| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Caolin |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 20:13:40
I've been browsing through some of the 4E source books recently. One big thing that has bothered me with 4E that doesn't seem to get talked about too much is the art style. I prefer the 2E art style which seemed to favor more realism. 3E was good too, but near the end it seemed be getting more stylized. But 4E is very stylized with blocky shapes and simple but bright color pallets. I hate to use the WoW comparison again but that's how I see it.
So I felt that I should start a thread for people to talk about the direction they would like to see the art go for 5E. I would prefer to see more art in the vein of Keith Parkinson, Daniel R. Horne and Larry Elmore.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| JohnnyGrognard |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 23:57:02
In regards to the original topic created on the artwork, I was just having this discussion with my group the other night.
The artwork in the new editions have been good, I cannot knock them artistically. However, it is definitely not my cup of tea.
There was something about the art of 2nd edition that was just awesome. It had such a "classic fantasy" feel to it that I think has truly been lost. New editions almost seen to have an anime flair to them at times. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 18:00:35
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Interesting...
So realism is key, except where we should apply fantasy.
This gut should be a politician. 
Fantasy layered upon realism. That was my take on it. D&D started out as the middle ages where all those myths and legends are true. For me that is what made it so appealing. It was just one step removed from reality. But a lot of fantasy has gotten away from this thin divide and just become pure fantasy. Huge unrealistic weapons and armor represent the embodiment of the growing rift between reality and myth. I welcome a return to a time in D&D where the line that divides reality and myth is very thin....at least in the artistic sense. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 17:12:27
Interesting...
So realism is key, except where we should apply fantasy.
This gut should be a politician. |
| Eli the Tanner |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 15:45:31
Todd Lockwood really helped give 3e a good art diection (you'll probably remember those design sketches at the beginning of each chapter). Good slice of fantasy embeded in realism, I loved being able to see the practicality of the world. The races line-ups in FRCS and Player's handbook was great too (it was the reason I bought them).
honkin' big link
I also liked the variety of art style that 3rd and earlier editions had, though I'd say 3e lost it direction towards the end with so many books being brought out that the artistic continuity got diluted.
Mod edit: Cast shrinky links
Edit: Thanks Wooly. I need to learn that spell. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 00:23:47
Saw this article on the main website. I really liked what it had to say on the subject.
http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20120509 |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 15 Apr 2012 : 00:32:37
-I'd like something in the aforementioned Pathfindery vein. Todd Lockwood artwork is always appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
I think a lot of the 4E art lacks life.
-There was something I always thought that was "off" in the 4e artwork, and this is a great way to describe it. Very nice, don't get me wrong, but seemed just too clean, too crisp. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 14 Apr 2012 : 21:49:21
I'd like to thank everyone that posted favorite artists names here. I just spent the last 5 hours hunting down posters that can be used to decorate my house without being so odd as to well, overly freak out visitors who don't realize how much into fantasy I am. I picked up a copy of Parkinson's Druid Stone poster (I've always had a copy of his Demorgan's First Spell and thought it was pretty). I was never a big fan of Brom, but he had a really pretty one of a woman with a harp. Caldwell had some that I really liked, but I really only found one that felt "home decor" when I saw it and unfortunately he didn't offer paypal or something else like it. I picked up some classic elmore ones I remember from Dragon Mag covers years ago that I'd always liked that were more classic beauty/nature and less girl in bikini, (i.e. stuff you can put out around the house) . I also found some nice Daniel R. Horne and Louis Royo ones that I may have to decorate the bedroom with, but I find them very pretty. I would seriously love to have some of Lockwood's stuff, but at $60 a poster PLUS shipping each... he unfortunately lost me due to cost. I probably won't hang all of them, but its been a pleasant time just looking at the art that inspired me over the years. Some of the artists, I'd seen their work and never realized their names. That being said, I've only gone through the names listed on page 1 here... I hope I'm not broke before I'm finished.
