Cover to Dragon #310 [wow!]

[Desdichado]

I considered Otis's work ugly back in the day, and if anything, I've become more finnicky in my tastes since then. I won't accept any half-arsed artwork and say to myself, "hey, that's good enough" anymore, I want stuff I really like.

To those who don't like the "dungeonpunk" look, what genre exactly do you think D&D emulates, anyway? That's the same look that fantasy B-movies have had for the better part of three decades or more, and it's only gotten moreso with the mainstream success of shows like Xena and Herc a few years back.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Oh grow up.

If this is the definition of not being a personal attack I am a bit confused.

Somehow the idea of "I am not offended by unrealistic armor in a fantasy art piece" has gotten mingled in your mind with "I must see half-naked ladies, hubba hubba!"

It has been brought up in this thread that sex sells, and that some flesh is a good thing. My comment may not have been aimed at your posts specifically but towards this mentality. Yes, sex sells - but there comes a point and time when one gets tired at everyone using sex to sell something, for me this cover was that point in time.

I would be just as uncomplaining about half-naked Conan-style paintings (and no I don't swing that way) as they too fit the fantasy style.

Please read my other post. The problem is as much that it's Elmore doing Elmore as the content itself. I am tired of Elmore's portraits. They are technically quite good, but they are all the same. I've seen this picture a hundred times from Elmore, a hundred and one isn't going to make me stand up and applaud. Even masters of an art (which many seem to think Elmore is, at least given the ammount of scorn heaped on other artists) need to do something different after a while, it just gets stale otherwise.

If I really thought Elmore drew nothing but cheesecake art, I'd move on, but he has done many wonderful pieces that expose no skin at all, and those that do are always compelling. Realistic art is also very cool, but variety is the spice of life.

A landscape piece would have been lovely, and would have played to Elmore's strengths, but this is the cover we are talking about and it's more of the same. For me, that same old same old Elmore has become synonymous with "cheesecake". I'm not sure I've seen him do (recently) a human figure that isn't cheesecake.

But at least try to be both reasonable and adult about it instead of mewling like someone kicked your dog, and throwing insults at people who disagree.

Considering the level of heat on this thread before I ever hit "post" I don't see your philosophy at work at all. Apparently if you like the other newer covers your opinion is only paid lip service.

For the record: I like Elmore... I like his backgrounds. I do not like his cheesecake women - fantasy or not. They are all alike. I would have preferred something else on the cover.

 

[nute]

The problem is as much that it's Elmore doing Elmore as the content itself. I am tired of Elmore's portraits. They are technically quite good, but they are all the same. I've seen this picture a hundred times from Elmore, a hundred and one isn't going to make me stand up and applaud. Even masters of an art (which many seem to think Elmore is, at least given the ammount of scorn heaped on other artists) need to do something different after a while, it just gets stale otherwise.

Elmore does one thing - pinups. He does them very well. But I do agree, they're all variations on a theme. Still very good, even if they're all very similar. The occasional Elmore cover isn't a bad thing. Twelve months of it would get very old.

A landscape piece would have been lovely, and would have played to Elmore's strengths, but this is the cover we are talking about and it's more of the same. For me, that same old same old Elmore has become synonymous with "cheesecake". I'm not sure I've seen him do (recently) a human figure that isn't cheesecake.

A landscape piece would also have missed the point of the issue. As it was, this cover missed the point of the issue (warrior classes - why's a wizard on the cover??), and that's pretty much my only beef.

While there's a lot to be said about personal preferences in art, and the old-timers' dislike for the "dungeonpunk" style, remember that the art is only a garnish on what's still a good main course. Complaining about the art is like going to a restaurant and complaining about the design of the plates instead of the food.

~M.

 

[Ranger REG]

Confession time: I have a hard time keeping WAR, Lockwood and Wood straight and separate.

There was a time when gamers mistook Larry Elmore's artwork with Clyde Caldwell's, who is best known for drawing scantily-clad and even topless females (although you won't see that in any D&D product but he does sell them in portfolios).

Elmore has done some nice work, but it all has a "sameness" to it that does little for me, unfortunately. Some of his stuff is great...but the majority of it just feels like models standing around.

Personally, I like the standing heroic pose rather than action poses.

 

[buzz]

Complaining about the art is like going to a restaurant and complaining about the design of the plates instead of the food.

