The Golden Age of D&D and its Art...

[Shemeska]

Heck, even the graphic design on the adventures was brilliant!

I look at D&D art today and I know that, technically, it's very good. But it isn't Elmore or Parkinson. (Heck, Lockwood is too late for me!)

Nostalgia isn't exactly an objective standard folks. Has to be said. What some folks adore from their childhood, I'll look back on it and have one word for it: craptastic. Without the nostalgia, I'll only judge it on its current evocative and technical merits, and a lot of times it's seriously lacking.

I started in 3e, my favorite art and artists are spread pretty evenly among 2e and 3e. Lockwood, DiTerlizzi, WAR, RK Post, Steve Prescott, Sam Wood, Adam Rex.

My golden age of products was over before I started playing, and I find more to admire in some of the late 2e 94-97 than in much of 3e that I started with and see coming out now. The style of some of the late 2e stuff really struck me, so call that my retroactive golden age. *chuckle*

 

[Glyfair]

I think the Golden Age of D&D would be 1975 to 1981, which covers the first mass publishing of the original set, it's explosion of popularity, the introduction of AD&D, the first Basic sets, and pretty much all of the "classic" adventure modules. The artists associated with this time period would first be Tramp, Wham and Sutherland through about 1979, and then be Otus, Willingham, Roslof, Dee, and DSL.

And don't forget Judge's Guild. I still remember my DM at the time pulling out the player's map to Tegel Manor for us to use to map. At the time, TSR didn't have anything like this.

 

[Numion]

Golden age of D&D for me was from 2000-2002, maybe. I did play AD&D first edition when I was 12 or 13 in the early 1990s, and while I have fond memories, I also remember the fights. Not the fights in the game, but between players. We were constantly arguing rules, the DM was a bit difficult, didn't have a good group most of the time etc ..

We actually played more in 2001 than 1991, even though we had gone from 12 year olds to 22 year olds. Nowadays it isn't that good game-wise. We are mostly graduated, we have jobs, some have kids, etc .. no time to game. The change in our lives has been quite drastic in the past few years. Now was it really worth it to go from poor student with lots of time to MSc with little time and the ability to buy all kinds of crap you don't need? Obviously the answer has to be yes .. but still .. I miss my friggin' game here! :\

As for the specific issues raised in this thread - um, no. Maybe I was too young to appreciate the art back then, but I think that todays books are much better in that department. The old art has nothing on the stuff that was in the early 3E Dungeon magazines, for example, like isse #84 with The Harrowing. Thats just my opinion, but the B&W scribblings of old just don't match up.

 

[beepeearr]

Personally, I'm not sure I'd say the art was generally better back in the 80's than it is now. I think the overall quality (or quanity of good or better pieces) of D&D art is much higher now, it's just that their was some truly awesome pieces of art back in the 80's that truly stood out among the rest. I also think art in the 80's captured the overall mood and feel better. I never realized it but three of my all time favorites where all drawn by the same guys, and his last name doesn't begin with an E. I'm looking at the old tabbed inserts that came with the 2nd edition MM binder. The picture of the ogre with the great hammer about to flatten a roman guy, the massive skeleton bursting from the snow, and the yeti and knight pic. That Drake pic was also one of my favorites from back then, and who didn't love the dragon at the end of the river styx picture (the one with the galleon in the background as part of his hoard) or the Drow Queen pic. I missed my furry kobolds from the 2nd edition MM so much I made a new goblinoid race (what halflings are to demihumans, mauglyns [our grouped preferred this spelling to moglins, I couldn't decide which I liked better so we took a vote] are to goblinoids).

I think alot of the reason why the art doesn't have the same feel, is the lack of actions pics, or if there is action pics the picture is split up between two parts with type in the middle. Most of the 3rd edition pictures are poses, are lineups. I think this is why alot of people have really liked the eberron covers and have problably even helped their sales. The Art conveys a sense of what playing the game is like (or should be like) in these pics. Personally I like lineups (ever sense the Forgotten realms adventure book) and poses can be nice, but I think more action (or interaction even) in the art would really boost peoples opinion of the art. A full page spread now and then wouldn't hurt either.

 

[tetsujin28]

gotta say i'm not.

the first art i encountered was Keenan Powell... and well.. i drew better than that back then and i was a kid.

Yep. The first rpg art I encountered was not the stuff I came to love.

 

[Numion]

EDIT: I'll just make this it's own thread

 

[Akrasia]

i'll say it.

the Art today SuXX.


DAT was the man.

I'll take Trampier and Otus over any current artist.

The Trampier cover for 1e PHB, as well as his illustration 'Emirikol the Chaotic' in 1e DMG, sum up D&D to me.

Nobody depicts the Cthulhu mythos better than Otus. Nobody. And his covers for the Moldvay Basic set and Cook Expert set are beautiful.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm not an artist, but I've been around them a long time. I've come to look at art very objectively over the years, listening to critiques. I can look at a piece of art that I like and still know whether or not it is "good" in terms of objective quality. When I think of Otus, the first thing that pops into my head is going to be his humans, not squiggly cthulhu monsters. When I was in 5th grade, I was drawing squiggly monsters. And, his humans are not objectively good.

Look at the cover to 1E Dieties and Demigods. No details, a painting style that is one step above TV animation, and perspectives that leave to be desired. Most of his artwork just lacks any kind of real detail (some does, but not most). That can even be seen in his cthulhuesque artwork. I admit, I have trouble liking artwork that I don't consider up to par. Same with poetry (which I am far far more critical of).

Here's what I'll do. I'll show my D&D group this picture, and see what they think of it. One member of my group is an artist, by the way.

 

[MPA]

This fails with me. The worst art in D&D history is the D20 one, the first version I played. The best one, AD&D, my second newest version (The newest being my favorite - OD&D).

 

[Dark Jezter]

For me, the golden age of D&D would be 2001-2004, as that's the time period when I played the game and enjoyed it the most. Plus, it's my opinion that 3e has the best art of any edition.

Oh, and count me in as another person who can't stand Erol Otis' artwork.