• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

tattoos, spikes, punk, and goth in D&D images?

Not a single picture can be refered to as crap, simply because every picture will find someone who likes it. The only thing one can argue about is the choices, that were made by WotC officials. I thinks it is inappropriate to bemoan the pictures themselves. Yeah I know, I'm nitpicking.

I myself don't like the choices that were made with the most recent WotC books. Too much anime style for my taste but anime is currently considered "cool" among the kids and I'm afraid, that WotC won't change their current path of art. Quite the opposite is true.

About the pictures being bdsm. Well, if you give out assignments to the Jon Foster Studio (devis, lidda), what do you expect? I'm personally fond of their work but can understand if some people don't like it. Oh, and someone said something about low cost pictures. I'm quite sure, that WAR and Jon Foster can't be considered low cost.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Quasqueton said:
Quick, drive-by posting, here.

I was not questioning people's taste or like/dislike of the current styles. I was specifically asking for examples of the spikes, punk/goth, tattoos that so many decry. Only one person so far has actually addressed that issue, but I haven't time yet to check those specific images out.

I don't think there is nearly as much of this stuff in the images as people claim. I again suggest that most people heaping the comments on D&D are not really looking at the images, but are just regurjitating what they've heard others say.

Prove me wrong by pointing out specific images in the core books that have the spikes, tattoos, and punk/goth styles. If you can't name more than two or three out of the dozens, you have no support for your claims.

Quasqueton

Page numbers are from the 3e books. I don't have the 3.5 ones. Also, it's not just the punk/goth stuff but the cartoon style oversized weapons and armor pieces as well as the anachronistically ergonomic look. Also, many specific examples aren't that much, but it's the cumulative effect of these things being in almost every picture.

PHB: 12 (human buckle, elf spiky), 13 (half-orc piercing), 14, 18, 19, 25 (axe), 28, 34, 44 (pierced ears), 47, 50, 52, 53 (goggles), 64 (axe again), 75, 80, 82, 84, okay at this point I've just referenced easily the majority of all pictures from the first five chapters, and even some of the ones I skipped I'm borderline on, so I'm not going to go on. Now it's your turn to find me pictures from pages 1-84, not including the Swenkel chapter headers with *don't* have anything buckled, black leathered, dreadlocked, spiky, pierced, or tattoed.

DMG: 9, 15, 19, 21, 23, 28, 32, 36, 39, I'm through only the first two chapters and again I feel like I'm just citing almost every picture I come across.

MM: This one isn't quite as persistant, but still has some really egregious examples like the manticore and displacer beast. Mostly here is just that so many things are spiky and/or emaciated (again it's often appropriate, but still it's pervasive in cumulative effect) - 20, 21, 23 (both), 24, 27, 37, 38, 43, 50, 51, 53, 54, 59, 60, etc.

Psionic Handbook: Every picture.

So all of these page numbers are just from the very beginnings of each book since I didn't see much point in continuing after that point.

btw, I've got absolutely nothing against tattoos and piercings in real life. My wife has both of them.
 
Last edited:

Why are tattoos and piercings considered to be "modern influences"? Tattoos and piercings have both been around since ancient times in real life.

And how about those early pilgrims that came to North America? I mean, they had freakin' buckles on their HATS. They were so obviously S&M fetishists. :D
 

Personally I think 3e has brought some really great artists to the table.

Wayne Reynolds
Emily Fiegenschuh
Vinod Rams

I'm not really getting this punk/goth vibe from their work. Their stuff has an energy that more "realistic" fantasy artwork can seem to muster. Don't get me wrong I love work by the likes of Keith Parkinson, but that approach to depicting fantasy has kind of become old hat, and it's nice to see new and different takes.
 

Dark Jezter said:
Why are tattoos and piercings considered to be "modern influences"? Tattoos and piercings have both been around since ancient times in real life.

