Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="PowerWordDumb" data-source="post: 1027961" data-attributes="member: 8614">And that's really all that needed to be said, not obvious inferences that the only reason for the &quot;fantasy&quot; elements in fantasy art is to allow us undersexed horndogs something to drool over when we should be attending to our wives.&nbsp; Regardless, water under the bridge.&nbsp; (See?&nbsp; Rational discourse! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )Another post mentioned that Elmore paintings brought up a lot of bad memories of the &quot;bad old days&quot; of 2e... that I can completely understand, and it's a very reasonable point.&nbsp; For me, I always harken back to the painting of the knight on a hill with scarred armor and a glowing magical sword standing off against a dragon. (the cover of the Companion boxed set, maybe?)That image to this day speaks to what my personal definition of D&amp;D is all about.&nbsp; I haven't followed Elmore's recent career, so if he has gone completely cheescake I'm unware of the fact.&nbsp; My opinion of him was forged back in the old days of Dragonlance book covers and images like the one I mentioned.As for Erol Otus' art and the claims of &quot;ugly&quot;... yeah, certainly compared to more picturesque artists I can see that, but it epitomizes for me the early days feelings of awe and mystery that I associate with my first ventures into AD&amp;D.&nbsp; His images were always interesting and bizarre, and very inspirational - for me at least.&nbsp; I know people who don't like them and that's fine - it's probably more the emotional baggage which makes me still liek them more than anything if I can self-psychoanalyze for a moment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="PowerWordDumb, post: 1027961, member: 8614"] And that's really all that needed to be said, not obvious inferences that the only reason for the "fantasy" elements in fantasy art is to allow us undersexed horndogs something to drool over when we should be attending to our wives. Regardless, water under the bridge. (See? Rational discourse! :) ) Another post mentioned that Elmore paintings brought up a lot of bad memories of the "bad old days" of 2e... that I can completely understand, and it's a very reasonable point. For me, I always harken back to the painting of the knight on a hill with scarred armor and a glowing magical sword standing off against a dragon. (the cover of the Companion boxed set, maybe?) That image to this day speaks to what my personal definition of D&D is all about. I haven't followed Elmore's recent career, so if he has gone completely cheescake I'm unware of the fact. My opinion of him was forged back in the old days of Dragonlance book covers and images like the one I mentioned. As for Erol Otus' art and the claims of "ugly"... yeah, certainly compared to more picturesque artists I can see that, but it epitomizes for me the early days feelings of awe and mystery that I associate with my first ventures into AD&D. His images were always interesting and bizarre, and very inspirational - for me at least. I know people who don't like them and that's fine - it's probably more the emotional baggage which makes me still liek them more than anything if I can self-psychoanalyze for a moment. [/QUOTE]

Verification