The Quintessential D&D Artist.
- Thread starter BronzeDragon
- Start date
Out of curiosity (since the names didn't ring a bell), I went to look for art by Engle and Baxa.
If the stuff I found is indeed by them, Engle is a favourite of mine (very moody stuff), and Baxa's is much more acceptable than Otus. I agree that Otus has the basic "feel", but I think most see him as important because his drawings were featured on the covers of the first modules they played. I could definitely have done better art technically speaking at the age of 12 (at least for the cover of the old D&Dg).
In comparison, I've yet to see an illustration by Lockwood that didn't fit my idea of what he was illustrating perfectly. The Dragons, for example (I know I use them a lot
), totally blew me away when I opened up the MM for the first time. I wasn't used to that level of quality. Same goes for the Iconics he drew.
If the stuff I found is indeed by them, Engle is a favourite of mine (very moody stuff), and Baxa's is much more acceptable than Otus. I agree that Otus has the basic "feel", but I think most see him as important because his drawings were featured on the covers of the first modules they played. I could definitely have done better art technically speaking at the age of 12 (at least for the cover of the old D&Dg).
In comparison, I've yet to see an illustration by Lockwood that didn't fit my idea of what he was illustrating perfectly. The Dragons, for example (I know I use them a lot
), totally blew me away when I opened up the MM for the first time. I wasn't used to that level of quality. Same goes for the Iconics he drew.I voted for Larry Elmore because for many people in the mid to late 80s, his images dominated the more popular D&D outlets, primarily Dragonlance and some Forgotten Realms. For this reason, I think most people identify D&D with his art. Personally, although I like his art, I think its quality has deteriorated over the years as he probably has too many things he's doing.
Actually, my favorite D&D artists are Todd Lockwood, Wayne Reynolds, and Keith Parkinson (although Tony DiTerrlizzi and Sam Wood are right behind them in my book).
Lockwood manages to create extremely powerful images, even in his sketches and thumbnails, and has a powerful command with color and his use of light. I think he uses acrylic, but his stuff has the grace of oils. He arguably does the best dragons out there, although given the powerful and frightening image of three arcanists battling a Cornugon devil on the cover of Tome and Blood makes me want to see more of his Outsiders.
Keith Parkinson is a master of texture. Although many people are familiar with his Everquest stuff, I like him for some of his freelance and for his Dragonlance material. Three pieces come quickly to mind. "Lord Soth's Charge" is masterful, capturing the terrible threat the Knight of the Black Rose represents as he and his Skeletal Warriors ride on Palanthus. Then there's the untitled Draconian mural in which four of the five types discover that they are lost in a winter forest. Finally, I love the painting of the Blue Dragon breathing on the Gold Dragon's head; I think this one's called "Ouch."
Wayne Reynolds provides some of the most kinetic illustrations in the business. In Deities and Demigods, he did the mighty St. Cuthbert (among others). His art is also featured in Defenders of the Faith (which has a great picture of Jozan the Cleric being rescued from the grasp of a Glabrezu Demon by what I think is a Deva) and Tome and Blood.
As for Sam Wood and Tony DiTerrizili, I like them both a lot but I've not seen as much from them as I would like. DiTerrizili's art was perfect for Planescape, capturing the otherworldliness very well. He also did very fierce dragons (he did all the Linnorms in one of the monster compendiums). Sam Wood does sinister and very occultish Outsiders. Arguably, I think he does the best evil Outsiders there are.
Actually, my favorite D&D artists are Todd Lockwood, Wayne Reynolds, and Keith Parkinson (although Tony DiTerrlizzi and Sam Wood are right behind them in my book).
Lockwood manages to create extremely powerful images, even in his sketches and thumbnails, and has a powerful command with color and his use of light. I think he uses acrylic, but his stuff has the grace of oils. He arguably does the best dragons out there, although given the powerful and frightening image of three arcanists battling a Cornugon devil on the cover of Tome and Blood makes me want to see more of his Outsiders.
