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

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I love Erol Otus, and yet his artwork is totally at odds with what most people seem to like about 'old school' art. It's weird, unrealistic and not medieval at all. It's D&D as dream rather than D&D as simulation.

Which makes me think...

If an artist like Otus was around for 3e, would they be torn apart like many of the others? I think they would, honestly. Not to say that I don't like Otus' stuff, its got a very unique and great style to it, but it seems like the artists these days just can't win no matter what.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Two words:

Erol Otus.

Oh, dear Lord, no!

I could never understand why people rave over his stuff.

Some of it is really, really good, but most of his D&D stuff is just ... ew.

 

[Wormwood]

I've been around since the Red Box, and I far, far prefer so-called the "dungeonpunk" ethic to anything that came before (with the possible exception of Brom's work on Dark Sun, but that's more of a setting-specific thing). I love that modern D&D no longer tries to look particularly medieval. The quasi-historical armor and pointy wizard hats will not be missed.

100% agreement.

I rolled my first character in 1979, when 'fantasy art' was on paperbacks, airbrushed on vans, or sculpted into bongs.

Today's 'fantasy' is much more syncretic, and the 3+ art brilliantly reflects this.

 

[Xyxox]

I would like to mention that there ARE more recent illustrations that do evoke that sense of exploring the unknown for me ... two examples I remember in particular from PHB II were

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97179.jpg

and

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97180.jpg

...both by Michael Komarck. I think one important thing is that these aren't just static portraits or big battle scenes -- these images show the heroes within the story context, and have the expectation of things to come, if that makes any sense. The illustrations aren't just there to show off a spell effect or what a monster looks like. They tell a story, or at least invite you in to one.

-The Gneech

Now that's what I'm talking 'bout! I loved the second one. Excellent artwork!

 

[Teflon Billy]

I would like to mention that there ARE more recent illustrations that do evoke that sense of exploring the unknown for me ... two examples I remember in particular from PHB II were

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97179.jpg

and

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97180.jpg

...both by Michael Komarck. I think one important thing is that these aren't just static portraits or big battle scenes -- these images show the heroes within the story context, and have the expectation of things to come, if that makes any sense. The illustrations aren't just there to show off a spell effect or what a monster looks like. They tell a story, or at least invite you in to one.

-The Gneech

Those are both outstanding.

But I love the first example from the OP, and dislike the picture/style of the Hennet picture.

There's no pleasing me

 

[Fifth Element]

I prefer to set the theme, tone and spirit of my games myself (in concert with the other players), rather than basing it on some illustrations in the books.

That being said, 3E art is technically the best art D&D has ever had (I mean in the sense of the proficiency of the artists in general).

That being said, I do have some nostalgic feelings for 1E art as well.

Overall, I like the art in all the editions, but 3E is the best. Some stuff I don't enjoy too much, but overall it's the best.

I think Nifft summed it up well. If you're pining for a return to the "spirit" of old D&D (or another equally vague and subjective term), you're most likely just yearning for a return to your youth. It's called nostalgia, which I think is great in general. It is not, however, the best basis to design a new edition of the world's most popular RPG.

 

[Glyfair]

Those are both outstanding.

But I love the first example from the OP, and dislike the picture/style of the Hennet picture.

There's no pleasing me

What it really comes down to is that whether someone likes a piece of art is going to depend on the piece of art and not just in which era it was produced.

 

[Kaodi]

Man, am I sick of hearing all the complaining of " anime " style artwork. I mean, come on. Anime is distinct from dungeonpunk.

I like that Trampier picture, though I agree that the mouth itself is jarring and goofy, the worst part of the whole thing.

In comparison to the Komarck pictures, I think the critical element that I don't recall anyone mentioning yet is texture. All three of those illustrations have it, many (or most) 1e and 3e pictures do not.

I love Reynolds' work, but I think his style lends itself to pulp action, which he excels at, far more than it does noir, that other element that ought to be found in Eberron. Komarck is the man you want for those kinds of paintings and illustrations, judging from those two pictures there, especially the one by the fire, which I think is superior to the Caves of Chaos. Because he has texture, and Reynolds does not.

 

[TwinBahamut]

That magic mouth on the wall thing is just wierd...

If that is the tone and spirit of the past, then I think I will stick to modern stuff. The art The_Gneech posted is really cool. Though, are they camping in Yosemite? That is interesting.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Indeed.

I love the little 'surprise' waiting down at the bottom of the stairs.

Funny thing... all those years and I never noticed that 'surprise' until you brought it up here!

You live and learn, eh?