D&D General Art in D&D

[Parmandur]

That may be the intention, but the piece does not convey it. I've run G3 twice and all I see is a random Fire Giant in a contrived position. The sense of space and movement is a mess. The central character appears to be trampolining upwards and is perhaps casting a spell but it's just a vague glow which conveys nothing. And that's the entire problem - this is a mediocre piece on any level (at least zoomed in like this) and it's a genuinely bad choice for the cover of the PHB. It will not be remembered fondly.

The DMG has a solid and appropriate choice, albeit it could stand to be sharper and more dynamic, and the MM has a good choice.

Disagree entirely. This is already an iconic image.

 

[Oofta]

I think that all this thread has proven is that different art appeals to different people. Personally I'm not a big fan of a lot of modern art but some people go gaga for it.

Good art, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Speaking of beholders, the art for those guys really did improve starting with 3E.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Spoken like a man who doesn't understand how art and visual design work on a profound level, in my opinion.

You're in the wrong here. It doesn't matter what the original piece, zoomed out and uncropped looked like, because that isn't what is being presented. That’s almost completely irrelevant. What matters is what the cover of the PHB actually looks like. And that is a weird mess, I would say, and I suspect you at least partially agree, given this peculiar line of argument. An art director, himself an artist, made the artistic decision to make (or have made) this crop and this overall design, approve it, and have it printed. He took arguably decent art, and by editing it, changed it into bad art.

Anyone who has worked in actual image editing as a job, or heck, anyone who has done any kind of art involving other people's images has themselves seen that this is something that happens, something that with taste and talent and the right choice of source images, you can generally avoid (though not always). You will, quite rightly, be judged on the final image you deliver, not the source image.

At the very most you might argue that the original artist is more talented than one would credit from looking at the cover of the PHB. I might even concur. But "5Es art" in any honest sense is what 5E actually delivers in actual products, after the art director and editors have been at it. MtG has art director and even tricker space to use art and they do a great job.

I'm going to quote the OP here;

The question is: Do you like 5e's art-style, or do you yearn for the art of yesterday?
What are your criticisms of 5e's art, and where has it been successful?

The question is about the art style, it isn't about how the designers try to refit it to fit the cover. I'll admit the piece looks better when you can see the whole thing, but I think that standard hold for all of 5e's covers, and most covers in general, because a wide-scape typically looks better than a narrow one.

And even cropped, the art is certainly not bad. Your main criticism of it is completely nitpicky and honestly nonsensical. It's clearly a giant running at two adventurers, one jumping/flying with a spell ready, another sword drawn. Most people can look at that cover and understand that the giant and jumping person are in motion and that's why they are in the position they are, and frankly it's a lot more dynamic and interesting that many of editions covers previously where everything is still.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

criticism of it is completely nitpicky and honestly nonsensical. It's clearly a giant running at two adventurers, one jumping/flying with a spell ready, another sword drawn. Most people can look at that cover and understand that the giant and jumping person are in motion and that's why they are in the position they are, and frankly it's a lot more dynamic and interesting that many of editions covers previously where everything is still.

What utter rot.

It certainly isn't clear and you're really proving my previous point by saying that, calling the criticisms "nitpicky" (which they assuredly are not, from any artistic standpoint), and attempting to push this ridiculous idea that we should be judging art based on what it might look like not on an actual product.

If we were discussing the specific artist in question that would be valid, even necessary.

We are not.

We are discussing 5Es art, which is what happens after the art director massacres a decent piece with bad decisions. I'm willing to bet most of the dodgier pieces in 5E have a zoomed out or uncropped version that looks somewhat better, but that's not what is actually there! That he is choosing to use an artist he is then having to rather massacre is part of the problem, note.

 

[Parmandur]

What utter rot.

It certainly isn't clear and you're really proving my previous point by saying that, calling the criticisms "nitpicky" (which they assuredly are not, from any artistic standpoint), and attempting to push this ridiculous idea that we should be judging art based on what it might look like not on an actual product.

If we were discussing the specific artist in question that would be valid, even necessary.

We are not.

We are discussing 5Es art, which is what happens after the art director massacres a decent piece with bad decisions. I'm willing to bet most of the dodgier pieces in 5E have a zoomed out or uncropped version that looks somewhat better, but that's not what is actually there! That he is choosing to use an artist he is then having to rather massacre is part of the problem, note.

Ignore the uncropped art, which is meant for computer wallpaper purposes. Just the book cover itself, is great. Doesn't suit your individual tastes, fine. Doesn't make it less than awesome. Love the dynamic scene.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

What utter rot.

It certainly isn't clear and you're really proving my previous point by saying that, calling the criticisms "nitpicky" (which they assuredly are not, from any artistic standpoint), and attempting to push this ridiculous idea that we should be judging art based on what it might look like not on an actual product.

If we were discussing the specific artist in question that would be valid, even necessary.

We are not.

We are discussing 5Es art, which is what happens after the art director massacres a decent piece with bad decisions. I'm willing to bet most of the dodgier pieces in 5E have a zoomed out or uncropped version that looks somewhat better, but that's not what is actually there! That he is choosing to use an artist he is then having to rather massacre is part of the problem, note.

Well, can't account for taste I suppose.

 

[generic]

Well, can't account for taste I suppose.

Everyone's tastes are different, perhaps yours is a bit off.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Everyone's tastes are different, perhaps yours is a bit off.

Right back at ya.

 

[generic]

Right back at ya.

Exactly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree with what you're saying. My opinion (earlier in the thread) was that I preferred the early D&D art, because while some of it was awful, some of it was transcendent.

Either on purpose, or by accident, I think 5e has settled on a house style of "Consistently good, but never great." There are worse things.

I’d say “always at least workable, rarely great, usually pretty good to really good”, but otherwise agree.

The PHB halflings barely meet “workable”, as does the phb gnome pic with her flat topped cranium. Some other pics have amateurish hands or the like, but are evocative nonetheless, etc. There is an elf with badly proportioned eyes, IIRC.

But there is also some gorgeous art in, E.g., Eberron Rising.