naturally they forgot his credit, but he wrote himself in as the cartographer as if he had been the 20's guy who did it.

Heh.  Sorry had to do that.

Hagen


----------



## Lela (Mar 5, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Lost my train of thought.  For the guy bitching about the way Mystra loks in the Faiths and Pantheons book I have to strongly disagree.  I mean she just got dumped by a real stiff (well he IS Lord Death ya know) and now it's time for her to strut her stuff and show off.  Or,  a bit more seriously, consideri t this way.  Mystra has MANY different followers and wouldn't the goddess present herself to her followers in a fashion that fits with their beliefs and such rather than always staying some boring sorceress in a robe?  I think it's a very cool picture and a defnite change for Mystra.




It's certainly a change but there's nothing to support it, unless there's been a recent change to FR that I don't know about (which is entirely possible).  But at the time the piece was created there wasn't.

As to her having many different kinds of worshipers, yes she does.  But, no she doesn't change for any of them.  In fact, you may recall that she was nearly thrown from goddhood for her unwillingness to assume the full office.

Of course, I'd be happy to have you point out a new FR book involving a change with Mystra.  I enjoy her storylines.



			
				dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Sure, if you can tell me what the above means. Although, I don't think I will like the answer.




Ad Hominem is attacking the person rather than the argument and Straw Man is distorting the argument to make it easier to disprove.  I meant no offense by either.  Thus the posh.


----------



## evildm (Mar 5, 2004)

rounser said:
			
		

> ...anime art with a D&D vibe would look quite cool I think.




*cough*

http://www.weewung.com/gallery/arnistotle/duncov.jpg 

http://www.weewung.com/gallery/arnistotle/05.jpg 

 

(I'd post the full images, but they're huge, so links are more prudent)


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Mar 5, 2004)

I like both the old art and the new. Dee’s Paladin looks more like a comic book super hero than a DnD character, and that’s ok with me. I don’t mind pictures of dungeon-punk super heroes. I also like images with backgrounds and implied stories, like the one found on page 160 of the 3.5 DMG (notice the law Vs chaos). Both styles are good for their own reasons.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 5, 2004)

Lela said:
			
		

> Ad Hominem is attacking the person rather than the argument and Straw Man is distorting the argument to make it easier to disprove.  I meant no offense by either.  Thus the posh.




Thanks! No offense taken. 

I wasn't intentionally trying to attack people, more along the lines that I believe that people will like what they like and dislike what they dislike, regardless of what evidence is presented before them. I guess I'm trying to say people will have opinions and usually stick to them, one way or another. Did that make any sense?

Anyways, my opinion is that I like the WoTC art in general and anime as well. However, sometimes the quality of artwork can fluctuate between good and bad, but I guess that is true of many products. 

I guess I prefer products to stick with 1 or even 2 artists and keep the styles consistant. Although a product can have many different artists, all good, I think it detracts from the overall product by not having consistancy.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Mar 5, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> For those of you who hate the 3E art, is there any recent artwork put out nowadays you DO like? And why all the anime bashing?
> 
> In my opinion, I think this thread is similar to the old "why my edition is better than your edition" thread. Just add "art" into the equation.
> 
> ...




I like the artwork in the Scarred Lands DM Screen.  I also like some of the artwork in Kalamar's Player's Guide, Green Ronin's Avatar's Handbook, and the several Malhavoc pdfs I own.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Mar 5, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> I can't believe that the people who are complaining about modern 3e art being too anime are the same people who like 1e art. Look at Jeff Dee's 'Paladin' piece. That helmet is like something out of _battle for the planet_! And the jumpsuit!




I just looked at that picture and now I have _Flash, ah-ah!_ looping through my head.


----------



## Olive (Mar 5, 2004)

I do think that the people saying that 3e art has no perspective/context have a point. It does seem to be lots of individuals with no background. Not always tho. _Complete Warrior _ has a couple of pieces that might make people feel better tho. Check out pages 107, 109 and 124 (although if you hate WAR you still won't like that last one.) Actually a lot of the art in that book is action scenes, except for the core class and PrC pages.


