D&D General Art in D&D

[Hussar]

Yeah there is a lot of artistic talent wasted in that picture. Which is a shame...

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?

 

[The Glen]

The function of the illustration is to get people to buy dragon magazine. The art director gave an instruction the artist drew it. Probably tied into a theme or an article inside the magazine.

Artistically it's fantastic. You got the contrast of the night sky and the Dark Castle versus the flowing White costume and the blond hair. The little lamp looks like it was copied from a monkey based on the pose and the fact it's puffing out its cheeks. Add in the fact that 80s hair is notoriously difficult to draw it is a piece of art few people can do. I prefer this style far more than the prudish 5th edition start style. Art like this snaps off the page it's not Dull and dreary like the 5E art today with the colors bled out and the characters mostly looking bored.

 

[MGibster]

I don't honesty consider myself a very good art critic and I realize that some of this might be nostalgia talking. But very few illustrations in 5th edition can match the one below from 2nd edition. And even though I agree with removing cheese cake from D&D, I still think the art of Elmore, Horne, Brom, and Easley is superior to most 5th edition illustrations. But styles change and I wouldn't doubt if a lot of younger people look at their work and just think it's old fashioned.

 

[JeffB]

I think every edition/variation has some great art, some bad art.

Much of it is well executed, but stylistically the art in newer editions bothers me to no end- I'd rather purchase B&W books sans art for that very reason. It's hard for me to get into a game where I cannot stand looking at the rulebooks.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't honesty consider myself a very good art critic and I realize that some of this might be nostalgia talking. But very few illustrations in 5th edition can match the one below from 2nd edition. And even though I agree with removing cheese cake from D&D, I still think the art of Elmore, Horne, Brom, and Easley is superior to most 5th edition illustrations. But styles change and I wouldn't doubt if a lot of younger people look at their work and just think it's old fashioned.

View attachment 116130

That is a very good piece, and the cheesecake aspect is not too over the top. I instantly recognized it.

 

[dave2008]

I find 5E looks very good overall.

You just don't have those draw dropping pieces from say 85-95.

That timeframe covers the Dragonlance art, 2E settings, Dragon covers etc.

I don't know, 5e has some stunning artwork. Most recently in Descent into Avernus. I also really like the alt-cover to Eberron: Rise form the Last War

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know, 5e has some stunning artwork. Most recently in Descent into Avernus. I also really like the alt-cover to Eberron: Rise form the Last War

It has them just not enough. Looks the best overall.

 

[dave2008]

You may call that cheesecake but i think that might actually be more skillful than anything ive seen in 5e. Or at least anything that comes to mind.

Oh I disagree, I tend to think Caldwell was the least 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.

 

[dave2008]

I don't honesty consider myself a very good art critic and I realize that some of this might be nostalgia talking. But very few illustrations in 5th edition can match the one below from 2nd edition. And even though I agree with removing cheese cake from D&D, I still think the art of Elmore, Horne, Brom, and Easley is superior to most 5th edition illustrations. But styles change and I wouldn't doubt if a lot of younger people look at their work and just think it's old fashioned.

View attachment 116130

we can always cherry pick good pieces, but the body of work needs to be considered as well. I think a big difference between now and then is the classic D&D artists seemed to (or at least that is how I remember it) provide more full scenes, like the one you referenced. A lot of the art today is just a character or monster and little background or context. To me, or at least to my memory, that is the big difference. Not so much the skill of design or art itself.

For example, the picture above by Easley is good, but he had a lot of stuff that was not and borderline bad IMO. Personally I find Elmore to be more conistent, but even his work is not universally great and there are some clunkers in there as well. I actually liked Parkinson (whom you didn't mention) the best and really appreciate how is art seemed to get better over time.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Wow. Really?

What is this piece trying to say? We have this nice gothic architecture under a full moon - very Dracula looking. Then, we plonk down a blond, blue eyed woman dressed in virtually nothing, doing... magic? on the balcony while some little imp critter gapes at here open mouthed, practically drooling.

And, you see nothing wrong with this? I mean, what exactly in D&D is this depicting? From the background, I'd say that would be one seriously chilly woman. But, again, why is this woman dressed like a whorehouse slave girl? In that pose? It's utterly ridiculous. I really can't see any redeeming qualities of that picture.

Yes. Really. The art in that piece takes vastly more technical skill than the average art i see in 5e.

What the art is saying is irrelevant to what i, myself, was saying.

Sorry this art offends you but yeah. Far greater technical skill and command over anatomical elements than the average art of 5e. The vulgarity couldnt be any less relevant.

Dont pearl clutch so hard that you end up needing a chiropractor.

Sorry the art doesnt acheive your moral standards.