I think there is some nostalgia involved. I really liked those covers as they were D&D for me (and I love dragons), but I don't think they have aged as well and they are definitely not his best work. I still like them, but I think his dragons tend to be a bit goofy - so maybe I am biased.I think the Elmore BECMI covers are probably the pinnacle for me - could be nostalgia, I guess, but I just love those covers (except maybe the "I" cover.).
The only art that is bad in 5e is some technically lacking pieces where the anatomy is pretty bad.
The half-elf with oddball eye proportions, the bard IIRC is wonky in some way, the Gnome Ranger’s head looks like it goes straight back from the hairline instead of having a domed curve like a head should, etc.
Other than that, at worst you get “not quite top tier fantasy art”.
I assume you are talking about the tree images below? I get why people despise the halfing, but what don't you like about the half-orc and warlock art? I don't particularly like paintly style as I like a more precise and detail look, but I think that art is pretty darn good. I would never thing of it as "awful." What is awful to you in the half-orc and warlock?But the artist who did the halfling (and half orc and warlock)? I find it awful.
I assume you are talking about the tree images below? I get why people despise the halfing, but what don't you like about the half-orc and warlock art? I don't particularly like paintly style as I like a more precise and detail look, but I think that art is pretty darn good. I would never thing of it as "awful." What is awful to you in the half-orc and warlock?
I think the half-elf is the one in the full page spread of the PHB posted early in the thread. It real does look odd.Are these the pictures in question...?
Ya, as i mentioned i am not overly found of the more "painterly" style of a lot of 5e art, but I oddly think the art direction(?) is more my taste then 4e art which generally had a more precise and detailed style. My ideal would be a combination of the two. I think the red dragon in the MM pulls off waht I am looking for really well actually.Not the person you were replying to, but I like the Warlock quite a bit. However, the others looks to vague and icky to me. Almost a bit to "paint-like" No offense to the artist, as I can't draw to save my life.
However, people at my table have commented that the Warlock looks like a child. As for what can be said of that, I'm not sure.
I agree completely. Actually, in general, I think that Tyler Jacobson does pretty good pieces (he did a lot of the covers), and the realistic but clean look (the Red Dragon from the MM) is my favorite look.Ya, as i mentioned i am not overly found of the more "painterly" style of a lot of 5e art, but I oddly think the art direction(?) is more my taste then 4e art which generally had a more precise and detailed style. My ideal would be a combination of the two. I think the red dragon in the MM pulls off waht I am looking for really well actually.
I just realized that the wing design of Elmore's dragon is very odd. The extra 'brace' would stabilize/strengthen the wing, but it would prevent the dragon from folding is wings along its body. Odd choice.
Yep, I just checked out Tyler's website and his style is right in line with what Iike. I had forgotten about his magnificent cover for VGtM.I agree completely. Actually, in general, I think that Tyler Jacobson does pretty good pieces (he did a lot of the covers), and the realistic but clean look (the Red Dragon from the MM) is my favorite look.
Not too paint-like, and not too stylized.