D&D General Art in D&D

[dave2008]

I don't necessarily like one editions style over another, but I would put 5e near the top. That being said, I don't think of editions having a unify style.

For example in 1e: Elmore doesn't equal Easley doesn't equal Claldwall doesn't equal Parkinson. They each had their own style and for me it is much the same with 5e. Are there broader trends within an edition, maybe, but I never noticed one really.

 

[dave2008]

My favorite art is magical realism. Photographically realistic with various special effects.

Ugh, that is probably my least favorite. That style just really breaks me out of my fantasy mind.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The art in 5th is really great: its slick, grandiose and really professional...but it is not really distinctive.

I'm probably alone in wanting D&D books with covers from Hydro74 and interior art by Scrap Princess

 

[DWChancellor]

I don't necessarily like one editions style over another, but I would put 5e near the top. That being said, I don't think of editions having a unify style.

3rd, 4th, and 5th deliberately do. I remember coming across Schindehette's ArtOrder website where he explained a lot of his work during 4E. That was great reading (and a great art community). You saw the same thing earlier in Planescape where DiTerlizzi was it, or with Eberron's featuring of Wayne Reynolds, etc. Modern D&D has very professional and curated "style."

Very curious what impact hiring Amy Falcone will have. Her work in Acquisition Incorporated was distinct and a big distance from the rest of 5E.

 

[Celebrim]

I think late 1e starting around 1986 through to around 1995 (give or take a year to either side) marks the golden age of D&D art. This is the era of Keith Parkinson, Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley, Clyde Caldwell, Fred Fields, and Daniel Horne, and also the era when they made the critical decision to give Brom the entire Dark Sun line and Toni Diterlizzi the entire Planescape line, which so much enhanced and even created the feel of those settings.

Earlier TSR art is iconic, and some of it is quite good, but not quite as polished as later eras.

WotC art direction has IMNSHO been largely terrible, and this is set by the way WotC has handled the art for the MtG line which has also fallen off from its early days where you felt like you were collecting miniture fine art. While WotC does correctly understand as TSR did that a setting needs to have a consistent feel across all of its art, the WotC approach is so heavy handed that it drives all the creativity out of the art and tends to stifle the artist. The art directors at WotC also have for some good reason come to prefer clarity and cost over almost anything else when managing artwork, and while this is somewhat understandable when it comes to playing pieces that have art on them it doesn't make for good art. Instead, it tends to prefer a comic book style to the detriment of the look of both their card game and even more so their RPG. So much of WotC art direction is focused on illustration, that it never manages to achieve actual art.

I disliked most of 3e art and hated 4e art, but it wasn't like that all the art in those periods was universally bad. For example, I would have far preferred if the 4e product line was done in the style of Eva Widermann over that of fan favorite Wayne Reynolds. Likewise Todd Lockwood did good work that I would have liked to have seen more of.

That said, 5e feels like in art (as in many other ways) a return to form, with the new art often so good that it would not feel out of place in the middle of TSR's golden era and likely would have in cases been hailed as a classic.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think late 1e starting around 1986 through to around 1995 (give or take a year to either side) marks the golden age of D&D art. This is the era of Keith Parkinson, Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley, Clyde Caldwell, Fred Fields, and Daniel Horne, and also the era when they made the critical decision to give Brom the entire Dark Sun line and Toni Diterlizzi the entire Planescape line, which so much enhanced and even created the feel of those settings.

Earlier TSR art is iconic, and some of it is quite good, but not quite as polished as later eras.

WotC art direction has IMNSHO been largely terrible, and this is set by the way WotC has handled the art for the MtG line which has also fallen off from its early days where you felt like you were collecting miniture fine art. While WotC does correctly understand as TSR did that a setting needs to have a consistent feel across all of its art, the WotC approach is so heavy handed that it drives all the creativity out of the art and tends to stifle the artist. The art directors at WotC also have for some good reason come to prefer clarity and cost over almost anything else when managing artwork, and while this is somewhat understandable when it comes to playing pieces that have art on them it doesn't make for good art. Instead, it tends to prefer a comic book style to the detriment of the look of both their card game and even more so their RPG. So much of WotC art direction is focused on illustration, that it never manages to achieve actual art.

I disliked most of 3e art and hated 4e art, but it wasn't like that all the art in those periods was universally bad. For example, I would have far preferred if the 4e product line was done in the style of Eva Widermann over that of fan favorite Wayne Reynolds. Likewise Todd Lockwood did good work that I would have liked to have seen more of.

That said, 5e feels like in art (as in many other ways) a return to form, with the new art often so good that it would not feel out of place in the middle of TSR's golden era and likely would have in cases been hailed as a classic.

This overall 5E looks great, but has a bit of CGI look to it.

The best art circa 86-95 for me is the zenith at least in terms of the best examples. A lot of it was also whimsical with faeries and non combat scenes. 5E phb IMHO is easily the best looking one internally, cover art is also good.

I'm not a fan of WAR so a lot of 3E, 4E and Pathfinder cover art by him looks bad with a few exceptions.

 

[Sacrosanct]

While each edition had good art, and 5e is the best at representing diversity, there hasn’t been any art that really dropped my jaw since 2e. I don’t think there are that many truly iconic images since 3e. Like Emikrol the Chaotic. Or the cover to Mentzers basic set. Or a paladin in Hell. Or Elmore’s dragon slayer party.

 

[Oofta]

Obviously AD&D 1E had the best art. You had gems like this one!

 

[GreyLord]

If rating editions by Art...I'd probably have it as

#1 - Mid to Late 1e (not the first runs of the PHB and such, but the orange spines and later books such as the MM2, WSG, DSG, OA, etc).

#2 - BECMI

#3 - 2e

#4 - B/X

#5 - 4e

#6 - 5e

#7 - the first run of AD&D (efreet of the DMG, Idol being robbed by thieves PHB, etc).

#8 - OD&D (yes, I have them, and yes, even then I wasn't impressed that much by the art. It was not the art that won the game...but the game itself...for me).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The art was about the only thing I love in 3.5, other than the Bard oddly enough.

The old Dragonlance art is gorgeous, as is Brom’s Dark Sun work.

I loved the art in 4e, both in style, and in quantity. The 4e books were nearly overwhelmed in the sheer density of art and lore. Every new set of options, every Theme, Paragon Path, Epic Destiny, Race, Class Build option, or article diving into such an option in more depth, or exploring new powers for a certain concept or theme, had lore and art. There are feat chains that came out and were accompanied with art and lore.

And the art evokes what it was focused on. It was purposeful, and delightful.

5e is more of a wide range of quality, for me. Some is downright gorgeous, while some is just poorly composed.