• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Cover to Dragon #310 [wow!]

All this talk of whether Elmore is worthy of having a cover or not, and the other artists who gave us full page art for this issue are ignored. :(

Elmore may not be the greatest artist to grace the earth but he is talented, well tarined, and wel known. He is also a staple of our hobby, whether you play Dungeons and Dragons or not. If the man relies on certain stylistic choices, and certain looks to his women, as well as the supposed unrealistic armor, so be it. It is no worse than any other artist that has been featured on the cover of Dragon or its sister Dungeon, and better than most.

Not only that, this cheesecake you speak of has always been a part of the hobby. How many artists out there attached to the genre, in gaming or in fiction use the female form in a seductive way? Let's make that easier, how many do not? (Rhetorical question BTW, it would take a bit of research to really answer that to satisfaction.)

Now to the pieces inside the issue.

The barbarian piece is great. I really like the skin of the half orc, obviously not human, but not grotesque or hideous. The woman was interestingly done, with the sleek black leather pants and halter top that I am sure offended someone, coupled with the snow tiger print cloak flanged with brass bits that are reminiscent of feather and a birds skull for a brooch. It is a great look. No, it's not viking inspired, nor any other earth barbarian culture, but it does not have to be. The characters are vivid, jumping out at you on the page, beautiful and dangerous both.

The fighter piece is also quite nice. Someone will be upset by the conical bits on the elves breastplate, but I really don't see a problem. She is very much fully dressed, so I'm sure that will be to her benefit. The piece is very dark, with a plume of flames in the background. The colors are soft, and faded as if my early light, suggesting the first moment of a battle, with mist or smoke surrounding them. The armor for both characters is ornate, but traditionally designed for the most part. Certainly it is not dungeon-punk.

The piece for the monk article is my favorite, and probably by the same artist who did the fighter piece. It possess the same soft light, and blurred detail on background structures and landscape. The poses of each character are realistic to my untrained eye. The female in mid kata, a staff held at the ready. Her male companion ready for business. he wears no shirt, and she wears a green and flower print bikini top. neither were done for the look alone. Both outfits are utilitarian simple outfits suitable for excercise or combat.

I really did not like the Champions of the Divine piece. The hlfling looked...odd. Something about the face and the helm on her war dog, the lines are too simlar. She simply seems out of proprtion. the idea of a fully plated female halfling paladin on a barded war dog is very cool though. :D The armor worn by the male character is probably realistic enough.

The piece for the ranger issue is cool enough. The background is great. Gorgeous use of light through a forest canopy, complete with falling leaves, and a very organic looking tree detailed just behind the two characters. Our traditional rough looking green garbed raneger today is a halfling (gnome?). Not common, so nice. The other, the female is half-orc, again not common, as not sexy. Again, like the other half orc doen this issue she is obviously not human, well defined muscles and greay flat skin, as well as feral almost skelatal facial features mark as her as obviously not. The pose does make her appear capable, dangerous and wary, as imagine she was meant to be.

Each article also incldes a map, made not for direct use, but instead as a reference. Each one is very pretty, nicely colored and evocative. There are no grids and no measurements though.

The last price of art in the issue is by Brain Snoddy, who i first became familair with though Privateer Press where I love his black and white line art. he work reminds me of woodcuttings for some reason, and 18th century art for penny dreadfuls. This piece is in color, watercolors I think (not an art expert again. There is no sex here, simpl,y a large man with a large sheathed sword resting on his shoulder. His eyes are very real, small dark piercing eyes, leveled appraisingly, and dissaprovingly on the viewer. It's a good piece, but I have not read the short story it is attached to.

Overall, I really think the art for this issue was top notch. I'd love to see more of this in the future.