----------



## buzz (Mar 5, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Trampier =  teh suck, the proportions, the shading, all awful.
> Otus = I hate his style
> Parkinson = rocks.  Parkinson has always been good.
> Caldwell = pretty damn impressive
> ...



I get the impressoin that people who like the Parkinson/Elmore stuff tend to not like art that's good... I MEAN ART LIKE TRAMPIER'S and, uh, 3e. Yeah. And vice-versa.


----------



## buzz (Mar 5, 2004)

And, FWIW, Trampier was one of the few 1e artists who had a clue about perspective and shading, and all that tehcnical mumbo-jumbo. 

Buzz, former art student-type


----------



## Pants (Mar 5, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> I get the impressoin that people who like the Parkinson/Elmore stuff tend to not like art that's good... I MEAN ART LIKE TRAMPIER'S and, uh, 3e. Yeah. And vice-versa.



Elmore is okay, nothing real special.  Parkinson can draw a mean picture though, I really like his 'Lord Soth's Charge' for Dragonlance.  Shows both artistic quality and coolness.

Trampier... only thing he's got going for himself is nostalgia... nothing personal of course.



> And, FWIW, Trampier was one of the few 1e artists who had a clue about perspective and shading, and all that tehcnical mumbo-jumbo.



Sure...


----------



## buzz (Mar 5, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Sure...



C'mon. Compare his stuff to anything else in the original AD&D1e books. Whether they all suck or no, he was the best of them.

And, man, Wormy! It's like the Pogo of gamer comics.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 6, 2004)

evildm said:
			
		

> *cough*
> 
> http://www.weewung.com/gallery/arnistotle/duncov.jpg
> 
> ...





very cool pictures my friend.

Hagen


----------



## Buttercup (Mar 7, 2004)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> Wow, 9 times out of 10 if I see a Buttercup post it's almost what I would say.
> 
> Except I like Elmore....



Well, then I guess you could agree with the part where I said that taste in art is subjective.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Mar 8, 2004)

Taste in art is, of course, entirely subjective.  Taste in art styles is equally sibjective.  What is not ever subjective however is skill, technique, and knowledge.  I've seen a few people say (paraphrased) "You can't call any art crap".  I'm here to tell you that you're wrong.  That's not my opinion, it's a Fact.  Some "art" is crap.  It's not crap because I don't like it, or Klaus doesn't like it, or Willow doesn't like it, or even god help us of Telfon Billy doesn't like it.  You can correctly call 'art' crap is it is done without sufficient skill, technique, and knowledge of the subject.  If the 'artist' has no functional knowledge of anatomy then the work is crap.  If the artist has no knowledge of how to utilize their medium, the work is crap.  If the artist has rushed through a piece because they didn't want to be doing it, it's often crap.  This isn't a matter of taste, it's a matter of skill and knowledge.  Do you know what you're doing or don't you.  It's the same as writing -- if you don't know how to form a sentance, if you cannot spell, if Grammar to you is your grandfather's wife, if Plot is just the land your house sits on..  your writing is probably crap.  Someone may *like* it, but if you break it down and look at the technical ability of the crafter to see if they have any idea what they are doing, they don't.

I just had to get that off my chest, I'm not pointing the finger at any artists in particular and saying "Them, right there, that applies to them", but there IS such a thing as bad, crap art.

Now, to wander on-topic...

I'm a child of the 70's/80's.  I love Elmore, I love Parkinson.  1E will always have the true spirit of D&D (even if I thought many aspects of it were idiotic).  I disliked a lot of the art in the 1E books then and still do.  Erol Otis has never done anything that didn't literally make my eyes *hurt*.  To this day the cover of the original Dieties & Demigods makes me want to cry.  But I understand those things, because those guys were Pulp artists in those early days.  They had no idea what this new thing required, and so they gave it what they knew.  That it inspired and influenced those who *did* know what the field needed is fantastic.

