Is Larry Elmore still popular?

[Maggan]

He has a sense of photo-realism to his style that I haven't seen rivalled until Todd Lockwood.

That's one thing that really blew me away when I was little. When I learned that many of the D&D painters really did paint from photos, I was ... disillusioned ...

/M

 

[Sundragon2012]

Elmore's art isn't just game art, unlike a lot of the stuff decorating the inside pages of WoTC books and Dungeon and Dragon magazines. A good example of game art is Wayne Reynolds who though talented is not in the same artistic league as Elmore, Calwell, Parkinson, Lockwood, and others of their ilk. Even Brom, whose style is completely unique, is a stand out talent. Not saying that these folks all produce masterpieces all the time, but their stuff stands up within fantasy art circles even when their style isn't the "in" thing.

Folks like Baxa, Reynolds, and dare I say Terlizzi have styles that will never be classic and in fact are rather forgettable outside of those gamers who loved the settings they illustrated/painted for. I refer to the art of these folks as fad or trend art which has a shelf life of so many years before it goes bad.

Larry Elmore is unraivalled in regards to his skies, his landscapes and his atmosphere. His women are often stunningly beautiful. His limitations are in the areas of physiology in regards to musculature, his dragons are kind of stringy looking, and compared to a fellow like Lockwood, his technique is kind of cartoony at times.

However, despite his shortcomings, such as they are, the work of Elmore and others like him I believe are simply of a higher caliber than a large amount of what graces books on the market these days.


Chris

 

[Grimstaff]

Well, he's no Erol Otus, but I do have a soft spot for his Dragonlance novel covers back in the 80''s

 

[Teflon Billy]

I like his stuff but I hate to say this, I think a lot of it looks the same.

My htoughts exactly.

I'm not even really sure if it's a fair criticism, as a guy who has been in the game this long is bound to have developed a recognizable "Style", but I can't recall a time when Elmore's look didn't lokm pretty much exactly as it does now.

It's technically well-executed, but his work doesn't really grab me anymore, and hasn't for years.

The last piece of his that really made me stare and go "Wow!" was the cover of Fantasy HERO, way back in the day...

It was pretty great, and was the first of a certain style of piece he did for awhile that was as much Landscape as it was character study. I like those paintings a lot. Here is another...

But his work in the 3E Monster Manual was just "meh" moer than anything, and his more current stuff seems to be leading down that same path: reconizably Larry Elmore, but otherwise undistinctive.

I think that the works of guys that I really like , like Tony DeTerlizzi and Wayne Reynolds, have really kind of moved things along from the 1980's-stylings of Elmore, but I also hate the recent move towards what's been called "Dungeon Punk"...

So I guess what I'm saying is that there is no pleasing me

 

[Sundragon2012]

Well, he's no Erol Otus...

Thank god for that!

Technically Otus is dreadful. Otus' charm lies in nostalgia only not in any particular quality regarding his work. I know art students in a local university who can paint and illustate rings around Otus. Nostalgia is a tempting thing.

To each his own.


Chris

 

[Aaron L]

I've always much preferred Parkinson. Elmore is good, yes, but he's usually bored me, sorry to say.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I see art like Elmore, Parkinson and Lockwood as being able to illustrate great fantasy literature. I see the work of DiTerlizzi and Reynolds as being fit only for a game. I find dungeon punk to be the height of "fad" art that will pass away in the next iteration of D&D. Quality fantasy painters will always have work doing novel covers and the game products of companies whose art tastes are not slavishly devoted to what's currently cool as opposted to what is technically excellent.

Honestly I don't get people's love of DiTerlizzi. I know its different but so would having dog poo for breakfast be different it doesn't mean I would want to do it. I exaggerate, but to make a point. I usually hear how Diterlizzi's art shook things up. It did, it make Planescape not mechanically but artistically cartoonish.

But seriously, I see DiTerlizzi's work as the ultimate in D&D as cartoon art. If you look at his work you can easily see that it is analogous to muppets with the grotesque proportions and cartoonish facial features. I can see him illustrating the Muppets in the Multiverse D20 role-playing game.


Chris

 

[tetsujin28]

was never a big Elmore fan myself.

i preferred DAT or Sutherland.

My hat of Elmore know no limit.

 

[tetsujin28]

I see art like Elmore, Parkinson and Lockwood as being able to illustrate great fantasy literature. I see the work of DiTerlizzi and Reynolds as being fit only for a game. (snip) Honestly I don't get people's love of DiTerlizzi. I know its different but so would having dog poo for breakfast be different it doesn't mean I would want to do it. I exaggerate, but to make a point. I usually hear how Diterlizzi's art shook things up. It did, it make Planescape not mechanically but artistically cartoonish.

But seriously, I see DiTerlizzi's work as the ultimate in D&D as cartoon art. If you look at his work you can easily see that it is analogous to muppets with the grotesque proportions and cartoonish facial features. I can see him illustrating the Muppets in the Multiverse D20 role-playing game.

man what?

DiTerlizzi's art is in the great tradition of fantasy illustrators like Arthur Rackham. It's fairy-tale art. Far more evocative than the imitation Hildebrandt plasticy awfulness of Elmore and Caldwell.

 

[tetsujin28]

Well, he's no Erol Otus

No-one's as cool as Otus.

Technically Otus is dreadful.

That's crazy moon talk. Technically, Otus is very very proficient. He has a great command of colour. You might not like his style, which is something he consciously chooses to do, but he's not an incompetent illustrator. That would be like criticizing Picasso 'cause his heads look funny.