D&D General Art in D&D

[generic]

Throughout the history of Dungeons & Dragons, its illustrations have reflected the ideals of the developers, the tone of the average game, and the character of the edition as a whole. When D&D and BECMI began, the art was simple. Pulp-inspired illustrations continued to remain prevalent during the run of 1e and AD&D, and were replaced, in some ways, by an new art-style in 2nd edition. Then, 3rd edition brought a new artistic paradigm to D&D, one which has shaped the evolution of a several monsters in later editions. Each edition, 4e and 5e included, has had a distinct art style.

The question is: Do you like 5e's art-style, or do you yearn for the art of yesterday?

What are your criticisms of 5e's art, and where has it been successful?

 

[RangerWickett]

After years of seeing cheesecake art in AD&D 2e, it really heartened me that the first image inside the 3rd edition player's handbook was a naked man.

I'm fine with different editions having different art styles.

 

[DWChancellor]

I think the art needs to support the purpose and theme of the edition. I've loved each edition's core concept since 3rd. There was a lot of good previous art, but I think the switchover from TSR to WotC brought a level of professionalism and organization that was a step-change.

Lockwood earthed D&D's more out-there ideas in a firmer tone for 3E. The way the core books looked like relics or artifacts from a D&D world sold the theme really well. His dragon work has resonated so strongly that WotC has barely shifted from it. A downside of a lot of 3E art is stiff posing and more passive compositions. I think that was a consequence of the time as much as art-direction.

The 4E work had a more energy and edge. For a game that was a bit more a skirmish game and a lot more high-magic/concept it worked. It felt like it took lessons from Reynold's Eberron 3E work and ran with it. Like 3E, the quality varied a bit within and between products but the higher saturation and more active posing gave off the vibe that 4E's rules encouraged.

Now 5E, I admit, is my favorite. The mix of Old Masters, Romanticism, and a dose of modern posing practice give a dynamism that reaches right in and pulls out atmosphere while nodding to delicious fantasy influences (Frazetta, etc.) without getting too corny or typecast. The art is evocative and eye-catching without being abrasive or off-putting. It is there to inspire and then get out of the way and I think it does that well.

 

[Enrico Poli1]

I absolutely adored the work of Elmore, Caldwell, Brom, DiTerlizzi and Easley. So art in BECMI and 2e is my favourite. A great improvement from OD&D and AD&D 1e, IMO.
3e art was very good (Lockwood Dragons!), but overall less impressive.
Sadly, I found 4e art revolting, with exceptions.
5e art is almost as great as 2e. I felt compelled to buy the PHB, DMG and MM for their artistic value alone. Same is true for the Ravnica book, or DiA. They are gorgeous books. Overall, this is a new Golden Age for the hobby from this particular point of view.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Does it convey the essence of Fantasy is my only criteria for liking or not being affected by any particular piece of art; it's very rarely anything outside of being extremely subjective. And so is every singular case that can be fathomed from such a position. Editions don't matter, IMO, Fantasy either penetrates via the eye and in play or it doesn't. Thus in my view art should be an extenuation of what we derive from the game--Fantasy--and thus is a barometer of that and that alone in the whole picture. If the game fails in this conveyance no matter how good the art is it is doomed within that framework, just as a car, no matter how great its body appears, is doomed if its drivetrain and engine are lacking.

 

[Yaarel]

My favorite art is magical realism. Photographically realistic with various special effects.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I like the 5e art, but I wished they also used black and white line art. It can be equally evocative, just different. Old school art will always hold my heart though, because it was my gateway and brought my imagination alive as a kid.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the art needs to support the purpose and theme of the edition. I've loved each edition's core concept since 3rd. There was a lot of good previous art, but I think the switchover from TSR to WotC brought a level of professionalism and organization that was a step-change.

Lockwood earthed D&D's more out-there ideas in a firmer tone for 3E. The way the core books looked like relics or artifacts from a D&D world sold the theme really well. His dragon work has resonated so strongly that WotC has barely shifted from it. A downside of a lot of 3E art is stiff posing and more passive compositions. I think that was a consequence of the time as much as art-direction.

The 4E work had a more energy and edge. For a game that was a bit more a skirmish game and a lot more high-magic/concept it worked. It felt like it took lessons from Reynold's Eberron 3E work and ran with it. Like 3E, the quality varied a bit within and between products but the higher saturation and more active posing gave off the vibe that 4E's rules encouraged.

Now 5E, I admit, is my favorite. The mix of Old Masters, Romanticism, and a dose of modern posing practice give a dynamism that reaches right in and pulls out atmosphere while nodding to delicious fantasy influences (Frazetta, etc.) without getting too corny or typecast. The art is evocative and eye-catching without being abrasive or off-putting. It is there to inspire and then get out of the way and I think it does that well.

I agree with all of this, except the last paragraph. I do enjoy the art of 5e a great deal, but I wouldn’t say it’s my favorite. Maybe it’s nostalgia (though I doubt it since I don’t really like 3e very much), but 3e is my favorite. The art may have been stiff, but it had a very distinctive visual identity, and to this day it informs my mental image of D&D.

To branch into some D&D-adjacent games’ art, Pathfinder’s art I think executes what 4e was going for in a way that works better for me (and I say that as a huge 4e fan). And the game that visually captures the feel I wish D&D had is Drakar och Demoner.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

The question is: Do you like 5e's art-style, or do you yearn for the art of yesterday?

Yesterday!

Be it Frank Franzetta, Boris Vallejo, Chris Achilleos, Clyde Caldwll, Dorian Cleavenger, Larry Elmore, Ken Kelly, Keith Parkenson, Luis Royo, Olivia, Al Buell, Gil Elvgren, Jennifer Janesko, Alberto Vargas.

There are so many more I like better than the current artists.

 

[DWChancellor]

One big point in the favor of "yesterday" is that the artists felt much more distinct. The modern crop are dramatically more professional and while that has its points, it won't catch the right person as strongly as the earlier artistry. There's something in that too.

Don't miss the random silly cheesecake though. Felt forced and out of place most of the time.