Keith Parkinson is a master of texture. Although many people are familiar with his Everquest stuff, I like him for some of his freelance and for his Dragonlance material. Three pieces come quickly to mind. "Lord Soth's Charge" is masterful, capturing the terrible threat the Knight of the Black Rose represents as he and his Skeletal Warriors ride on Palanthus. Then there's the untitled Draconian mural in which four of the five types discover that they are lost in a winter forest. Finally, I love the painting of the Blue Dragon breathing on the Gold Dragon's head; I think this one's called "Ouch."
Wayne Reynolds provides some of the most kinetic illustrations in the business. In Deities and Demigods, he did the mighty St. Cuthbert (among others). His art is also featured in Defenders of the Faith (which has a great picture of Jozan the Cleric being rescued from the grasp of a Glabrezu Demon by what I think is a Deva) and Tome and Blood.
As for Sam Wood and Tony DiTerrizili, I like them both a lot but I've not seen as much from them as I would like. DiTerrizili's art was perfect for Planescape, capturing the otherworldliness very well. He also did very fierce dragons (he did all the Linnorms in one of the monster compendiums). Sam Wood does sinister and very occultish Outsiders. Arguably, I think he does the best evil Outsiders there are.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Khan the Warlord said:
I think you're making a faulty comparison. Otus' work holds up very well today - it's just a different style of art. It's like you're trying to compare Impressionism and the Classical style and establish which is better.
Khan the Warlord
First Post
ColonelHardisson said:
Before I go into a more precise reply, please show me how Otus' art "holds up very well today". If the standards of today are publishers seeking the style of a WAR, Lockwood, Brom, and the like, then how could the style of Otus possibly "hold up"?
Also, given the average kid with a desire for drawing: Who could he copy better, an Otus, or a Brom/WAR/Lockwood?
lord irial
First Post
I'm right there with you, BFGob - Tony's art makes the game.BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
Kilmore
First Post
I was right about to make a similar statement, Colonel. I think each edition had it's own "feel" to it. Though I risk taking flack from the Lockwood brigade, I daresay that one of his pictures in the 1st edition books would have been as jarring as a 1st edition artist in a 3rd edition book.
Hmm...have to agree with everything you've said, The Serge.
Quite true -- in all cases.
Colonel, I'm not sure I can agree with that. Otus may have the spirit, but technically he's just not up there. Skill ought to matter for something too, although it's certainly not all of it. I don't think it's a matter of style; I love artists like Jeff Smith (Bone), who does simple yet elegant artwork, and I also love the work of many D&D artists. The Powers graphic novels, for example, are drawn in a very specific style -- it's an acquired taste. But Otus doesn't really have that much style (though his art is certainly distinctive) because the uniqueness of his art really seems to come from the fact that his skill is/was poor.
I can't really defend someone who drew the cover of that old D&Dg.
Quite true -- in all cases.
Colonel, I'm not sure I can agree with that. Otus may have the spirit, but technically he's just not up there. Skill ought to matter for something too, although it's certainly not all of it. I don't think it's a matter of style; I love artists like Jeff Smith (Bone), who does simple yet elegant artwork, and I also love the work of many D&D artists. The Powers graphic novels, for example, are drawn in a very specific style -- it's an acquired taste. But Otus doesn't really have that much style (though his art is certainly distinctive) because the uniqueness of his art really seems to come from the fact that his skill is/was poor.
I can't really defend someone who drew the cover of that old D&Dg.
Desdichado
Hero
You're kidding, right? You do have the core rulebooks?Teflon Billy said:
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Khan the Warlord said:
Tell me how it doesn't hold up, besides posting a pic. You're making a flat statement that one type of artwork is better, when art is entirely subjective.
Who could a kid copy better - Picasso or Rembrandt?
The question isn't who is the "best" (and unless one is a totalitarian egomaniac, there is no way anyone can truly say that one style of art is better or worse than another) it is who is the quintessential D&D artist. Huge difference.