As far as my own views on the 3E/3.5E art...  overall I despise it.  Lockwood is a giant among men for his talant and technical skill.  WAR has a tight, clean style that I honestly dislike the hell out of because while it is a strong developed and honed style, it is a strongly honed and developed *Comic Book* style.  These aren't comic books, much as I love them, and while I can not fault anyone for having comic influence in their style (I know I do) an illustrator for non-comic publications must be professional enough to know that alterations to one's style must be made to suit the field they are working in.  WAR seems unaware of that with his hugemongous feet on *everything* and the 'WAR shuffle' that RangerWickett mentioned.  It's interesting, but when it crops up in every illo it's a weakness to be addressed.
But, from WotC at least, it seems that as time goes by the criteria for being hired to do art on THE OFFICIAL D&D books becomes more and more "Will you work for a song?"  (Disclaimer: I have never worked for WotC, and don't have the vaguest idea what they pay, that comment is based solely on the diminishing quality of technical merit and skill of the art in their books as time goes by).
Third party publishers generally do better at the art, IMHO.  It's often hit-or-miss (Red Spire: Glad to see you found someone who *nailed* the style you were after!  Kick-arse work there), but the hits often hit pretty strongly, and more often than WotC's current stable do by far.

As far as the buckles, spikes, tattoos, and piercings go, those don't bother me.  The goths loved their spikes dearly, buckles have been found terribly useful throughout the ages since their invention, tats and piercings are some of the oldest things in human culture.  If taken too far, they break the feel that D&D should have (yes, I feel there is a "Feel" that D&D, no matter the generation or edition, should adhere to, at it's core of cores).  But as general design elements, these aren't a problem.

3.xE art is much like any other edition of art.  The strong are very very strong, the weak are so weak as to make one feel ill.


----------



## Oni (Mar 8, 2004)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> WAR has a tight, clean style that I honestly dislike the hell out of because while it is a strong developed and honed style, it is a strongly honed and developed *Comic Book* style.  These aren't comic books, much as I love them, and while I can not fault anyone for having comic influence in their style (I know I do) an illustrator for non-comic publications must be professional enough to know that alterations to one's style must be made to suit the field they are working in.  WAR seems unaware of that with his hugemongous feet on *everything* and the 'WAR shuffle' that RangerWickett mentioned.  It's interesting, but when it crops up in every illo it's a weakness to be addressed.





While I agree with a great deal of what you said I think you may be somewhat off the mark in regards to altering ones style.  When an art director comes to an artist and offers them an assignment, they are doing so based on the strength of their past work, and a lot of that includes consistancy in quality and style.  You're looking at a dangerous prospect altering your "look" unless it has been specifically requested.  If the art director had wanted a different look, they would have gone to a different artist.  I'm of the opinion that it would be rather unprofessional to start changing things around too much.  This is the sort of thing they keep hammering into me at school anyway.  Given WAR's level of technical skill, I doubt very much that he is unaware of what he is putting down, I'd hazard a guess and say that is a very deliberate choice.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Mar 8, 2004)

Oni said:
			
		

> While I agree with a great deal of what you said I think you may be somewhat off the mark in regards to altering ones style.  When an art director comes to an artist and offers them an assignment, they are doing so based on the strength of their past work, and a lot of that includes consistancy in quality and style.  You're looking at a dangerous prospect altering your "look" unless it has been specifically requested.  If the art director had wanted a different look, they would have gone to a different artist.  I'm of the opinion that it would be rather unprofessional to start changing things around too much.  This is the sort of thing they keep hammering into me at school anyway.  Given WAR's level of technical skill, I doubt very much that he is unaware of what he is putting down, I'd hazard a guess and say that is a very deliberate choice.




You're quite right here.  To change one's style between the time the AD has commissioned you and the time you do the work is a *bad* idea.  I wasn't meaning to imply that.  What I meant was that one should realize and understand the differences between (in this case) comics and RPG publications.  The different media require different approaches, they have different needs and atmopheres.  And, in doing so, should be able to alter (or perhaps adjust is a better word) their style to fit the media they are working in.  Not so much that it's no longer their style, but enough so that it fits into what it's going in to.  An illustrator needs to support the work he's illustrating, not vice versa.  I'm coming off as overly snoty and concescending in trying to over-explain what I'm trying to say, I know.  I hope that's overlooked in favor of what I'm trying to get at.   Ideally, one will have developed the appropriate tweaks to their style that fit the media they are trying to get work in beforehand, so that the AD will be able to see the artist's media-suited style beforehand.  Not to mention that being able to show oneself as so versatile is only a strength. 

