D&D General Art in D&D

[Son of the Serpent]

Well, to jump onto the other side of the fence for a minute, given a different context, that pic would be fantastic. 80's fantasy novel cover for instance. Or airbrushed on the side of a van.

My point is, context matters. Sure, pinup art has its place. I collected Heavy Metal magazines for far too long to be hypocritical about it. But, in an RPG book? What exactly is the function of this illustration?

also, mcgibster only a few lines later showed a less sexual example of the same mastery of anatomy that we rarely see in 5e on full display.

Also how would you know if she's cold? There is little context for temperature in that pick. One could easily assume it was any climate.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Oh I disagree, I tend to think Caldwell was the lest skillful of the big 4. Like most of his work, IMO, this character seems very stiff and unnatural to me and overly glossy. All of his characters shine has if they just oiled-up after getting out of a tanning booth! Personally I think this piece would be the lower end of the 5e quality. But that is the thing with art - it is highly subjective.

I also think there has some been some great 5e art that rivals and even surpasses form of the big 4 at times. We remember the good pieces of old, but there was a lot of meh as well - even from the big 4.

I wasnt really talking about how good the art was for the record.
I was talking more about anatomical correctness.
That pic has better than 5e average levels of anatomical correctness and the technical skills specifically needed for that task.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, I'd agree with you except for the leering gargoyle looking thing on the right hand side of the pic that makes it just so blatantly obvious that this is cheesecake.

I'm a little worried that you interpret the imp/quasit's expression as "leering".

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I'm a little worried that you interpret the imp/quasit's expression as "leering".

Yeah. Honestly thats not what i assumed the imp was doing either.
I think maybe someone was projecting.

 

[dave2008]

I wasnt really talking about how good the art was for the record.
I was talking more about anatomical correctness.
That pic has better than 5e average levels of anatomical correctness and the technical skills specifically needed for that task.

Hmm, I've had a lot of art and biology classes before I switched to architecture (25+ years ago though) and I am not seeing anything that stands out about it being more anatomically correct than 5e human art. Anything particular you are referencing?

EDIT: In fact, her left arm seems off to me, but that is more perspectival (is that a word?) than anatomical

 

[billd91]

Oh I disagree, I tend to think Caldwell was the lest skillful of the big 4. Like most of his work, IMO, this character seems very stiff and unnatural to me and overly glossy. All of his characters shine has if they just oiled-up after getting out of a tanning booth! Personally I think this piece would be the lower end of the 5e quality. But that is the thing with art - it is highly subjective.

Yeah, Caldwell has been on my unfavored list since the 1990s because so many of his images looked stiff as well as the excessive cheesecake and feminine passiveness/victimization. That said, there are far worse examples (the art direction of Avalanche Press, I'm looking at YOU) and some of his work was quite good.

I generally don't mind a little fan service - but I don't want it to dominate or be directed only at one community.

 

[dave2008]

Far greater technical skill and command over anatomical elements than the average art of 5e.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Your comparing a non-average piece (this was a cover if I remember correctly) to an average. Not apples to apples.
2. As an amateur artist who has taken a fair bit of art classes I disagree that the technical skill is far greater than 5e art. To my eye it is on par at best. For me the character is very stilted and unnaturally posed. I don't see this in a lot of 5e art. There will always be exceptions, but this seems average, or lower, to me in that department.
3. The anatomy is no better or worse than 5e art for humans IMO. I personally can't think of 5e human art that has less then this level of anatomical skill. There may be some, but it is certainly not the average.
4. Halflings: people don't like the anatomy of 5e halflings, but that has not, IME, infected the rest of the 5e art.

 

[dave2008]

Well, to jump onto the other side of the fence for a minute, given a different context, that pic would be fantastic. 80's fantasy novel cover for instance. Or airbrushed on the side of a van.

My point is, context matters. Sure, pinup art has its place. I collected Heavy Metal magazines for far too long to be hypocritical about it. But, in an RPG book? What exactly is the function of this illustration?

Wasn't it a cover of a module actually? In which case the purpose would be to sell copies of the module and we all know what sells.

EDIT: It was cover of dragon magazine.

 

[dave2008]

I'm a little worried that you interpret the imp/quasit's expression as "leering".

I never thought of it before until this thread, but what is that imp doing? I can't really find a better description than leering when I look at it closely.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Hmm, I've had a lot of art and biology classes before I switched to architecture (25+ years ago though) and I am not seeing anything that stands out about it being more anatomically correct than 5e human art. Anything particular you are referencing?

EDIT: In fact, her left arm seems off to me, but that is more perspectival (is that a word?) than anatomical

Her right arm is slightly thick at the mid area.

And i wasnt actually even trying ti say the art was spectacular or "fine" art. But its anatomically more competant than 5e on average.

Its less things that this picture has happening and more things this picture DOESNT have happening actually. For instance, the limbs actually look about the right size in relation to eachother. A massive amount of the time with characters that arent supposed to be at all far off from human, 5e will get that wrong. Youll get cartoon body proportions that just look weird. Ive never seen 3e and earlier do that with character at all often unless saod characters arent meant to be particularly close to human.