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

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

And very very noticeable.

Joshua Dyal said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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