As far as WAR's technical skill goes, I'd venture to say it's not as good as you suspect.  In all the work he's done for WotC that I've seen, I regularly spot mis-steps and oversights in basic technique.  He's good, pretty darned good.  But having developed your style to the point of it being razor-sharp doesn't make one immune to oversights.   He may indeed (or perhaps not, I don't know the man) be "unaware of what he is putting down".  If it is a deliberate choice, I'd question the wisdom of it myself.  His style is immediately recognizable (and that *is* a strength, as far as marketing oneself goes), but it is also recognizable as a style with regular anatomy and basic physics (such as...  the law of gravity) flaws as well.  
The man's grip on his own style is nearly airtight, it's the fact that the flaws in his style are held within that airtight grip that bother me the most.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Mar 8, 2004)

ergeheilalt said:
			
		

> Why is it that people who don't like the current artwork adorning the WotC books call it crap? This is one of my peeves. Art is not crap, it just is. (with the exception of that one piece covered with elephant dung - that was crap  ).
> 
> Any good discussion presents facts, and ladies, gentlemen - I can tell you with the utmost certainty, that the art in the PHB, DMG, MM, etc is not crap. I see no excriment hanging from the pages og my books - nor do I catch the oder either. Could we forgo the "crap" flinging, I just don't think it's showing respect for otherr people's opinions.
> 
> Erge



Why? What makes art and artists so damn special? Anyone else does their job and you can be critical and say they dida  crappy job.

Why do artists get some special pass that says we cannot call their work crap when we see that it is crap.

This is just a question not an attack on anyone. I am just curious the special standard here. Oh and I don't buy the whole "cause" all art is subjective.


----------



## Olive (Mar 8, 2004)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Oh and I don't buy the whole "cause" all art is subjective.




I more or elss agree, but that's because I think that some of the art is badly executed technically. And I reckon that most 1e art falls into that.

I'm still waiting to hear a comeback on the '3e art is too anime but I love Jeff Dee's paladin pic' comment...


----------



## Oni (Mar 8, 2004)

Can there be crappy art? 

In my opinion the answer to this is definately yes.  If you don't believe me go to DeviantART and poke around, I'm quite sure you'll find many galleries chock full of technically deficient art.  

On the other hand saying something is crappy art doesn't make it so.  Just because you don't like something doesn't make it crappy.  Neither does liking something make it good.  

The problem is that it can be hard to tell where the line between well made and poorly made art is especially when strong feelings of like or dislike are involved.  

For instance if someone one were to tell me that the DMG is full of crappy art, I would say they were wrong, most of the art there is up to par it just doesn't suite their taste.  

I don't think that artists should get a free pass on critical examination of their work, but on the other hand I don't think that a lot of people have a good enough understanding of what really goes into making an image (or whatever have you) to be a good judge of it and so it comes down to whether they like it or not, rather than is it well done or not.


----------



## ergeheilalt (Mar 8, 2004)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Why? What makes art and artists so damn special? Anyone else does their job and you can be critical and say they dida  crappy job.
> 
> Why do artists get some special pass that says we cannot call their work crap when we see that it is crap.
> 
> This is just a question not an attack on anyone. I am just curious the special standard here. Oh and I don't buy the whole "cause" all art is subjective.




Okay, I'll address this how an art teacher I had way back when addressed it. Art is just that, art - it's interpretive, it requires the viewer to form an oppinion of the piece. Now, I'm not saying there isn't "crappy" art. Those little Quizno sub's comerical rats with freakishly large eyes - that is crap.

Now, if you look at the technical, artistic aspects many D&D artists have gone with - it's high quality stuff. They use fairly universal ideas of perspective, tone, conture, texture and all that good artistic stuff. Technically, it is good art. You may not like it - but it doesn't mean it's crap. They did exactly what they were supposed to.

Example: Bobby the telephone operator gets on the phone with a customer and begins taking notes on the computer they want built. He sends the order to Ralphy in the work room, who puts the computer together - as per his instructions. The user gets it in the mail and finds out the case bright pink. He doesn't like it, but does it make the computer crappy - even if it meets all the aspects he requested?