It also made me dig out some old cards that I must have picked up at a convention about 20 years back called "Colossal Cards" with slightly smaller than regular paper pictures of some classic fantasy. Apparently on the back of them they listed the surnames of the artists in that collection (and there must have been more than one collection). In the interest of sharing this experience with others, I'm listing the more "unusual" surnames here (since listing "Jones" probably won't help anyone.... now off to look up Don Maitz (because I really like this one with a griffin)...
Some of the unusual surnames listed that I don't see above: Achilleos, Hescox, Don Maitz, Ploog, Rowena, Eggleton, Jusko, Kaluta, Sanjulian, Warhola
Some of the more generic surnames I see listed (in case someone can provide the first name): Dean, Shaw, White, Kelly, Jones |
| Caolin |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 19:39:27
quote:
Originally posted by Erendriel Durothil
I'd just like it to stay with 4e's artwork because it depicts what it is supposed to be showing in a nice, clear, accurate way.
I think a lot of the 4E art lacks life. If they get rid of the unrealistic weapons and armor, then raise the color count past 10 I think they would be on the right track. They also need to get away from targeting the younger audience. This isn't a kids game and it never was, the art needs to reflect this. I think that is what attracts the younger audience anyways. One of the reasons I think kids played it in the past was because it was an adult game. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 19:02:46
quote:
Originally posted by Erendriel Durothil
I'd just like it to stay with 4e's artwork because it depicts what it is supposed to be showing in a nice, clear, accurate way.
Fair Enough!
|
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 05:08:48
I'd just like it to stay with 4e's artwork because it depicts what it is supposed to be showing in a nice, clear, accurate way. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 01:50:52
The art design approach of Eberron is one of the things I liked about that setting. I'm neutral towards the art style itself, but I felt the setting's art portrayed the physical look and the tone of the setting as described by in the book.
The art of 3e FR on the other hand, outside of the FRCS (love Todd Lockwood's stuff), felt scattered and disparate. The look of this varied widely, some of it was 3e Core, some of it was medieval, some renaissance. It looked like generic McFantasy. Apart from a few pieces, it was hard to get a good sense of the setting's aesthetics.
A large part of that I believe lies in FR's art focusing so heavily on NPC art. Especially in the FRCS, many of the art pieces focused just on the iconic NPCs. Often these portraits did not even have backgrounds (or very basic faded backgrounds) putting the character front and center. Not only does this contribute to the perception of NPCs playing a larger than proportionate role, the art space is underutilized because it just shows one character but none of the setting's scenery, sights, or action. I don't meant to avoid showing the chosen, but show them interacting with their world more (or at least traveling in it), rather than just standing around. Use the art to set the setting in motion.
I don't recall if 4E changed this tendency. Hopefully the 5E version will improve on this. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 02 Feb 2012 : 22:53:21
quote:
Originally posted by Erendriel Durothil
I hated 3e artwork. I love 4e's artwork. It is much better in how it portrays things. 3e was just incredibly unrealistic; body types were extremely exaggerated, to begin with.
I have to agree on D&D 3.5 art. it really was not good at all, though the FR stuff was pretty good. Pathfinder art is superior to anything that was in the 3rd edition, except for maybe the Forgotten Realms. |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 02 Feb 2012 : 22:42:05
I hated 3e artwork. I love 4e's artwork. It is much better in how it portrays things. 3e was just incredibly unrealistic; body types were extremely exaggerated, to begin with. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 02 Feb 2012 : 22:21:21
quote:
Originally posted by Eladrinstar
How about not so much uniformity in style, but uniformity in depiction. Say for example: There is a certain style of clothes Turmish people wear, and a certain way they look physically, and are certain style of buildings in Alaghon, and keep that consistent even as you switch around from old watercolors or sleek computerized art or scratchy sketchs.