Art is part of the presentation of a product. To use your restaurant metaphor, if content is the food, art is the ambience. Certainly, the former is generally more important than the latter, i.e., all the ambience in the world won't save a restaurant that has lousy food. Still, good ambience can't hurt. Some poeple may not mind sitting a greasy diner that reeks of mildew as long as the burgers are killer. Other people, though, might prefer a place with killer burgers AND clean napkins.

For me, good art (or more diplomatically, art that I like) adds to my enjoyment of a product and inspires me with ways to use it. E.g., when I see a cool Matt Wilson picture of a Harper in the FRCS, it makes me want to run a Harper PC.

The artists that I've mentioned evoke moods and imagery that inspire me to play and, heck, ticle the visual pleasure center of my brain.

Elmore, OTOH, reminds me of aspects of the hobby that I don't enjoy: chainmail bikini-ism, hackneyed Xena-esque conceptions of the genre, and an era of D&D history I don't particularly care for (AD&D2e and the latter days of AD&D1e). I also simply find his work aestheitcally unappealing.

Anyway, I think that art does matter, as it obviously provokes strong reactions in many people (myself included), but I'll agree that at some point you simply need to allow people thier tastes and focus on the content of the product.

Really, it's probably the fact that Elmore is so popular that bugs me the most, and compells me to post in threads about him. I just don't get his appeal.

 

[Ranger REG]

Really, it's probably the fact that Elmore is so popular that bugs me the most, and compells me to post in threads about him. I just don't get his appeal.

If you don't get it the way I don't get some of today's arts by folks like Stawicki, then you don't. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

I personally like Elmore because of the familiar feel when I first entered into this hobby of RPG. My first game is the 1980 D&D Basic Set with a barbarian in furry loincloth trying to fight a red dragon.

I hope this does not turn into another anit-popularity thread. I mean I've had enough about anti-Drizzt. If you don't like him, then you don't like him and that's fine. Just don't force me to convert to your thinking.

 

[Jody Butt]

I just don't get his appeal.

For me, the appeal is the realism. For example, the picture I posted above . . . it looks real . . . not like a WAR comicbook-esque picture.

Elmore's paintings have detail (both in the subjects, and the landsccapes), a rich palette, lots of texture, and the humans look like humans, not stylized representations thereof.

About the art/food analogy: For me, the art is everything. RPGs are just an excuse to get together with friends and imagine ourselves within a world defined by the art. I don't want to imagine myself in Wayne Reynold's comicbook world. It ruins the suspension of disbelief, for me. Elmore's work looks realistic enough that my suspension isn't shattered.

The rules, I can change. The art, I cannot change. I can deal with crappy rules. I can't deal with crappy art.

[When I say "crappy art", I mean crappy from the point of view of realism/detail being a desired goal.]

 

[Desdichado]

I'd agree almost completely with buzz, but with the following caveats:

1) I don't particularly mind Elmore. I don't particularly like him either, though. I prefer Lockwood, Wood and Reynolds, and co. any day. Especially Sam Wood.

2) The art, or ambiance is really a make or break point for me. I've got tons of books with rules; I don't really need more. I also find rules very dry; a necessary evil if you will of roleplaying games. That's one of the reasons I'm not really interested in learning tons of new systems anymore; I've got d20, I like it well enough, I know it well enough that it's transparent, and I can get on with playing. What I look for in books nowadays is inspirational things that I can use in my game. And since good art is clearly inspirational, I'm not likely to pick up stuff without good art unless I've heard over and over again that the rest of the content is incredibly excellent. And since a picture is worth a thousand words, and all that, I'm as likely to buy a book based strongly on the artwork as I am for any other reason.

 

[Corinth]

The midriff-baring breastplate broke the suspension of disbelief, and that's an unforgiveable sin in any form of fiction. Believable warriors don't do things like that.

 

[Ranger REG]

And since a picture is worth a thousand words, and all that, I'm as likely to buy a book based strongly on the artwork as I am for any other reason.

Personally, if a publishers spend too much time on art and less time on rules content, you're likely to get a very useless rulebook but a very good coffee table art book.

While art can be visually appealing to any printed or electronic books, if I want just art, I'll buy art book.

That's why I initially didn't like the new 3e rulebook art cover, too much like a girl's diary to me, but I guess it is designed to catch the eyes of people like you. But I bought it because of the content inside.

Back on-topic... Elmore's art pretty much set the tone for my vision and images of Dungeons & Dragons. If you like "dungeonpunk" then you're more likely to appeal toward Lockwood's art. If you like those furrowed brows look, then Wayne Reynold is your man. If you like sexy woman adventurers and damsel in distress, then Clyde Caldwell will give you that type of fantasy.