I suppose, if you wish to call art crap - fine. Freedom of speech and all - you have your right to your perogative. Even if you are wrong. Just because 
"You don't like it" doesn't make it crap. Again, as I believe I said some where before, I look at things with the eye of an artist and aim toward neutrality. If you wish to "look at purdy pictures", fine. I don't really like the Mona Lisa - it's a fine painting - a clasic even. I still don't like it. I don't call it crap, because I know it isn't.

Just my two cents - even if most people disagree with it, I'm still entitled to it just and the "crap" sayers are to theirs.
Erge


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 8, 2004)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Why? What makes art and artists so damn special? Anyone else does their job and you can be critical and say they dida crappy job.
> 
> Why do artists get some special pass that says we cannot call their work crap when we see that it is crap.
> 
> This is just a question not an attack on anyone. I am just curious the special standard here. Oh and I don't buy the whole "cause" all art is subjective.



OK, quick question: how do you segment good art from bad in a way that is universally agreed upon, or even agreed upon by the majority of viewers? I haven't found a way, yet.

There are a couple of ways we _could_ define the art as being 'good':

1. It succeeds in a desired goal (i.e. to induce a reaction, to illustrate a point or instruction or visualize something).

2. It adheres to accepted guidelines of a particular ruleset for that artistic style

When I was twelve, I thought much of Erol Otus' artwork was *terrible*. I mean really, _really_ bad. Now, I love it. The artwork didn't change...I DID. I began to appreciate Otus' line work, and his _style_ more than his perceived realism. IMHO, I finally GOT IT.

For me, the piece evoked what D&D was all about, and used a bold visual style to create that metaphor. Others might just feel it was too 'cartoony'. Determining who is correct is a losing battle, IMHO. It works for some, and not for others. 

Now, another problem is that art is both ephemeral and ever-changing. By the standards of the dutch masters, Guernica is a piece of junk. By some folks standards...it still is. But how do you determine new art, if it's working on a standard that hasn't been defined, yet? When Yoshi-toshi* or Monet or Picasso or Pollack or Lichenstein decides to make their own rules, knowing that they're breaking established artistic standards, how do you determine if they're good?

A writing teacher once told me that you had to understand the rules before you could break them, and an art instructor told a friend virtually the same message. But the implication was clear: _*the rules are meant to be broken*_. The only issue was that you should understand why the rules came to be in the first place. Perspective was an innovation, once upon a time, just like Hemingway's dialogue. 

The point being that art isn't getting a free ride, it's just getting leeway because it's much, much harder to judge success for it. In this very thread, I've heard the most popular artists of all three editions bandied about, with very different interpetations of their skill. Is Elmore good? WAR? Trampier? Parkinson? Wood? Wham? The Brothers Hildebrandt? There is no straight-forward answer. Some folks see David as a transcedent piece of artwork, a reflection on the perfection of the human form. Others just see some naked guy. YMMV.

[shrug]

And for the record, every single artist named in this thread has done something I consider worthwhile. I may not like that every female starts to look alike in Elmore's work to me, for example...but that doesn't mean I don't like Elmore, just some of his work. Some of my favorite fantasy artists, like Michael Whelan, haven't really done any purely D&D work, but I think of them that way, anyhow.

There's a reason that the phrase "I don't know Art, but I know what I like..." came to be popular. Often, just as in music, movies, books and culinary pursuits, what is popular isn't always what would be considered to be the best by those in the field...but that doesn't necesarilly invalidate it. If some guy finds a velvet Elvis painting to be emotionally moving, who am I to tell him he's wrong?

* - *FYI*: _I know that his name has no hyphen (heck, it's spelled in Kanji!)...but Eric's Grandma rewrote his name with smilies...so we needed to change it._


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 9, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Wham?



Wham did D&D art?  I thought they  just sang sappy 80s songs!  


			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> There's a reason that the phrase "I don't know Art, but I know what I like..." came to be popular.



I do know Art, in fact we had lunch together at Taco Bell just today.  But you make a good point, art _isn't_ exempt, it's just that there's no standard by which to judge it.  Anything that's "artistic" is in the same boat; music, fiction, poetry, etc.  While there are some technical things in each of those fields that are difficult to pull off thus making the artist noteworthy for their technical proficiency, that doesn't make it "good" per se, especially if you have no appreciation for that type of expression.

