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

[billd91]

People like to pull these up but were meant to be funny. They were little comics stuck in the margins etc, they weren't the "main" art.

What constitutes the "main" art? The Mickey Mouse cartoon was right in the middle of the left column on page 34 of the DMG. It's just as big and prominent as the sage on page 31 or the guy appraising the gem on 25. It's a minority of the art, but then so are several other styles present in 1e AD&D art. It's a frequent enough minority, however, that it's impossible to honestly ignore or marginalize. You pretty much have to accept that it was an element of the D&D aesthetic in 1e.

 

[BookTenTiger]

To me, there are two main trends in the changing aesthetic of D&D:

1. The move towards Digital Art.

2. The move away from representing only Medieval European Fantasy.

Otherwise, I think D&D art has always had a huge variety of styles. I mean, check out Erol Otus:

That's 1981!

When I look at something like this, from the 2e DMG:

It doesn't look that much different than these pieces from Radiant Citadel:

The only kind of art I'm not a huge fan of is one with "photorealistic" people / scantily-clad people from the 2e Era (like this):

I much prefer my art imaginative or grungy, like this dwarf artificer from Tasha's:

or DiTerlizzi, the D&D artist of my heart:

 

[Undrave]

Lilo and Stich is the modern style.

Here, I'll give you an actual modern reference to use instead! Amphibia! That's probably closer to what you mean. They like their D&D reference too.

To be fair, the main art wasn't that amazing either but they had like zero budget for art.

You know, the budget thing is another interesting point... there's a lot of inexpensive ressources for illustrators nowadays that make it cheaper than before to make big colorful splash pages... and they have the money to pay the artist for their time. And modern printing techniques allow for more extravagant books.

 

[DarkCrisis]

The picture that @Stormonu posted is from the Fiend Folio. This was the unofficial second Monster Manual for 1E. It was slapped together from what was effectively user submitted monsters (the actual history is a bit more complicated). I don't know where that particular piece of art for the Kilmoulis came from, but I highly doubt, as you say, that it came from some sort of highly organised art department.

I actually said the opposite. "To be fair, the main art wasn't that amazing either but they had like zero budget for art."

 

[billd91]

2E's art is D&D to me. That's how I picture things in my head when playing. I like a more old school "serious" style.

Personally, I love that Tony DiTerlizzi 2e art because it mixes serious with whimsical.

Even 2e art was varied in its style and content.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I actually said the opposite. "To be fair, the main art wasn't that amazing either but they had like zero budget for art."

Err... I said what you said! They had zero budget for art == no highly organised art department.

 

[ART!]

The current D&D hardcover. Clearly D&D embraces a wide range of aesthetics and tones. The premise of the question is flawed, so it can’t be answered.

View attachment 154051View attachment 154052View attachment 154053

I agree. At first I was going to choose options 1, "I really enjoy those changes. The illustrations resemble well my ideal setting!" because I like the tone of a lot of the 5E art, but then the first comments made me realize the OP is talking about some of the more...cartoony? art in the last few releases? Regardless, even that's not consistently "cartoony" (or whatever), so I switched to option 2, "I'm ok with those changes, even if my ideal setting has a different aesthetics".

 

[Stormonu]

The picture that @Stormonu posted is from the Fiend Folio. This was the unofficial second Monster Manual for 1E. It was slapped together from what was effectively user submitted monsters (the actual history is a bit more complicated). I don't know where that particular piece of art for the Kilmoulis came from, but I highly doubt, as you say, that it came from some sort of highly organised art department.

“No True Scotsman”, eh? It’s as official as any other D&D product and had the standard D&D artists for the book (Jeff Dee, Roslof, etc.), plus some additional British (and well-known) artists as well.

The fact is, D&D art is all over the place with a lot of styles. People tend to remember the Easley, Elmore & Parkinson art, but forget some of the whimsy with Roslof, Jeff Dee and even Lockwood art (remember the halflings with the quill blown up in her face? Or Redgar using the half-orc’s face as a stepping stone to get to the top of a bluff?)

Yes, D&D art HAS changed, it’s always changing and will continue to change. But sometimes I think perhaps what chafes a lot of people may be the non-human heroes that show up more often, and it somehow rubs a group of folks the wrong way, as it gets away from the humanocentric view of D&D. Personally, I greatly enjoy the more fantastical takes that show D&D isn’t just our world with a bunch of people in quasi-medieval garb.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

To me, there are two main trends in the changing aesthetic of D&D:

1. The move towards Digital Art.

2. The move away from representing only Medieval European Fantasy.

Otherwise, I think D&D art has always had a huge variety of styles. I mean, check out Erol Otus:

View attachment 154074
That's 1981!

When I look at something like this, from the 2e DMG:
View attachment 154075

It doesn't look that much different than these pieces from Radiant Citadel:
View attachment 154076
View attachment 154077

The only kind of art I'm not a huge fan of is one with "photorealistic" people / scantily-clad people from the 2e Era (like this):
View attachment 154078

I much prefer my art imaginative or grungy, like this dwarf artificer from Tasha's:
View attachment 154079

or DiTerlizzi, the D&D artist of my heart:
View attachment 154080

I love this as a counter argument to the original post.

 

[BookTenTiger]

This thread needs more art in it!