D&D 4E In terms of theme, tone, and spirit, I hope 4e . . .

[Doug McCrae]

Even though I am no fan of Sutherland (Bllleecchhhh...) and do like some 3e art, there is a hell of a lot of 3e art that falls right along the lines you very precisely point out. Wayne Reynolds popularized this style. Its technically fine for what its worth, but the characters are often hideous abominations. Every warrior or predatory monster has biceps as large as its head at least. The swords alone would weigh 25lbs and the non-warriors are freakishly gaunt. Impossible poses reminscent of superhero comics moreso than any classic and believable fantasy work. This work evokes something other than fantasy IMO and I do not like it.

You're right about the lack of realism in WAR's work. And about the big swords. I notice that most of his examples of extreme skinniness or muscles (and there are a lot, he really seems to like them) are non-human - thin undead or githyanki and warforged with giant arms and shoulders. There's no question in my mind that it's fantasy though.

Here are some examples:

Personally I love WAR, particularly his Eberron action scenes. If you are a fan of the more realistic style I challenge you to check out these images and not think they are frikkin' awesome.

 

[Wormwood]

You're right about the lack of realism in WAR's work.

Realism? Bah. I've got more than enough realism every day, thanks.

When it comes to fantasy, I want my heroes and villains to be epic, dramatic, and larger than life---and WAR definitely delivers. His portraits are striking and his action scenes are dynamic.

If I'm in the mood for regular schmucks in historical armor, I'll crack open Harn.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Here's an example of WAR at his very best:

 

[Doug McCrae]

Realism? Bah. I've got more than enough realism every day, thanks.

When it comes to fantasy, I want my heroes and villains to be epic, dramatic, and larger than life---and WAR definitely delivers. His portraits are striking and his action scenes are dynamic.

I completely agree with you.

 

[Sundragon2012]

OK, once again I am going to ask that evidence of this claim be presented in the form of pictures. You can go to the Wizards of the Coast website and find pictures of most of the art that has been released in D&D 3.0 and 3.5 books.

So, please find me at least one picture done by Wayne Reynolds that contains each of these characteristics:

No, entirely unnecessary. If you own the Eberron books just look at the multi-page Reynolds illustrations, that is proof enough.

I'll be here waiting patiently for your presentation.

Don't be a pompous prig.

Here are a few pictures for you to chew on:

Reynolds Pic 1

Reynolds Pic 2

Reynolds Pic 3

I'm not falling into the internet conceit of needing to present some form of citation for the obvious, especially a point by point presentation of some kind. Open the above mentioned Eberron books or even some of the monster manuals and his work is there. That's nothing more than a tool of those with an opposing point of view to take another's valuable time unnecessarily when, if the respondent had any knowledge of what is being discussed, the point being made is quite self evident.

Interestingly enough, I notice that from looking at his Galleries that he is capable of good proportion and realistic scenes of conflict. Its the 3e stuff that's over the top silly. I will blame Wayne no more, instead I will blame 3e art direction for asking him do create such dross.


Starlion

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

- infravision wasn't so all-encompassingly useful in 1e that dwarves wouldn't want torches sometimes. There's plenty of things you'd want to find in a dungeon that don't pack a heat signature.

Reading runes, for instance, would be tough without a light source.

Ok, again, if you compare the best of earlier era art with the worst of current era, then, yup, older art comes out looking pretty good. However, let's be honest here, there's some truly, truly atrocious art from back in the day as well.

Of course! I think it would be hard for anyone to claim that every edition didn't have some stinkers.

Bill Willingham, the writer/artist behind the Elementals and currently the writer of DC/Vertigo's Fables, however, is not a stinker. Never was a stinker, never will be a stinker.

 

[Wolfspider]

I personally feel that WAR is very talented. I've never disliked any of his work. Of course, it is highly stylized and very contentious. People seem to either love his work or despise it.

Although some of his proportions can be off a bit (that fire giant does have huge muscles, doesn't he?), his work is not as aggregious as, say, Rob Liefield, who seems to have no talent at all.

 

[Wolfspider]

Don't be a pompous prig.

I'm sorry for coming on so strongly. Consider me suitably chastised.

I will contend, though, that the ability to provide evidence to support your claims is a good thing, and not a waste of time at all. At least, that's what I tell my college freshmen, and I hope it's sound advice. I've found that what one person sees as obvious can be quite hidden to another--as in this very case.

Anyway, I have removed my offending post and will trouble you no more.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Realism? Bah. I've got more than enough realism every day, thanks.

When it comes to fantasy, I want my heroes and villains to be epic, dramatic, and larger than life---and WAR definitely delivers. His portraits are striking and his action scenes are dynamic.

If I'm in the mood for regular schmucks in historical armor, I'll crack open Harn.

Yeah, his stuff is larger than life and Saturday Morning Cartoony as all hell as well.

Realism is versimilitude which allows for the suspension of disbelief. WAR's stuff is patently contrary to the suspension of disbelief IMO. It stretches credibility to the utmost.

I find it interesting that other artists can combine reality and fantasy in a believable manner but WAR does not. Look at some of Lockwood's paintings as examples of what I am referring to. Perfect proportions, details, dynamism and heroism all rolled up into one.


Starlion

 

[Sundragon2012]

I'm sorry for coming on so strongly. Consider me suitably chastised.

I will contend, though, that the ability to provide evidence to support your claims is a good thing, and not a waste of time at all. At least, that's what I tell my college freshmen, and I hope it's sound advice.

I have removed my offending post and will trouble you no more.

I apologize for reacting so strongly...please do continue to respond to me if you wish.


Starlion