So, sure, you can call art crap, but someone else will surely love it, regardlessly.  So nobody can _definitively_ call art crap, except from their own personal point of view, of course.


----------



## LostWorldsMike (Mar 10, 2004)

Playing devil's advocate here...

With D&D, are we really talking about Art (with an intentional capital)? Or are we talking about illustration?

Not that I'm trying to denigrate illustration, but the two are very different beasts...

\Il`lus*tra"tion\, n. [L. illustratio: cf. F. illustration.] 1. The act of illustrating; the act of making clear and distinct; education; also, the state of being illustrated, or of being made clear and distinct.

2. That which illustrates; a comparison or example intended to make clear or apprehensible, or to remove obscurity.

3. A picture designed to decorate a volume or elucidate a literary work.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


Art

   1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
   2. The study of these activities.
   3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

(And I've now totally lost my train of thought, so I'll toodle off for now.)


----------



## LostWorldsMike (Mar 10, 2004)

Doh! Bitten by the double post bug.


----------



## rounser (Mar 10, 2004)

> Not that I'm trying to denigrate illustration, but the two are very different beasts...
> 
> \Il`lus*tra"tion\, n. [L. illustratio: cf. F. illustration.] 1. The act of illustrating; the act of making clear and distinct; education; also, the state of being illustrated, or of being made clear and distinct.
> 
> ...



By that definition, D&D I think needs illustration.  The role of D&D art isn't just pretty pictures to be admired, but almost visual adventure suggestions (sort of like a "serving suggestion"  ).  A simple character portrait of a sorceror in buckled leathers might be art, but doesn't serve the same valuable purpose as staring at the gothic, dark, thunderstorming cover to the original Temple of Elemental Evil and having your imagination take off at wondering just what's in there...(and I'm not really a fan of ToEE - if only the adventure was as good as the cover, heh).


----------



## David Howery (Mar 10, 2004)

As one of the old farts on here who has seen about every edition of D&D come through, I'd have to say that I prefer the second edition art; I like Caldwell, Elmore, and Parkinson over the rest (I also have a liking for Jim Holloway's art, but that's mainly because he did the illustrations for a lot of my articles in Dragon and DA, so I'm biased   ).  I'm not so crazy about the punkish look to 3E, but it doesn't inspire me to sneer or anything.. to each his own, etc.  There's just one thing about 3E art that REALLY annoys me to no end though... the friggin' spiked armor.  It's just so... impractical.  Every photo of real medieval armor I've seen shows that they made it with angled plates so that blows would tend to slide AWAY from you (they make modern tank armor the same way for the same reasons).  One amusing thought I had about spiked armor... wouldn't a sadistic DM set a bunch of cavemen with wooden clubs to fight the guy with spiked armor, have the clubs get stuck on the spikes, and weigh him down?  That'd teach him....


----------



## tetsujin28 (Mar 11, 2004)

My hatred for the Caldwell/Easley years knows no bounds.

I like tatooed goth chicks. The world needs more of them.


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd (Mar 11, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> While I don't think the 3e artwork is really all that anime, I do think that the oversized weapons and armor are.



More oversized weapons 



			
				Kesh said:
			
		

> One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say.



I couldn't agree more. You wouldn't ever catch me touching another man's meat.

I don't like Baxa's work... At all. Just ain't my bag.
Wayne England, after badly marring at least two FR books, should be restricted to inanimate objects. Seeing Sam Wood's excellent dwarf amid England's chapter full of... I haven't the words, in Races of Faerun made me want to hack up a furball.
I like Vinod Rams stuff better with each new book.
WAR does just fine.
Lockwood... Incomparable. Just really great stuff.
Sam Wood seems to be on equal footing with Lockwood in Black & White. But his finished stuff, notably his Deities & Demigods stuff, left me wanting.
G.Angus rocks.
I always loved Quinton Hoover's magic cards.
Terese Nielsen's picture of Moiraine in the WOT book is beautiful.
Matt Wilson's stuff is always excellent.
Puddnhead is off and on. I like some of it, some of it I don't care for.
D. Giancola - If you hear a knock on your door late at night, it's the Olympian Pantheon coming to reclaim their diginity.
Guay's art is top notch.
Critchlow gets a thumbs up.
DiTerlizzi and Planescape kept me in D&D until the saving grace of 3E came along. I loved his stuff.
Brom usually turns out good stuff.
I could go on, but I'm tired.

