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

[Mystery Man]

Spikes, punk, goth, peircing...

If you look at the styles of 2E you see a lot of bad 80's haircuts. The art reflects on the trends of the times. 10 years from now the art will retro back to the bad haircuts of the 80's.

I think you need to give the artists of today a bit more credit where credit it is due. I think a lot of the armor worn by the figures in the drawings has much potential to be functional. You have to start somewhere as an artist, that is you have to have a point of reference from which to do your research. I'll bet artists like Todd Lockwood and others have scetchbooks filled with drawings of real armor from every possible angle etc. At least from an artists perspective (I'm more the pre/post WWII New York school type) this is what I would be doing.

 

[Quasqueton]

Erol Otus was mostly after my time.

Try Keenan Powell.

I fixed the link on the first page, but here the pic is again, just for you. . .

Quasqueton

 

[WayneLigon]

So far, I've liked most of the new art I've seen. I think I remember even seeing in one of the early previews for 3E that the art was specifically chosen to evoke that sense of 'this is new' and 'this is different'.

For the anime influences... I don't really see them, but if they are there.. fantastic. A lot of people talk about bringing in younger gamers. Guess what? Younger people don't buy comics very much at all.. but they do buy manga. They buy a fricking ton of it. Go to a bookstore and go to their graphic novel section. Look at the small traditional comics section, then look at those full top-to-bottom racks of bound translated manga. That is going to be the art influence of your next couple generations of gamers, and that's going to be what they look for.

 

[Aaron L]

I just want to say that I love the art for 3E, especially Todd Lockwood and Wayne Reynolds. I also have to say that a lot of people through around the term "anime style" art without having a clue as to what it means.

 

[dreaded_beast]

I have to get this of my chest:

I LOVE ANIME!

I agree with everyone who has said that art is "subjective". One person's masterpiece is another person's crap. Just because I like something, doesn't necessarily mean that it is better than what someone else likes, and vice-versa.

That being said, I love the current trend in 3.0/3.5 art today.

The way I see it, art is an ever-changing and "evolving" process. Art, in my opinion, is about change, creation, and inspiration. Would art really be art if it were to remain, static, unchanging, and year after year after year, artists produced the same type of work without any semblance of change?

I took a few art classes in college and am somewhat into art, but I'm no expert but correct me if I am wrong .

Take for instance some of the very first pieces of visual art: cave paintings. Those cave paintings, while still art, have "evolved" into the types of "art" that we are familiar with in modern times. In order for art to evolve, artists must experiment with new techniques, poses, subjects, ideas, etc. If artists didn't experiment, would we still be using cave paintings as our preferred medium?

If I remember correctly, certain aspects of art were slowly discovered, such as perspective. Before the discovery of perspective, much of the art at the time had a 2D feel to it. For example, the "stereotypical" Egyptian art. Only after the discovery of perspective, did pictures start having a more "organic" feel, more depth.

That being said, I'm sure there were probably people during those times that didn't like these "new" forms of coming out. They might have "hated" the whole idea of perspective and wanted what they were accustomed to: 2D art and flat pictures.

I guess what I am trying to say is that most art is always changing. You can look at some illustrations from a few decades ago and can see a marked difference in style when compared with our "modern" art. This can be seen anywhere from the way cars look, to the way people dress, etc. Times change, people change, art changes. We can hate it, like it, but things will change whether we want them to or not.

Hence BASIC, Advanced, 2nd Edition, 3.0, and now, 3.5

*I hope everyone got something meaningful out of this?

 

[drnuncheon]

I believe the 'dungeon-punk' style started either with DiTerlizzi or Planescape... or both. It was definitely around before 3e was even planned by WotC.

I didn't mind it as much in Planescape, I think simply because that was meant to be a very unusual setting. The various spikes and piercings and the like somehow fit in with all the other elements, where they don't jibe as well with "traditional" D&D.

