Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 3633130" data-attributes="member: 18832">Well, yeah, but this is a bit of a red herring, and it illuminates another one in these discussions:There's a difference between "style" and "subject". For me, quite a number of the illustrations in earlier editions are perfectly reasonable subjects, but are painted or drawn in a style I find ugly or dull. The earlier example of the two versions of "A Paladin In Hell" captures that pretty well; Sutherland's original has no charms for me whatsoever, and though I'm not fond of the artist who does the modern version, I appreciate the style a great deal more.Your complaints above are pretty much about subject, not style. Wayne Reynolds, to beat the horse into a chunky paste, has done plenty of illustrations of "traditional" subjects:<img src="http://www.waynereynolds.com/WOTCGallery1A/8.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />Hard to argue with hill giants throwing rocks, after all.Other people complain about style, but that's not the same thing. There's some degree of overlap - for instance, improbable armour is both a subject and a style matter:<img src="http://www.waynereynolds.com/D&D/3.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />The conflict is two-fold: people who like Larry Elmore, for instance, tend to also like the sorts of things Larry Elmore painted, like attractive women and very traditional dragons:<img src="http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h144/mhacdebhandia/dragon-nest.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />When a guy like Wayne Reynolds becomes known for pictures like the Thayan Knight illustration above, fans of "traditional" art tend to associate him with the non-traditional subjects they dislike, which means that they evince the sentiment that he shouldn't be working on D&D ilustrations at all despite the fact that he's perfectly capable of doing so, as the hill giants prove.So that's my problem: I like Reynolds much more than Elmore, so even though I'd (grudgingly) accept a shift in D&D's art direction back towards more "traditional" subjects were it to take place, I think it's pretty obvious that it would all but necessarily involve pandering to people who mistakenly believe that only artists working in a "traditional" style should be used.(But then, I think there's a good balance between traditional and non-traditional subjects anyway - and I'd rather see Elmore paint a warforged juggernaut than yet another blandly beautiful warrior-maiden with bare thighs and impractical hair.Also, I note with delight that the adventuring chiquita above is even less practically-dressed than Hennet.)</blockquote>

Verification