And how about those early pilgrims that came to North America? I mean, they had freakin' buckles on their HATS. They were so obviously S&M fetishists. :D

context and co-association
 

I'm guilty of using the term "dungeonpunk". I'm not sure that it has any definite meaning to me. I knew I didn't like the style of the art in 3E, but couldn't put my finger on it. When someone else used the word, it just kinda stuck in my mind.

The most concise explanation I can give for my use of the term is because the pictures make me think of that tag from Cyberpunk (anyway, that's where I first heard it) of "Style over substance." Just flipping through the Classes chapter of the PHB, all of the illustrations (except maybe Vadania, Tordek, and Lidda) look like they're preening and posing for a camera. They're all a bunch of pathetic posers.

Even taking my favorite picture in that chapter, Vadania, I realized that one of the things that draws me to it is that it actually looks like she's doing something. Same with Lidda. Tordek looks like he was standing guard and someone did a drive-by photo-op. Page 240 has Jozan fighting a succubus -- another picture I like.

When I imagine my characters, I don't imagine them posing for the cover of a magazine. I imagine them in action. Most of the pictures I mentioned are pretty much the antithesis of what I'm looking for. The same could be said about the covers of Dragon (although those have been better lately, IMHO).

I like background. It adds context to the picture. It also makes them feel more complete. Having some pictures w/o a background is fine, but not too many, please.

I really, really, really hate the drawing style of anime/manga. I used to think it was just the big eyes, small mouth, etc., but there is more to it that that. Anime, IME, tends to have a lot of this posturing that I was talking about. There's also 'action' shots that have a background that is blank or looks vaguely like Star Trek warp speed. I'll admit that the actual shape of the drawings in 3E isn't anime, but a lot of the poses are similar. Add to it the cartoony feel and I can see why people would say it looks like anime.

Throw it all together, and you've got some negative (perceived) traits that are very hard to put into full voice because they are only a bit here and a bit there. The basic feeling, though, is obvious to those of us who dislike it, and that makes it really easy to throw quick, generalized, close-but-not quite quips about the art.

There's art in 3E I like and there is art in 3E I strongly dislike. The average across all art in 3E is, IMO, not as good as in 2E or even 1E. There were some bad bits in previous editions, but they weren't as offensive -- probably because it was immediately apparent that it was budget work. There are some good bits in 3E, but they really don't "wow" me like some of the work done by Elmore, et al.

I'll take the silliness (and it is silly) of an airbrushed lady in a chainmail bikini, where I can see muscle definition and action, over some watercolor cartoon of a prettyboy barbarian preening for a camera anyday.
 

Every professional artist has strengths and weaknesses, which should be catered to. For a clear example, I will say once again that, oh my God, Jeff Easley cannot paint people. He does not seem to know what a skin tone is, let alone the fact that flesh does not grow in lumps. But he does nice monsters, and his forms are pretty good, even if I find his color palette is too red for my tastes. He could do water elementals and they'd be brown.

Rebecca Guay is the most talented artist I know for evoking beautiful, magical scenes. I'm curious what her take would be on a scene of violence and combat, but I don't worry about it, because I'm content to look at her illustrations of fey and other mystical and mythical creatures, and just sigh at their beauty. I loved her back when she did the Homelands comic for Magic: the Gathering, and she has come a long way in the past six years.

Wayne Reynolds can capture action and intensity incredily well, and he can even do some rather pretty static images (see: Mialee studying spells, Tome & Blood). But he does like to stylize everything, which may get on some people's nerves; he uses linework and shading more than heavily texturing his pieces. My personal pet peeve with his work is what I call The Wayne Reynolds Shuffle. Take a look at the feet on pretty much every illustration he's done in which people are walking. They're invariably hunched over one way, feet and legs angled as if they're scuttling sideways. I find it endearing.