I agree with this! Pathfinder has many different artists but they keep with the Pathfinder 'feel'. I didn't like the art style of 4e, even though many of the artists were also Paizo artists. I hated the 4e PH cover, but it was done by Wayne Reynolds.
|
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 01 Feb 2012 : 19:52:57
How about not so much uniformity in style, but uniformity in depiction. Say for example: There is a certain style of clothes Turmish people wear, and a certain way they look physically, and are certain style of buildings in Alaghon, and keep that consistent even as you switch around from old watercolors or sleek computerized art or scratchy sketchs. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 01 Feb 2012 : 19:39:39
New art, but with a nod to the 'old style'. They have done this before (wasn't there a piece of Lockwood art that directly referenced D&Ds original artwork?)
For instance, if they do a new 'Volo's Guides' series for the Realms, I would love to see them do it like how the covers of the Mystara Gazeteers were done... but not with that same art. New art super-imposed over new maps. Ergo, retain that original flavor, without all that gooey 'nostalgia' crap. Actually, new art super-imposed over older maps might be the way to go....
And no, I didn't like that they used the pic from the original D&D basic set for the 4e one - I thought that was pure cheese.
Another good example - How about if they do a new The North, we see brand-new art on the cover, depicting that giant over the fire instead this time, and that prisoner-woman limping away in the arms of her friends? How friggin' cool would that be? Let the art 'continue' the story for us. |
| Sousinne |
Posted - 01 Feb 2012 : 15:26:01
Art is difficult. As I understand it, a central issue is the brandness of the art, making a homogenous look. This is hit or miss, because if someone doesn't like the art style chosen, they are not going to like ANY of it. Personally, I have found one or two images in 4th that I sort of liked. One or two. I am completely serious. I feel that most of it looks like badly stylized action storyboards or something. The characters shown are shown to be (and because they are) deadly. It would be nice to have contemplative, serene, happy, scared characters too.
Today, the art field is massive. There are immense numbers of gifted and skilled artists who would jump at a chance like this. Let the different books published have unified themes, but don't try to make a unified 5th edition style.
I love the old oil paintings too, but that isn't realistic today. And, to be honest, I think it may be time to let new people carry the baton. Just don't give us a single McDonald's recipe for what D&D looks like. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 03:01:42
quote:
Originally posted by Fellfire
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
While my taste ranges pretty far, I'm about 50/50 split on 4E art and swing a little more to 60/40 to 75/25 in 3E art being in favor of. From 4E, I like Howard Lyon and William O'Connor. I'm also a fan of Todd Lockwood and Raymond Swanland. As long as it looks cool and not too corney (sorry, but I think a lot of 2E art falls into this category), then I'm more likely to buy it.
I just looked through Raymond Swanland's Gallery and I love it. His work on the Twilight War covers was great. I'm not sure how some of his stuff would be for a sourcebook, but I, for one, would like to see more.
I really enjoy most of his work, but it feels to busy for me to grace a Forgotten Realms novel cover. |
| Lady Shadowflame |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 23:56:45
I'm kinda fond of Lockwood's stuff.
And I like my elves to look clearly nonhuman, like some of the 3e stuff.
All in all though, my wishlist:
* Please, no giant pauldrons and ridiculously sized swords. Those don't feel even a bit right for the setting, to me.
* Please let there be competent-looking women who do not have stupid clothes on - cleavage windows, other skimpy stuff, weird high-heeled shoes in inappropriate contexts... I want them to have all their clothes on, and not be contorted into spine-cracking poses contrived to serve up the sight off bosom and butt all in one pic. I want them to look badass in their own right.
* Not just white dudes as heroes.
For the latter two things, I find myself thinking of the priest pictures from Faiths and Avatars; they were awesome-looking. A real mix of people, and plenty of competent-looking ladies. The more cleavagey ones were limited in number, and were the ones I thought fitted it anyway, like the Loviatarran.