J

 

[Altalazar]

Obviously each person's tastes will differ, but I loathe the new look. I won't list every piece I dislike (I'd be here all day), but only the ones I find most jarring. I'd classify the following art as dungeonpunk/fetish/simply foolish looking:

PHB 3.5:
Regdar p38- his armor would restrict his movement, and too many spikes
Alhandra p43- again, silly armor that leaves her abdomin and legs unprotected
Lidda p50- buckle & strap fetish
Hennet p51- buckle & strap fesish/S&M costume
Mialee p56- what the hell is that thing she is wearing? looks like something out of a bad porno- pretty much all pics of Mialee suck
Nebin p57- not as bad, but why the aviator's goggles?
S&M cleric on P93
Devis p105- ok, he's a bard, but even that costume is a little to froo-froo
Armor on p133- once again, spikes restrict movement

DMG 3.5:
Part on P16- just ugh, terrible
Dungeonpunk elves and orcs p22-23
Mialee p39
Dude on p169- just silly looking
Arcane Archer/dominatrix p176
Pregnant Loremaster p191
Anime elf p263

MM 3.5:
For the most part, the 3.5 MM has poor to good art. Some armor is a little silly looking (like the bugbear), but nothing too bad. The big improvements here are in the new demon & devil pics (I love the Balor), and some of the new art included in the revision. I still don't like WAR though.

The art in the splatbooks tends to be worse and more dungeonpunkish, but I won't go through and list every piece there.

My main problem with the new art is that it has no context (no scenes), and simply looks cartoonish or impressionistic (same reason I hate Tony DiTerlizzi). When I look at a picture, I want to know what that critter or person looks like in that world, not some overly cartoonish, super-stylized, anime-ish looking tripe. IMO, Easley, Elmore, Parkinson, and some of the old crowd of painters will never be surpassed. I'm not even asking for historical medieval artwork (though that would be MUCH better than what we have now), but just more realistic depictions of characters. A lot of historical medieval arms, armor, and clothing would look VERY fantastical to us today (especially Eastern European). Heck, the costumes in the recent LotR movies were really incredible, were completely fantasy, and don't look anywhere near as foolish as the stuff in the core books. There are a lot of good artists out there right now. David Griffith is one of my favorites- he does exceptional scenes, and the faces on his people are very expressive and lifelike. Brian LeBlanc does some exceptional work for Necromancer- his images are dark, gritty, and very "old school", and have tons of atmosphere and character. I'd much rather have their B&W stiff than the color work we have coming from WotC now.

I totally agree - I have a Parkinson painting in my living room. And I love Elmore - mostly because of the realism. Looking at the old artwork from days gone by - like in 1st Ed especially, there was a sense of realism there.

The punkish/cartoonish stuff just totally rubs me the wrong way. I hate it. It just isn't the right flavor for D&D. It looks like some cheap anime.

 

[Jody Butt]

I totally agree - I have a Parkinson painting in my living room. And I love Elmore - mostly because of the realism. Looking at the old artwork from days gone by - like in 1st Ed especially, there was a sense of realism there.

The punkish/cartoonish stuff just totally rubs me the wrong way. I hate it. It just isn't the right flavor for D&D. It looks like some cheap anime.

I have a Parkinson painting and an Elmore painting hanging on my wall, as well! (I mean lithographs of the paintings, not the original paintings!)

I could never imagine hanging something by WAR on my wall. Yuck.

Parkinson=fine art suitable for framing
WAR=cartoon crap not suitable for displaying on your wall

 

[Kesh]

And there I believe is what mostly drives what styles of art you like: What you grew up with. My youth was spent watching 80's cartoons and pouring over moldering 1st edition AD&D books. While I love much of the art in D&D 3E (and for that matter 2nd Edition), I will always have a great fondness for those earlier styles, such as Erol Otus, that are tied closest to my earliest memories of the game and genre.

Along with that thought, I am pretty sure the art in 3E is not aimed at me, the long time gamer. Rather, it is aimed at the younger gamer, who probably grew up (or is growing up ) with all sorts of anime on the TV, manga-styled superhero comics, etc. I am sure that many of them will be complaining in 10 years from now, that whatever the art style morphs into, is not as good as back in good old days of D&D 3e.

Er... I grew up on 80's cartoons and occasional glances through a friend's 1e books.

And I like anime/manga. Suffice to say, tastes can change. I still fondly remember the 'orc seige' painting from the 2e books, but I still like most of the 3e artwork as well. And the new orcs are a lot better than the pig-men, anyhow.

 

[Kesh]

I have a Parkinson painting and an Elmore painting hanging on my wall, as well! (I mean lithographs of the paintings, not the original paintings!)

I could never imagine hanging something by WAR on my wall. Yuck.

Parkinson=fine art suitable for framing
WAR=cartoon crap not suitable for displaying on your wall

Well, I completely disagree. Elmore is good, but so is WAR. I wouldn't mind having artwork by both on my wall.

One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say.