log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E About the artwork...

The impossibility of the pose, the oddness of the eyes, and other incongruous elements in the painting lead me to ask questions.

Is that an Elf? What is going on? Is it under the effects of a spell? Did it cast the spell or did something else?

Asking questions in this vein, can be conducive to character building. I might be mistaken, but doesn't this picture appear before the multi-class/Feats section of the rules?
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Mercurius

Legend
Better at what? There are certain things about The Godfather and Movie 43 that we can assess objectively. We can also assess its effectiveness at achieving certain goals, such as communicating a certain message or eliciting a certain emotional response, but such assessments are ultimately subjective. They are dependent on the audience’s personal perspectives, values, and experiences. In making this assessment, we might refer to certain objective qualities of the film, such as features of its cinematic framing, writing, editing, sound design, etc. but when it comes to saying whether or not those qualities achieve the goals in question, you can’t remove subjectivity from the equation, nor in my opinion should you try to.

Of course it’s meaningful. Things don’t need to be objective to have meaning.


Only if you value objectivity over subjectivity. Personally, I think it’s far more reductive to call art “good” or “bad” rather than to discuss why different people like or dislike it.
Again, you keep doubling down on the duality of objective vs. subjective. I'm suggesting that there are at least two other things to consider: inter-subjectivity and "depth of subjectivity."

I appreciate what you are saying because, like you, I find that people often don't recognize their own subjectivity and confuse it with some kind of objective truth. But I also find that it is too easy to go the other direction, and reduce all differences and distinctions to pure subjectivity and personal preference.

One philosopher pointed out that subjectivity is "I", objectivity is "it" and inter-subjectivity is "we." Further, that each has depths and layers, so that my "I-perspective" may include more or less data, experience, nuance, than your "I-perspective." Meaning, especially when we take into account context, not all "I-perspectives" are equal.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Again, you keep doubling down on the duality of objective vs. subjective. I'm suggesting that there are at least two other things to consider: inter-subjectivity and "depth of subjectivity."

I appreciate what you are saying because, like you, I find that people often don't recognize their own subjectivity and confuse it with some kind of objective truth. But I also find that it is too easy to go the other direction, and reduce all differences and distinctions to pure subjectivity and personal preference.

One philosopher pointed out that subjectivity is "I", objectivity is "it" and inter-subjectivity is "we." Further, that each has depths and layers, so that my "I-perspective" may include more or less data, experience, nuance, than your "I-perspective." Meaning, especially when we take into account context, not all "I-perspectives" are equal.
Ok, I get what you’re saying now. That’s definitely a valuable layer of nuance.
 

The face of the elf there is really messed up (it looks contorted and constipated rather than cool) but other than that i think both pieces are fine. One is a very clear "key art" type piece and the other is more blurred aiming to evoke a tapestry or mist-laden image in the vein of fantasy.
 

Lylandra

Adventurer
By that logic, these must be made by shit artists who could not even get basic perspective or anatomy right...


...and yet this is straight from the era which many better than thou oldschoole grognards so vehemently defend to base their realism upon ;)
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Artwork, the elf looks a little flat and washed out. Tasha’s could be lighten on the bottom left. What I hate about some artwork.

MUSCLES so many muscles. The monster been drinking steroids with mother’s milk and has more muscles on one body than my Family reunion has muscles on all their bodies. Worse when monster is not humanoid.

Cheesecake female monsters. Especially monsters which should not be a human in a Star Trek rubber mask.

Mixed Technology Levels. That is not a good expression. Example Wizard in flowing cloak, robes, magical staff will all superfine stitching. But his hood looks like someone laced the top with my old GI boot Strings.

Anime Weapon sizes.

Artwork which does not match the fluff. See the beach body Kobold someone posted elsewhere this week.
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
By that logic, these must be made by shit artists who could not even get basic perspective or anatomy right...