(The cleric of Kelemvor in that book is beautiful; strong, noble, looks like the sort you'd trust to carry out a quest or help you in your time of need...) |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 02:08:05
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
While my taste ranges pretty far, I'm about 50/50 split on 4E art and swing a little more to 60/40 to 75/25 in 3E art being in favor of. From 4E, I like Howard Lyon and William O'Connor. I'm also a fan of Todd Lockwood and Raymond Swanland. As long as it looks cool and not too corney (sorry, but I think a lot of 2E art falls into this category), then I'm more likely to buy it.
I just looked through Raymond Swanland's Gallery and I love it. His work on the Twilight War covers was great. I'm not sure how some of his stuff would be for a sourcebook, but I, for one, would like to see more. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 23:28:33
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
I like the 4e art myself. i dont know , it has a more comtemporary feel to it.
Funny; that's exactly why I don't like the 4e art. I guess one thing's for sure, they're not going to please everybody.  But I think they figured that out with the 4e Realms... I hope. 
Anyway, I like a lot of the artist names I'm seeing in this scroll... I just don't know how good the odds are of it happening.  |
| Quale |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 14:21:44
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
There's some art I would lift from the books and recycle in a (non-commercial) fashion, certainly, were I so inclined, but it's just easier to use Google and type 'pictures of wizards' or whatever - some of the amateur offerings on the net today speak of a lot of undiscovered talent that would be worthy of employment by WotC, Paizo, or any RPG publisher.
wizards are actually hard to find cause most people play young wizards, elves and tieflings are the easiest |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 22:04:15
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
OMH- have you bought originals? I'm looking at acquiring some pieces this year. Would love to hear from someone who is collecting.
Sadly, no, they are all prints. The one time I had an opportunity to buy a Parkinson original, my wife took a look at the price tag and almost had a heart attack. She rarely expressly forbids me to buy things like that, but I could tell she did not approve, so I let it go. Besides, I have the accumulation of a quarter-century-plus of accumulation of artwork purchased at SF/F conventions like Westercon piled up awaiting matting and frames, anyways. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 21:57:33
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
4e elves were ok, except those that looked cartoony and like they're from Warcraft. Dwarves, tieflings and dragonborn were much worse. The last product, 4e BoVD, shows great improvement. In the last few years digital art has made a huge progress, WotC would be wise not to take a step backwards. In our group we started using more and more fantasy art that's not from Paizo or WotC, I expect from them to keep up with the times and improve. Old D&D artists had a few masterpieces that ''transcended time'' (e.g. the covers of Savage Frontier, The Dreams of Red Wizards, or some Birthright covers), but I'd not consider using 90% of that material now.
My confession here is...I rather thought they did alright with dwarves (I have an intense dislike for the concept of female dwarves having beards). Their work on tieflings, pretty much the same, except for the fact they all looked like carbon-copy semi-devils, and not the unique, planetouched race of editions of yesteryear. Sure, in-game, it's your call what one looks like, but I am still baffled as to why they did that.
Dragonborn...meh. They are the one race I automatically disallow, forever relegated to NPC status, and I agree their artistic look in the gamebooks was...funky.
Haven't perused 4th Edition BoVD...I'm guessing it'll be a bit before I can get a secondhand copy, so I'm not qualified to comment on that.
There's some art I would lift from the books and recycle in a (non-commercial) fashion, certainly, were I so inclined, but it's just easier to use Google and type 'pictures of wizards' or whatever - some of the amateur offerings on the net today speak of a lot of undiscovered talent that would be worthy of employment by WotC, Paizo, or any RPG publisher. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 15:47:13
Mialee was hideous, sure, but most elves in Forgotten Realms material were drawn as alien looking, but not in an inherently unnattractive way. Like, they are pictures of obviously not-humans, but I don't see them as ugly. |
| glitter |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 12:47:38
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
I prefer the 2E art style which seemed to favor more realism. 3E was good too, but near the end it seemed be getting more stylized. But 4E is very stylized with blocky shapes and simple but bright color pallets. I hate to use the WoW comparison again but that's how I see it.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
I'd like to see it closer to the 2E/3E styles myself, with perhaps some hints of Pathfinder's art style (minus the giant, Final Fantasy VII-inspired weapons).
