D&D 5E About the artwork...

[Guest User]

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?

 

[cbwjm]

Representation!

Haha, kind of what I thought.

 

[R_J_K75]

can we in the future be spared of your acid trip induced visions, starting with this:

The artist must've done some real bad acid because there's nothing even remotely resembling an acid trip. Sorry I just don't see it.

 

[Mercurius]

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]

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.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

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]

By that logic, these must be made by naughty word 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]

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]

By that logic, these must be made by naughty word 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]

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)