The Quintessential D&D Artist.

[garyh]

Erol Otus and Larry Elmore

And nostalgia has nothing to do with it for me.

Looking at an Erol Otus cover makes me want to play...

...and Larry Elmore's art is what I see when I do.

That's fine, but I'd have to argue that as the 1E fogeys get older, and more and more players intruduced to DnD in 2E or even *gasp!* 3E make their presence felt, Otus, and eventually Elmore as well, will lose relevence.

To a large extent, Otus is already obsolete. And I certainly wouldn't call someone a sizable chunk of gamers aren't familiar with "quintessential."

 

[Lizard]

Y'know, I must be a real old fogey, because I still think of the version of D&D with Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings as classes (and no good or evil alignments) as being a new twist on the old game.

Actually, the lack of Good and Evil goes back to the very, very, first edition of D&D, the brown box/white box edition. Good and evil were added to law and chaos in Dragon articles and supplements after that.

 

[garyh]

Actually, the lack of Good and Evil goes back to the very, very, first edition of D&D, the brown box/white box edition. Good and evil were added to law and chaos in Dragon articles and supplements after that.

Dear god, you're old.

 

[Ristamar]

I voted WAR, as he's all over 3E. Sure, Lockwood did more iconics, but look at the splatbooks. They're like WAR portfolios.

Heh. Some people 'round these parts not consider that a positive endorsement. I like the splatbooks, though, and WAR's art. On the flip side of the coin, Lockwood seems to have much more art (color art, no less) in WotC's hardback material than Mr. Reynolds. I could be mistaken.

Just because I was born in 1978 and had never heard of or seen Erol Otus' work until this thread doesn't disqualify my opinion. You don't have to have played DnD when "Dwarf" was both a race and a character class to still have a claim on what DnD means.

Hmm. Now that's an interesting statement. I won't argue one way or another, as it's a touchy subject and I'd have to give it some thought.

I will say this... if you applied that same basic argument to videogames, especially console games, most seasoned (older?) gamers would say that a large bulk of the new generation of gamers and games is out of touch with the fundamentals and paradigms of what constitutes a truly great game. There were more exemplary games back in the day because designers had to rely heavily on gameplay to make an outstanding product because they couldn't hide under all the graphical eyecandy available today. There are arguably sociocultural factors, too, but I'm trying to brief here.

I'm not attempting to provide an analogous argument, as videogames incorporate and benefit from sweeping changes in technology, connectivity, and communication. It's a very visual and auditory medium, whereas tabletop games remain vastly unchanged. Even D&D itself has remained relatively static over the course of several editions.

Still, there may be other factors that can cause a divide in the D&D community. I guess we've already seen some crop up already on these boards. Complex rules (AoO, circumstantial bonuses, etc.) have caused some people to revert to previous editions or take up different games. Does the unique social climate and popular attitude toward D&D relative to each edition influence the gaming experience, as a whole? Are there other factors, both tangible and intangible (artwork, module design, etc)? Now that might be an intruiging topic.

Er... *cough* ...sorry for drifting off on a tangent. Just wanted to share those thoughts. Carry on.

 

[Wolvorine]

Oh, I dunno...

I dunno. I still remember looking at a brand new copy of the 1E DDg and thinking 'This cover is horrible'. I never looked to see who the artist was, I was afraid to know. But, looking through a few things just now of Otis', I remember seeing them, and honestly.. I remember thinking they ruined (for me) the module that sported them as covers. Completely made me not want to play it, because (as covers are intended to do) they grafted that/those image(s) into my mind in association with the module. The 1E DDg's only saving grace for me was what the book covered, and the artist who did the majority of the Egyptian and Norse pantheon (again, no idea, don't have a copy of it anymore *sob*). Those rocked. Then again, I've always been unable to get around technical merit in artistic matters.

As for feeling... it's hard to say. The old-school D&D artists, as has been said, really didn't have a lot to take inspiration and direction from aside from really, really awful pulps and comics (awful as in severely rushed artists who in the case of the pulps were rarely ever given any info on what they were illustrating). That being the case, I think they set the tone for we who come now excellently.

But, for the sake of ending this post, and chiming in, I'd go for Elmore for feel, and Lockwood for merit.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Re: How could forget him?????

EROL OTUS!!!!

Gawd dammit, man, Erol Otus is the DEFINITION of "D&D art". I only wish the D20 thing had somehow lured him out of retirement like it did a lot of the other old hands.

Lizard, you freak of nature. It's obvious that Roslof is the ultimate D&D artist.



Actually my vote is for Keith Parkinson, his stuff is realistic fantasy that nobody can do. That dragon LOOKS like it is coming around the corner to eat that horse.

 

[BronzeDragon]

Well, the original poster comes back a day later...

Please understand I don't have my books with me now, just as I didn't have them on hand when I posted the topic.

This lead me to pick artists from memory. Of course, those who were fresher in my mind were the 3E artists and those 2E artists who had made the game feel alive for me.

I am terribly sorry to have forgotten Otus, since I did have a few 1E books, and the intention of the poll was to define the Quintessential D&D artist, not the Quintessential 3E artist.

Parkinson was also a grave omission, since I love Dragonlance, specially his images of it. Brom and Baxa should also have been at the list, and perhaps Sardinha and Puddnhead should not.

Anyway, I tried my best with the limited mind RAM I could use at the time.

Elmore seems to really take the prize of Quintessential D&D Artist. Up to now he has 37 votes, and leads Todd Lockwood by a whopping 17 votes.

My own vote went for Sam Wood, even though I LOVE Tony DiTerlizzi and Larry Elmore.

Just to clarify a point. I did not allow multiple choices because I wanted to see who you guys would choose when push came to shove, no compromises allowed...

 

[kkoie]

Re: How could forget him?????

EROL OTUS!!!!

Gawd dammit, man, Erol Otus is the DEFINITION of "D&D art". I only wish the D20 thing had somehow lured him out of retirement like it did a lot of the other old hands.

Erol's stuff definately kicked major butt, he needs to come out of retirement.

K Koie

 

[rackabello]

in response to:

I agree entirely that people are responding to nostalgia and this clouds their judgement. But, this is poll about who people think of when they think about D&D in general, and quintessential D&D art in general.

and:

I'm with you entirely here. I don't feel as if I'm stuck in admiring something because it was so impressive when I was younger.

Nostalgia plays only a small part in my affection for Otus. As mentioned in my earlier post, I detested him when I was young. I still think that many of his interior illustrations are clumsy and unattractive. I've grown to really love the distinctive style of his covers though.

For me, an artist's technical ability (which, btw, I don't feel Otus lacked) seems almost like a red herring in a discussion of "quintessential" art. If the artist's style fans your imagination, if, as Thorvald writes, it makes you want to play the game, it works.

Otus happens to be one of many who does it for me.

 

[rackabello]

double post