Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6343572" data-attributes="member: 8461">No doubt, but I believe that this speaks more to the lack of imagination of the &quot;whole lot&quot; portion of the viewers. You can interpret what you're seeing as-is, with no contextualization - and that's no more or less valid than one that does contextualize the picture (however they do it) - but I personally find that to be rather limiting. If the circumstances of a picture don't seem to make sense prima facie, I prefer to think that there's an explanation that's not immediately obvious, rather than writing the entire thing off as being stupid.That said, it brings us to your subsequent point......which is that WotC can't, for a host of (largely economic) reasons, can't be quite so unconcerned with the artistic interpretation of the illustrations in their books. As you noted, WotC is invested in conveying an impression regarding their art, which means that they're likely going to compromise in favor of whatever comes across as being the least objectionable and most engaging (or otherwise laudible).I just want to be clear here - you're not refering to literally writing something in their artwork, such as a caption, right?I should reiterate that I'm not saying that artist's don't necessarily have a message that they want to communicate in their artwork. I'm saying that the nature of artwork is such that the message is virtually impossible to transmit in a manner that's clearly understood. The impression that the viewer takes away from a piece of artwork, to my mind, tends to have so little to do with any question of the creator's intent that it renders it little more than a theory.No worries; I didn't see the previous version anyway, so it's all good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 6343572, member: 8461"] No doubt, but I believe that this speaks more to the lack of imagination of the "whole lot" portion of the viewers. You can interpret what you're seeing as-is, with no contextualization - and that's no more or less valid than one that does contextualize the picture (however they do it) - but I personally find that to be rather limiting. If the circumstances of a picture don't seem to make sense [i]prima facie[/i], I prefer to think that there's an explanation that's not immediately obvious, rather than writing the entire thing off as being stupid. That said, it brings us to your subsequent point... ...which is that WotC can't, for a host of (largely economic) reasons, can't be quite so unconcerned with the artistic interpretation of the illustrations in their books. As you noted, WotC is invested in conveying an impression regarding their art, which means that they're likely going to compromise in favor of whatever comes across as being the least objectionable and most engaging (or otherwise laudible). I just want to be clear here - you're not refering to literally writing something in their artwork, such as a caption, right? I should reiterate that I'm not saying that artist's don't necessarily have a message that they want to communicate in their artwork. I'm saying that the nature of artwork is such that the message is virtually impossible to transmit in a manner that's clearly understood. The impression that the viewer takes away from a piece of artwork, to my mind, tends to have so little to do with any question of the creator's intent that it renders it little more than a theory. No worries; I didn't see the previous version anyway, so it's all good. [/QUOTE]

Verification