I think the two first posts summerize the main challenge for WotC, they must rediscovered a style that will put them apart of any inspiration.
Dammit, we are talking of D&D, it's them who must inspire others.
Of course, that's not an easy task, since going back to the 3Ed style would look like going backward.
And since I'm not an artist at all, I don't have much advices to give. |
| Quale |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 11:20:01
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
4e art was one of the reasons I stayed with 3.75, I'm not really interested in 5e unless they release Planescape with more modern art, e.g. Martiniere
Odd as this may sound, I am glad they did not use the same artists for 4th as they did for 3rd.
My biggest issue was the elven wizard 'Mialee'. Seriously...am I the only one who thinks she looks like she should have crawled out of the wreckage in Roswell? I mean, ugh. Serious ugh. Elves do not look like Greys with hair and robes.
In 4th, elves at least looked like...well, elves. But my ideal artists are, as stated before, Elmore, Caldwell, Easley, and so on - I cannot help but believe that would only be a plus if they brought those gents on board for the art, all of it, Realms and every other world that will get even a casual mention.
I agree that a lot of 3e art was terrible, personally we just started playing and didn't know better. I avoided Eberron for a long time because of it.
4e elves were ok, except those that looked cartoony and like they're from Warcraft. Dwarves, tieflings and dragonborn were much worse. The last product, 4e BoVD, shows great improvement. In the last few years digital art has made a huge progress, WotC would be wise not to take a step backwards. In our group we started using more and more fantasy art that's not from Paizo or WotC, I expect from them to keep up with the times and improve. Old D&D artists had a few masterpieces that ''transcended time'' (e.g. the covers of Savage Frontier, The Dreams of Red Wizards, or some Birthright covers), but I'd not consider using 90% of that material now. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 10:44:29
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
My biggest issue was the elven wizard 'Mialee'. Seriously...am I the only one who thinks she looks like she should have crawled out of the wreckage in Roswell? I mean, ugh. Serious ugh. Elves do not look like Greys with hair and robes.
Ugh! Mialee! Seeing pictures of her always clashed with the description from the 3rd Edn PHB: "Many humans...find them hauntingly beautiful." I'd sooner have a thing for Lidda and run the risk of getting arrested. Although what was the thing with Lidda's red nose? Cocaine?
As for artistic portrayals of Elves, I hate, really hate, the donkey ears approach. (And for those for you overly sensitive about me using mildly derogative terms, you can use the word 'non-dimunitive aural apparatus pertaining to equus africanus asinus.')
A nice portrayal of an elf is Howard Lyon's Freilya Stormwind, pg 100 Cityscape. Link: http://howardlyon.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/dungeons-and-dragons/urbansavant.jpg
Technically, the painting is supposed to be of an half elf, but that's what an elf looks like to me. Incidentally, the cultist on pg 116 is very much what I think a Kiaransaleen priestess looks like.
Link: http://www.eva-widermann.de/i/145.jpg
Cityscape has some nice art in it.
Two illustrations I've always liked are:
Hera by Eric Peterson, pg 121 Deities and Demigods 3rd Edn.
Sune by Todd Lockwood, pg 67, Faiths and Pantheons
Oh and a honourable mention should be made for Raven Mimura. I like her yathrinshee, pg 188, Players Guide to Faerun.
|
| Thauranil |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 09:42:42
I like the 4e art myself. i dont know , it has a more comtemporary feel to it. Though i will admit that there were some very good works in 3e like the cover for Threat from the sea. I also liked the cover of Shadowrealm. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 05:51:09
I am a really big fan of the almost-sketchlike artwork in the 3e FRCS, bring that back.
And 3e in general was pretty good at making sure all the demihumans looked different besides just stuff like pointy ears and height. They actually looked like different species in skull structure, and I could always tell gnomes from halflings, elves from half-elves, etc. |
|
|
