D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[GX.Sigma]

Artists as people make the best stuff when left on their own. If you tell an artist to draw their image of a gay, black, asian garbed warrior you'll very likely get a very different picture then if you told that artist to simply draw a cool looking warrior.

And theres a very good chance that no matter what the end outcome is the one he drew as just a warrior will be a better image truer to his artistic vision.

You cant force artists to produce the art you want. Art requires the artist to have freedom of expression.

I seem to remember some fantasy art director (maybe Jon Schindehette) saying that, if you just tell an artist to draw a warrior, he'll draw a white guy.

 

[TanithT]

Ahh but I'm not throwing a temper tantrum because my brand of porn isnt currently in the books and crusading to include it. I dont need to see porn in my PHB.

The more female on female artwork the better. The other side of that coin, not so much.

Yeah, you did.

 

[TanithT]

I seem to remember some fantasy art director (maybe Jon Schindehette) saying that, if you just tell an artist to draw a warrior, he'll draw a white guy.

And if you ask someone to describe a fantasy artist, that person will generally do so by referring to the artist as 'he'. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Shemeska]

Yeah, you did.

"Honestly... honestly... I don't remember any of that..."

 

[timASW]

I don't think you have any idea how commissioned art works.

-O

Sure I do. Its the act of creating inferior art on demand for the tastes on one extremely small (the single person who paid you) niche market.

You tell me which of the great works of human art in history was created without the artist having freedom of expression.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Sure I do. Its the act of creating inferior art on demand for the tastes on one extremely small (the single person who paid you) niche market.

You tell me which of the great works of human art in history was created without the artist having freedom of expression.

Sistine Chapel? David? Last Supper?

 

[timASW]

I seem to remember some fantasy art director (maybe Jon Schindehette) saying that, if you just tell an artist to draw a warrior, he'll draw a white guy.

Probably because most of the artists we deal with in our culture on a regular basis are western based white guys. If you go to Japan and ask an artist to draw a warrior it will probably be asian, and if you go to africa and ask a local artist to draw a warrior it will likely be in traditional african garb.

Artists express their vision through their own cultural lens. I dont think thats in serious doubt by anyone.

The problem is when you demand an individual artist move outside of his personal artistic vision and process and force him to create something that matches someones else's vision and process. Thats when you get corporate crap "art" thats at best suited for some office waiting room.

Art is vision and emotion given form. Taking the artists vision away like asking someone to paint by numbers with a blindfold on while you shout directions over their shoulder. Sure you'll get a picture sooner or later. Will it be good? Subjective. But will it be TRUE? No.

 

[TanithT]

Sure I do. Its the act of creating inferior art on demand for the tastes on one extremely small (the single person who paid you) niche market.

You tell me which of the great works of human art in history was created without the artist having freedom of expression.

So, you're saying that everything ever published by any gaming company sucks, because the artists and writers did not have 'freedom of expression' and were working in a shared-world project with guidelines and limits? I do not think you understand how professional publication works.

If you literally mean great art in human history, the Mona Lisa was a commissioned work. So much for that theory.

 

[Obryn]

Sure I do. Its the act of creating inferior art on demand for the tastes on one extremely small (the single person who paid you) niche market.

You tell me which of the great works of human art in history was created without the artist having freedom of expression.

Sistine Chapel? David? Last Supper?

Zing. And let's not forget Frank Lloyd Wright, while we're at it, unless we're excluding architecture.

And really, keep some perspective here. It's art for the pages of an RPG book. Every RPG book - including those by Paizo and WotC - does this. And most of their books look pretty good! And if you have a competend art director, you end up with attractive, evocative, consistent art. What's more, there are artists who specialize at working with those conditions.

The nature of the work has constraints - it will be about fantasy settings. It may contain certain "iconic" characters. You might need an action scene, forests, trees, whatever. You will not put in random sketches from Picasso, and there will be no Jackson Pollock prints on the leaves.

-O

 

[timASW]

Sistine Chapel? David? Last Supper?

Michealangelo went about 5 years over and kept his vision of the chapel a closely guarded secret, even going so far as to ban priests from the building for over a year. Look it up..

For David he was not directed HOW to depict him. Simply to create a statue of David. Much like telling an artist you want a picture of a male warrior. He had the absolute broadest possible image to work from, a man, possibly white, possibly jewish, possibly arabic, but definitely a man, who was a warrior, when he wasnt a politician or prophet, depicted in some way that would make him inspirational as an artwork. Rather a far cry from "sculpt me a gay, black, kimono wearing, obvious homosexual".

For the last supper it was "paint the last supper of jesus and his 12 disciples at the moment he revealed one of them would betray him" Which is still extremely broad.

The dress, posture, actions, and emotions conveyed by each of those individuals at that moment was entirely up to him. Even so far as to include Mary Magdollen in a position of extreme importance at jesus right hand (some would say pregnant) at a time when the extremely anti-women catholic church would never have approved of it.


Given what was happening in the world at that time DaVinci likely risked a tormentous as a heretic for the way he drew her into that painting.

But your right, he had no artistic freedom at all.


** when you dont know anything about art you probably shouldnt try to "zing" people on it.