D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics

[Fifth Element]

I second Morrus' point. While editions do tend to have overall art styles (obviously), this has varied so much over the years that I don't think it's possible to compare the new to the old, not only because the new varies more than your poll presumes, but also because the old varied by a huge degree as well.

 

[Umbran]

What do you think of this trend?

I don't find the change important. The esthetics of art in D&D books has changed several times over the game's history, and no doubt will do so again. Part of the way to get new eyes (and therefore more $$ spent) on a game is to change up its look from time to time.

Fashions come and go. Don't read too much into it.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think the point of the OP is that D&D illustrations are trending away from your example. I don't think anyone is suggesting that such illustrations no longer exist.

Trending away from "a variety in aesthetics and tones"? Any evidence that this is true?

 

[S'mon]

I refer back to Morrus's thread regarding the D&D changes to highlight how, release after release it is increasingly evident that the aesthetics of D&D illustrations are changing.

What do you think of this trend?

I was ok with 5e art up until Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, which appears to have Chris Perkins on the cover. After that I'm uncertain leaning negative. The 5e core book art does not make much impression on me, but not offensive.

I liked the 4e evocative landscape/mood art, and some of the character pics. Preferred it to 3e.
Did not like 3e Todd Lockwood & co art.
2e art could be a bit twee, but I like it better now than I did then.

 

[Stormonu]

Some D&D art I like. Some, like Wayne Reynolds, I don’t. D&D art has always fluctuated and always will.

There’s lots of art in books like Wild Beyond the Witchlight, Van Richtens and Strixhaven I do like, but there is some I don’t. It just depends on the artist’s style and subject.

The one thing that annoys me is some of the maps in Van Richten - like Falkovia and Mordenheim. They remind me of Di Terrezeli’s style and I associate that more with the likes of Planescape and the aesthetic feels off. Conversely - page 23 and 98 of Van Richtens. I love the atmosphere of that artwork and it’s something you would have never seen in the old black-and-white Stephen Fabian art.

As for the covers, I really haven’t liked the standard ones much since the start of 5E and have mostly preferred the stylized alt covers.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

I refer back to Morrus's thread regarding the D&D changes to highlight how, release after release it is increasingly evident that the aesthetics of D&D illustrations are changing.

What do you think of this trend?

Could you be a little more specific about what you mean?

If you look back at the art for 3.5 you'll see a handful of artists with wildly different styles and tones.

 

[beancounter]

Trending away from "a variety in aesthetics and tones"? Any evidence that this is true?

Yes, over time the number of Disneyfied illustrations have been increasing, and the number of "classic" illustrations are decreasing.

No one is arguing that variety no longer exists.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Yes, over time the number of Disneyfied illustrations have been increasing, and the number of "classic" illustrations are decreasing.

No one is arguing that variety no longer exists.

What do you consider to be 'classic'? Like... is this what you mean?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I refer back to Morrus's thread regarding the D&D changes to highlight how, release after release it is increasingly evident that the aesthetics of D&D illustrations are changing.

What do you think of this trend?

Are you sure the aesthetics are changing? The cover of Journeys through the Radiant Citadel | Dungeons & Dragons is what you are referring to I assume? I guess I understand that the nature of this particular cover is different from others. Is this really a trend though?

 

[Fifth Element]

and the number of "classic" illustrations are decreasing.

"Classic" is not a useful term here, because the variety of art in past editions of D&D is huge. It's too vague a term to be useful in defining what you actually mean - it's not an art style, it's a large group including a wide variety of art styles.