Edit: I forgot the rogue piece. It's like DnD done by Tim Bradstreet. :D
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Skade said:
Not only that, this cheesecake you speak of has always been a part of the hobby. How many artists out there attached to the genre, in gaming or in fiction use the female form in a seductive way? Let's make that easier, how many do not? (Rhetorical question BTW, it would take a bit of research to really answer that to satisfaction.)

a.) I don't really see how this is any sort of excuse. I'm supposed to like (or excuse) cheescake, conversion-van-esque fantasy art simply because there's precedent? I have been really impressed with WotC's (and the hobby in general's) move away from the kind of soft-porn fantasy that, say, Avalanche really embraces. It felt like progress. Ergo, when I see Elmore and his ilk, it just feels like regression to me.

2.) I would draw a distinction between cheesecake and "using the female (or male for that matter) form in a seductive way." I'm certianly not arguing from any perspective of moral outrage. E.g., Frazetta's work is masterful, imo, and it's full of naked people. It's the cheese (not as in cake, but as in lousy) factor that bugs me about Elmore's work the most. The fact that his take on fantasy seems to have fossilized sometime in the late 80s doesn't help either.

But, diff'rent strokes and all.
 
Last edited:

Re: More for Joshua

I don't know these artists' work overall, so I can only comment on the pics you posted. I'm certainly no art critic, so I'm not trying to rip on the artists. Just giving some opinions.

If these guys are what you place at the top of the heap, then we certainly don't have the same taste.

If these were the standard to which a company aspired, I'd definitely figure that art wasn't a priority for them and react accordingly.

buzz said:
More "new" artists who rock:

Glen Angus
Definitely want to see more of him.

Hazy and washed out looking. What is he standing in -- it looks like a wicker octopus? Better than much 3E art, but still boring.


Rebeccca Guay
Wonderful ethereal, Edwardian quality to her work

Blech. I really can't say much about it other than that it's flat and dead. That, and I absolutely hate pictures with no background at all.


Carlo Arellano
He has his highs and lows, but rocks overall

I could see where this piece might have its place, like as a sidebar work in a module or something. Definitely not exemplary or anything, though.

So, is the elf dating Hennet? She seems to have the same facination with belts all over.


Matt Wilson
Some of my fave pics in the FRCS

Eh, better than the rest. I certainly wouldn't knock it. It's certainly not a showcase peice, but it's good enough to put in a main book at least.


There's probably more... all more interesting thanl ol' Larry. ;)

Elmore has his idiosyncracies, but he's still one of the better fantasy artists out there. Personally, I'm happy to see him on the cover of Dragon again.

I don't like every picture he does, but a fair amount make me say, "Cool!". I really can't say that with most 3E art. Wayne Reynolds comes closest. The picture in question definitely isn't Larry's best, but I honestly can't think of a single picture in any hardcover 3E book that I like better.

Really, Elmore's work (and that of the other 2E artists) often inspired me. There really isn't much inspiration in 3E. Sure some of the pictures are value-added in the books, but for most of them, the best you can say is that they don't detract from the book.

Ten years ago, I could pull out a Dragon magazine and say, _this_ is what monster/NPC/city XYZ looks like. I really can't do that today. The quality just isn't there. In the past few months, though, I do think the quality has started to improve, though. At least for Dragon.
 

Re: Re: More for Joshua

Mercule said:
If these guys are what you place at the top of the heap, then we certainly don't have the same taste.

If these were the standard to which a company aspired, I'd definitely figure that art wasn't a priority for them and react accordingly.

I'm not plaving them at the top, necessarily; I just went through the art archives at WotC and picked ones I liked (and thought were more appealing than Elmore). I'd put Kalman, Wood, WAR, Lockwood, Sweet, and Brom above them all.

And to me, these artists signify that WotC *does* indeed have good art as a priority (though they seem to be waning of late).

Mercule said:
Ten years ago, I could pull out a Dragon magazine and say, _this_ is what monster/NPC/city XYZ looks like. I really can't do that today. The quality just isn't there. In the past few months, though, I do think the quality has started to improve, though. At least for Dragon.