...and yet this is straight from the era which many better than thou oldschoole grognards so vehemently defend to base their realism upon ;)
Right. If someone expresses a like, it’s clearly because of their group membership and means they are old and out of touch, ignorant to history hypocritical or all of the above. 😏

or maybe the individual just thinks some of the pictures suck (before I ignite a philosophical and moral debate, let me rephrase) are not appealing.

as to the pictures posted, I think they have a place. If I recall, there is a picture of a tapestry In the PHB that is spot on.

the stained glass Pictures in Descent to Avernus is very cool as well.

but of course each are clearly and intentionally stylized to be evocative vs. accidentally distorted and distracting.
 

Hussar

Legend
but of course each are clearly and intentionally stylized to be evocative vs. accidentally distorted and distracting.
That's a very important point to remember. It's one thing if the style is a particular way. We don't criticize Picasso for not having his proportions correct after all. OTOH, when something is meant to be in a specific style, but fails at the bits and bobs of that style, then we can talk about the art being bad. Those tapestry pics above are meant to look that way. They're not badly done realistic pictures, because they aren't meant to be realistic at all as that's not a style of art of the time period being drawn from. (Heh, no pun intended)
 


Horwath

Hero
Obviously the piece is not to your personal taste, but this is honestly really insulting to the artist. If my 12 year old could make paint that elf that well, he would be well on his way to being a terrific artist.

Can you, an adult, paint anything nearly as good?
why is it insulting to say that you think someones work is a bad job?

Yes, it's personal opinion and you should take it as such. But to me, clearly it needed much more work and talent for 1st art than the 2nd one.

Also, I do not have to be Lewis Hamilton to say that in comparison to Tesla, Yugo45 is a piece of sh#t car.

But, if you care only about cheap price and going from A to B, then it does it's job, not a good one, but it does.

Same as the 2nd art, it does it's job of describing how the artist want to present how an elven(half-elven) ranger could/should look like. Just not very good.

when I see the sword in 2nd art, I do not see some magic sword, I see cheap Calimacil foam sword :D
 


ModernApathy

Explorer
It was a strange thread in the first place.

The art in the upcoming book looks great, so here's a thread where people can make fun of art from the PHB from 6 years ago? Really?

Saying something likes an acid trip (When it doesn't) is an insult.
Saying something looks like it was done by a 12 year old (when again, it really doesn't) is an insult and usually an easy comment to pick someone that has no understanding or appreciation of art.
 

Horwath

Hero
It was a strange thread in the first place.

The art in the upcoming book looks great, so here's a thread where people can make fun of art from the PHB from 6 years ago? Really?

Saying something likes an acid trip (When it doesn't) is an insult.
Saying something looks like it was done by a 12 year old (when again, it really doesn't) is an insult and usually an easy comment to pick someone that has no understanding or appreciation of art.

haha, that might be true.
After all, there is no accounting for taste.

I mentioned this now, as all artwork in 5E is similar, and we got now this portrait of Tasha that is(to me personally) about 10 categories of quality higher that anything else to date in WotC 5E art.(maybe I didn't get all the books).
And was wondering why didn't have similar high detail(and high quality) artwork before.

Most artwork is cartoonish, and could have been done in more serious, darker tone.
 



Or, as I would say it, most D&D artists’ work oozes with style and personality, but some of them are painfully bland and academic.
Its not all bad but myself personally I haven't cared for a lot of the art since the beginning of 3E. I think my main gripe with it is that it is rather inconsistent, when its good, its really good, but for the most part I have found most of it mediocre at best. But as I get older I'm not as easily impressed as I was when I was 9-10 years old, and I think sometimes people don't take that into account.
 

Its not all bad but myself personally I haven't cared for a lot of the art since the beginning of 3E. I think my main gripe with it is that it is rather inconsistent, when its good, its really good, but for the most part I have found most of it mediocre at best. But as I get older I'm not as easily impressed as I was when I was 9-10 years old, and I think sometimes people don't take that into account.
For me it’s the opposite. The older I get and the more I learn about art, the more impressed I am with the quality and diversity of art on display in these books.
 


Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top