Elmore has beautiful images, sometimes, but I think he relies far too much on static models. I've seen some of his pieces that are full of intensity (one in particular has a man getting ready to fend off the attack by a cat-warrior that is perched on an overturned wagon), but a lot of times he just has characters standing in a background. It's all very posed, and very pretty, but rather rigid. The 3.0 versions of the Nymph and Titan are key examples of this.

Who's the best fantasy artist now? Todd Lockwood. Look at his work on the cover of Malhavoc's warfare book? That's a classic knight in classic armor, in a dramatic pose, dramatically lit, yet in a style of realism like something from a Baroque painter. Then take a look at (I drool as I think of it) the cover to The Forge of Fury. That's the defining image of D&D adventures to me. I think the only things I dislike about Lockwood are those things he did at the behest of WotC's designers, like having horse-faced Mialee. Look at his pic of Elven Chainmail in the 3.5 DMG, and you can see he knows how to draw beautiful women as well as beautiful armor (and beautifully rugged men, though I've never seen him do any bishounen men). He's a very talented artist, capable of handling numerous different styles of fantasy, from classic medievalism to the UnderGoth covers of the dark Elf and mind flayer books.

Finally, let's consider some art by up and comings in the d20 field. First, we have Claudio Pozas (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/hosted/Pozas/). No offense to Claudio, he's a great guy, but his characters are too flat. Even though he clearly derives his style from classic comic books, something, particularly about the faces, never seems quite fully realized. Also, because he works heavily in computer art, and doesn't seem interested in drawing and inking backgrounds first, I'm never really satisfied with any of the backgrounds in his pieces. But he does 'cool' fairly well, and he's certainly prolific.

Next, we have a friend of mine, J.L. Jones (http://www.jljonesfantasyart.com). Jessie's art is more cartoonish than is the norm for modern RPG supplements, and she seems loathe to adopt the dungeonpunk style many people here are opposed to. Her greatest strength, I think, is that she can capture a variety of expression very well, something you really don't see that often in fantasy art. Often you just have characters looking intense or confused, but rarely happy, sad, or otherwise emotional. Though she doesn't heavily detail her characters, she's confident in her linework. Her inspirations are most heavily from ElfQuest and Strangers in Paradise.

I'd post more, but I'm out of time and have to head off this computer. Hopefully we can discuss different artists, and what we particularly like or dislike about their styles, and what they're good at, not whether they suck. I know artists who suck. A lot of them are inexperienced. Once you're experienced, though, the only thing I think is worth criticizing is one's originality.
 

Sorry to post again, but I have to get this out of my system.

I gre up on animeish skinny pretty boys weilding unweildy swords with ease. As well as animeish women wearing little to no armor going into battle. And all I have to say is that.

I LIKE IT DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
 

Mercule said:
Just flipping through the Classes chapter of the PHB, all of the illustrations (except maybe Vadania, Tordek, and Lidda) look like they're preening and posing for a camera. They're all a bunch of pathetic posers.

Even taking my favorite picture in that chapter, Vadania, I realized that one of the things that draws me to it is that it actually looks like she's doing something. Same with Lidda. Tordek looks like he was standing guard and someone did a drive-by photo-op. Page 240 has Jozan fighting a succubus -- another picture I like.

...

I really, really, really hate the drawing style of anime/manga. I used to think it was just the big eyes, small mouth, etc., but there is more to it that that. Anime, IME, tends to have a lot of this posturing that I was talking about.

da-vinci-mona-lisa-1503-small.jpg


Hmmm.
 
Last edited:

TheRaven said:
Not a single picture can be refered to as crap, simply because every picture will find someone who likes it. The only thing one can argue about is the choices, that were made by WotC officials. I thinks it is inappropriate to bemoan the pictures themselves.

Taste in art is subjective, but I can look at a piece of art and call it crap when I see obvious signs that it was rushed, and required no real artistic skill to produce.....but that is probably an argument for another thread.

Like I said, I believe that a lot of the art in the 2nd Edition main books is complete crap.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top