Well, our tastes obviously differ then. When I look at Dragon covers from the time you mention (via my Dragon CD-ROM collection) my reaction is generally: "Boy, I'm sure glad I never bought any of these."

I regert having left gaming for a while during that period, but I surely don't regret the era of AD&D that I missed.
 

buzz said:


a.) I don't really see how this is any sort of excuse. I'm supposed to like (or excuse) cheescake, conversion-van-esque fantasy art simply because there's precedent? I have been really impressed with WotC's (and the hobby in general's) move away from the kind of soft-porn fantasy that, say, Avalanche really embraces. It felt like progress. Ergo, when I see Elmore and his ilk, it just feels like regression to me.

I think one can make a pretty clear distinction between Elmore's style and that of "Heaving Breast Central", the art department at Avalanche. I'd never really seen any Avalanche products before a couple of weeks ago and didn't know what all the hubbub was about, but now that I've seen them - they don't offend me, but they are certainly placing more focus on physical attributes than creating an atmosphere that'll make me buy a product. Whatever though - if they like it and someone buys their products, I couldn't care less.

buzz said:

2.) I would draw a distinction between cheesecake and "using the female (or male for that matter) form in a seductive way." I'm certianly not arguing from any perspective of moral outrage. E.g., Frazetta's work is masterful, imo, and it's full of naked people. It's the cheese (not as in cake, but as in lousy) factor that bugs me about Elmore's work the most. The fact that his take on fantasy seems to have fossilized sometime in the late 80s doesn't help either.

But, diff'rent strokes and all.

Yup. I think that Elmore's style has remained recognizably the same is a bonus in my mind, because I have good memories of the early days. I wasn't gaming much during the 2e period that scarred most of your psyches, so I don't have the negative connotations applied. Any of my anger at the time was directed at the game system, not the artists, anyways. Accordingly, I still see an Elmore piece and it transports me. I just wish he'd get back to doing more epic "knight vs. dragon" type pieces.

Some of the new guys aren't bad at all - I'm hardly a curmudgeon about new artists - but I still like what I like despite what may be in vogue. Some of the so-called dungeonpunk stuff is just as stupid as any chainmail bikini ever was, but some of it is very evocative as well.... it all comes down to personal preference.
 

I like Elmore's work better than most of the more current artists. The pictures that were posted from the old D&D boxed sets are classics. One good one that wasn't posted was a b&w picture of an elf, dwarf, and halfling sitting on a log that's in one of the books in the old red box set. That's the most classic representation of the D&D races, in my opinion.

Mostly I like that the headlines are more subdued on this issue. Regardless of who does the artwork, I hope that this is the start of a new trend.
 
Last edited:

Agreed - I like actually being able to enjoy the cover art (whether or not it's reprinted inside).

If I want huge blaring cover titles in 24-point fonts, I'll pick up a Maxim, thank you very much.

IANAP (I am not a publisher) so I have no idea what I'm talking about in terms of sales impact - just personal taste.
 

PowerWordDumb said:

Yup. I think that Elmore's style has remained recognizably the same is a bonus in my mind, because I have good memories of the early days.
It is through most of his artworks that reminds me what Dungeons & Dragons and Dragonlance is all about, especially when we have undergone many rules version of the same game.

I feel like an old fart now, having gone through 3 editions of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (including the recent incarnation that finally dropped the word "Advanced"), the 1980's boxed sets, and early Dragonlance products.


it all comes down to personal preference.
Exactly. There is no one fitting image that can symbolize Dungeons & Dragons. Even the brand's trademark have gone through several changes.
 
Last edited:

Ranger REG said:
Exactly. There is no one fitting image that can symbolize Dungeons & Dragons. Even the brand's trademark have gone through several changes.
Speaking of which, does anyone have a font that resembles that used in the current brand's trademark?
 

Specifically, a font that resembles this?
 

Attachments

  • dd_console_90.jpg
    dd_console_90.jpg
    25.6 KB · Views: 271

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top