Wolv0rine
First Post
Taste in art is, of course, entirely subjective. Taste in art styles is equally sibjective. What is not ever subjective however is skill, technique, and knowledge. I've seen a few people say (paraphrased) "You can't call any art crap". I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. That's not my opinion, it's a Fact. Some "art" is crap. It's not crap because I don't like it, or Klaus doesn't like it, or Willow doesn't like it, or even god help us of Telfon Billy doesn't like it. You can correctly call 'art' crap is it is done without sufficient skill, technique, and knowledge of the subject. If the 'artist' has no functional knowledge of anatomy then the work is crap. If the artist has no knowledge of how to utilize their medium, the work is crap. If the artist has rushed through a piece because they didn't want to be doing it, it's often crap. This isn't a matter of taste, it's a matter of skill and knowledge. Do you know what you're doing or don't you. It's the same as writing -- if you don't know how to form a sentance, if you cannot spell, if Grammar to you is your grandfather's wife, if Plot is just the land your house sits on.. your writing is probably crap. Someone may like it, but if you break it down and look at the technical ability of the crafter to see if they have any idea what they are doing, they don't.
I just had to get that off my chest, I'm not pointing the finger at any artists in particular and saying "Them, right there, that applies to them", but there IS such a thing as bad, crap art.
Now, to wander on-topic...
I'm a child of the 70's/80's. I love Elmore, I love Parkinson. 1E will always have the true spirit of D&D (even if I thought many aspects of it were idiotic). I disliked a lot of the art in the 1E books then and still do. Erol Otis has never done anything that didn't literally make my eyes hurt. To this day the cover of the original Dieties & Demigods makes me want to cry. But I understand those things, because those guys were Pulp artists in those early days. They had no idea what this new thing required, and so they gave it what they knew. That it inspired and influenced those who did know what the field needed is fantastic.
As far as my own views on the 3E/3.5E art... overall I despise it. Lockwood is a giant among men for his talant and technical skill. WAR has a tight, clean style that I honestly dislike the hell out of because while it is a strong developed and honed style, it is a strongly honed and developed Comic Book style. These aren't comic books, much as I love them, and while I can not fault anyone for having comic influence in their style (I know I do) an illustrator for non-comic publications must be professional enough to know that alterations to one's style must be made to suit the field they are working in. WAR seems unaware of that with his hugemongous feet on everything and the 'WAR shuffle' that RangerWickett mentioned. It's interesting, but when it crops up in every illo it's a weakness to be addressed.
But, from WotC at least, it seems that as time goes by the criteria for being hired to do art on THE OFFICIAL D&D books becomes more and more "Will you work for a song?" (Disclaimer: I have never worked for WotC, and don't have the vaguest idea what they pay, that comment is based solely on the diminishing quality of technical merit and skill of the art in their books as time goes by).
Third party publishers generally do better at the art, IMHO. It's often hit-or-miss (Red Spire: Glad to see you found someone who nailed the style you were after! Kick-arse work there), but the hits often hit pretty strongly, and more often than WotC's current stable do by far.
As far as the buckles, spikes, tattoos, and piercings go, those don't bother me. The goths loved their spikes dearly, buckles have been found terribly useful throughout the ages since their invention, tats and piercings are some of the oldest things in human culture. If taken too far, they break the feel that D&D should have (yes, I feel there is a "Feel" that D&D, no matter the generation or edition, should adhere to, at it's core of cores). But as general design elements, these aren't a problem.
3.xE art is much like any other edition of art. The strong are very very strong, the weak are so weak as to make one feel ill.
I just had to get that off my chest, I'm not pointing the finger at any artists in particular and saying "Them, right there, that applies to them", but there IS such a thing as bad, crap art.
Now, to wander on-topic...
I'm a child of the 70's/80's. I love Elmore, I love Parkinson. 1E will always have the true spirit of D&D (even if I thought many aspects of it were idiotic). I disliked a lot of the art in the 1E books then and still do. Erol Otis has never done anything that didn't literally make my eyes hurt. To this day the cover of the original Dieties & Demigods makes me want to cry. But I understand those things, because those guys were Pulp artists in those early days. They had no idea what this new thing required, and so they gave it what they knew. That it inspired and influenced those who did know what the field needed is fantastic.
As far as my own views on the 3E/3.5E art... overall I despise it. Lockwood is a giant among men for his talant and technical skill. WAR has a tight, clean style that I honestly dislike the hell out of because while it is a strong developed and honed style, it is a strongly honed and developed Comic Book style. These aren't comic books, much as I love them, and while I can not fault anyone for having comic influence in their style (I know I do) an illustrator for non-comic publications must be professional enough to know that alterations to one's style must be made to suit the field they are working in. WAR seems unaware of that with his hugemongous feet on everything and the 'WAR shuffle' that RangerWickett mentioned. It's interesting, but when it crops up in every illo it's a weakness to be addressed.
But, from WotC at least, it seems that as time goes by the criteria for being hired to do art on THE OFFICIAL D&D books becomes more and more "Will you work for a song?" (Disclaimer: I have never worked for WotC, and don't have the vaguest idea what they pay, that comment is based solely on the diminishing quality of technical merit and skill of the art in their books as time goes by).
Third party publishers generally do better at the art, IMHO. It's often hit-or-miss (Red Spire: Glad to see you found someone who nailed the style you were after! Kick-arse work there), but the hits often hit pretty strongly, and more often than WotC's current stable do by far.
As far as the buckles, spikes, tattoos, and piercings go, those don't bother me. The goths loved their spikes dearly, buckles have been found terribly useful throughout the ages since their invention, tats and piercings are some of the oldest things in human culture. If taken too far, they break the feel that D&D should have (yes, I feel there is a "Feel" that D&D, no matter the generation or edition, should adhere to, at it's core of cores). But as general design elements, these aren't a problem.
3.xE art is much like any other edition of art. The strong are very very strong, the weak are so weak as to make one feel ill.
Ideally, one will have developed the appropriate tweaks to their style that fit the media they are trying to get work in beforehand, so that the AD will be able to see the artist's media-suited style beforehand. Not to mention that being able to show oneself as so versatile is only a strength. 
). 
