Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Type2demon" data-source="post: 1739788" data-attributes="member: 23759">Good art? Bad art? ...I think people here are missing an important point here.While all editions have had their shining star artists, I must point out that technical accuracy is only one feature of good art.The most important thing is that a piece of artwork should leave the viewer with a feeling of excitement, adventure or curiosity.It should cause your imagination to start asking "What happens next in this scene?", "Who are these people (or monsters)?". Too often D&D artwork is good in its color and technical accuracy, but sucks in its theme and emotional content.Take the 3.5e PH for instance: The pics of the individual character classes show no expression of character style or emotion. They just stand there...(and more often than not are holding a missile weapon in one hand and a melee weapon in another....Duh! you gotta drop one to use the other!).Lets face it, how exciting would a pic of Spiderman be if he was just leaning against a lightpost? People want to see him in action...doin' spidey things like swinging from a web or climbing a wall. The same goes for D&D characters.I must give the points for this category to the 1st ed PH. Trampier's pic of a thief waylaying a traveller (p.37) or D. Sutherland's "A Paladin in Hell" pic. evoke more of a sense of adventure and wonder than Kruck the barbarian doing hip thrusts (pg 25 3.5 PH) or Mialee the elf having a bad hair day (pg. 36).It seems that there were attepts at better artwork later in the book (PH 3.5) but (IMHO) it fell flat.Some other Wizards products did manage to pull off some interesting art (Sword & Fist for example). My real point here is that it takes more than just pretty colors to make good adventure art.... It takes imagination.</blockquote>

Verification