Edit: Artists from previous editions had at least one advantage over the 3E artists; they could do nudity. Whenever I see a creature that normally wouldn't be clothed, buttoned up like a nun it strikes me as seriously incongruous. It just doesn't fit. That takes me further from the fantasy world I want to create than the odd spike, piercing or tattoo. Third Edition, genesis of the modest succubus, shy marilith, bashful lillend and stodgy fey. We never saw a satyr in a turtleneck and jeans, but I'm sure it wasn't far off. 
Thumbs up for the 3.5E dryad. You can see they're trying to sneak back to the way things were here and there.

3E=anime? I don't see it.

The purple ghoul, it haunts my dreams!


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd (Mar 11, 2004)

Lela said:
			
		

> Quasqueton: Take a look at Mystra in F&P.  Normally, I don't care much about the spikes or basic outfit but that is definitally not how Mystra would dress.  She has a personality that's been defined by multiple FR books.  The books, incidentally, have described her outfits on occation.  That's not it.  Or anywhere close.




You big silly, that's just an all around bad picture. 
I have no idea what the artist was thinking when they were drawing that, but they may have been at a cosplay event...


EDIT: *evildm* duncov.jpg, love it. Love the brush strokes.



			
				s/LaSH said:
			
		

> A question regarding the 'lack of background' critique:
> 
> Where _are_ the iconic characters standing?
> <SNIP>
> Does lack of background stifle or stimulate imagination, and promote the creation of new worlds? And did the 3e dev team have this in mind when their ad campaign encouraged you to think outside the box?




I think background just takes up space where text should be. That's the bottom line. Full page art spreads eat up space where text could be. You can either keep the full page art and increase the page count and price, or you can leave the backgrounds out and leave the principle characters, which decreases page count and price.
Personally I always thought the full page plates next to text looked hokey. I like the 3E way.

*Trampier:* Some of his stuff from the AD&D Monster Manual was pretty interesting. I wouldn't want to see it in 3E, but for the time, it was neat. A lot of his pieces had a feel that fell somewhere between art deco and inuit/woodcut territory. 
Salamander, Remorhaz, Rakshasa, Homonculus, Dragonne, Dragonturtle, Displacer Beast, those were pretty good. Even the harpy wasn't too bad, and the fire giant, though it looked like the village idiot, had decent anatomy. The weretiger transforming was pretty wild too. Most of the remaining artwork (of his and anyone else's) pretty much stinks. Hey, it was a different era.
A few of Sutherland's drawings are ok. A few of the Fiend Folio drawings are nice.

I much prefer today's artwork, but I'll agree with what was said previously; when it's good, it tends to be really good. When it's bad, it tends to be horrible.


----------



## Anime Kidd (Mar 11, 2004)

Was on an art board earlier today and they had a short thread on what is art. We all know that art is pretty much subjective. Many people tossed this nudget around in here as well. This thread bogged down in "What is art". I think a better question would be: "Does the new art fit with D&D?"

Or maybe I'm just seeing something that isn't there.


----------



## Lela (Mar 11, 2004)

Bran Blackbyrd said:
			
		

> You big silly, that's just an all around bad picture.
> I have no idea what the artist was thinking when they were drawing that, but they may have been at a cosplay event...




I completely agree.  I didn't mention how bad the work was because it's actually a lot better than most of the art in that book.  From Cory (my group's nickname) cutting out Grummish's eye* to the water colors filling the later chapters.  There's just so little life in the art and what is there doesn't quite grab you.

*And I mean cutting it out.  As in he must have stuck the sword into his eye socket, spun his sword around, and flicked out the eye in one, whole, piece.  Now, I admit that elves can be a bit flighty but Cory doesn't strike me as one who would pass up taking out Grummish when he had the chance.  But, hay, at least there's some kind of story to it.  That's more than can be said for most D&D art.


----------

