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

Spell · Sep 30, 2005

fabian, anybody?
black and white art never looked better

rogueattorney · Sep 30, 2005

Spell said:
fabian, anybody?
black and white art never looked better

I liked Fabian quite a bit. He's probably my favorite of the post-1982 artists.

I like Otus. A lot. He's not a reallist, and I don't know why anyone expects realism from a fantasy artist. His perspectives are wierd, his figures are stylized, and his lighting is coming from all sorts of odd angles. It's gorgeous - like a psychedelic hieroglyphic. It certainly screams fantasy to me quite a bit more than either the "realistic" 80's hair models from Elmore and Caldwells or the dungeon-punk of the 2000's.

R.A.

Geoffrey · Sep 30, 2005

Akrasia said:
Nobody depicts the Cthulhu mythos better than Otus. Nobody.

rogueattorney said:
I like Otus. A lot. He's not a realist, and I don't know why anyone expects realism from a fantasy artist. His perspectives are weird, his figures are stylized, and his lighting is coming from all sorts of odd angles. It's gorgeous - like a psychedelic hieroglyphic. It certainly screams fantasy to me quite a bit more than either the "realistic" 80's hair models from Elmore and Caldwells or the dungeon-punk of the 2000's.

I agree, and very well put. "Psychedelic hieroglyphic" indeed.

IronWolf · Oct 1, 2005

I tend to agree that mid-80's was the Golden Age. Not to say I am not having fun these days too, but things back then were just different! I liked the art back then *much* better than some of the art these days. I am not sure what it was about it, but it just seemed to really hit a spot with me. Still does! I love to look through the old art books and such from the day and sourcebooks.

Glyfair · Oct 1, 2005

On a side topic, I think it's been a while since the golden age of Dragon magazine covers. While the very early days wouldn't set the world on fire, I miss the days when Robin Wood, Elmore and the like were gracing the covers of the magazine. Those were great covers.

They rarely tied in with the magazine theme (if the issue had a theme), but that wasn't relevant. They were great draws.

Qlippoth · Oct 2, 2005

Otus is hit-or-miss for me, but this cover is one of my all-time favorites.

Wolv0rine · Oct 2, 2005

I started off in the early 80's, and I'm sure it made it's lasting impact on my fantasy art preferences (not as much as my realism preferences in art in general, but still a good impact). I still remember looking for hours at the B&W illo. of the Fighter in the red boxed Basic set and marveling that his armor looked like it'd been hacked at dozens of times. There were blade cuts and dents, one horn on his helm was cut off, he had nicks and scars on his face. The armor itself was ridiculous, but the overall image Sold me on itself. Larry Elmore made a fan for life.
I never liked Otis, never once. Although I can say that of all the 3E/3.5E "name" artists, only Lockwood does it for me. While some aspects of his design sense irk me, he's got a bucketload of skill and talent without falling back on overly stylistic tricks to cover his problems like WAR does. But then again I always had a problem with Jeff Easley's work, too. The textures never looked right, and I could never get over that.

CarlZog · Oct 2, 2005

I never liked Otus either. His art was too stylized for me, almost to the point of seeming abstract some times.

StupidSmurf · Oct 2, 2005

Arrgh! Mark! said:
I always assumed I was the only one to not be particularly impressed with the dungeonpunk art I'm seeing nowadays. My players lap it up, more with cries of 'Whoa!' or 'Cool!' when another completely nonsensical weapon is shown on some death-knight of some description.

And I'm a newish gamer.

I don't know what it is. I can recognise it for the work gone into it, I just can't seem to like the style overall. It's too.. punky for me.

Then, I often like my fantasy almost completely real anyway, to emphasize the fantasy part. The dungeonpunk doesn't show the magic as amazing; it does show how common to the 'ideal' D+D setting according though.

Hmm; I wonder. IF the original artwork was cartoony, was the action likewise? If the later art was more realistic, did the games reflect that? What does that imply for 3.5 D+D?

I suppose that would be hard to tell without a comprehensive study. Oh well.