The Quintessential D&D Artist.

[Desdichado]

Generally I don't like Sam Woods work at all..but on occasion he puts out something that to me is perfect...the goblin in the MM, The Valley Elf he did in LGJ, that one dragon he did in Monsters of Faerun.

Sam Wood did not do one dragon in MoF, he did the brown dragon, the fang dragon and the song dragon. Which one of the three is the one dragon you're referring to?

 

[barsoomcore]

My votes go to the old guard, as well -- Sutherland, Darlene, Erol Otus, Jeff Dee, Willingham, Roslof -- these people defined the game for me.

The poll's not about who's the "superior" artist -- it's about who's the "quintessential" D&D artist. Nobody who wasn't a part of 1E can be a serious contender for that role. I mean, come on.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

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.

I can, and I'm not gonna get shouted down by someone who is trying to tell me that one style of art is better than another. That's a single pic that was posted, but I assume that all of Otus' work is being criticized? Otus did a lot more than that cover, and a lot of his interior and cover art still holds up. The criteria for this thread is NOT the best, technically or otherwise - it's QUINTESSENTIAL.

 

[MEG Hal]

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),

I really like Jason on a personal and professional note his site if anyone wants to see it is at:
Jason Engle .

 

[Kilmore]

Hakkenshi, one small caveat... you're referring to Otus' art at the time he was illustrating for TSR, before the mid 80's. There's no telling what he can do now. Heck, he may BE Lockwood for all I know.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Look, I don't want to get into a flame war over this, so if I come off sounding heated, I apologize. I get irritated by anyone trying to tell me one style of art, music, literature, roleplaying game, whatever, is qualitatively better than another. It's all subjective. The question of this thread has nothing to do with who is technically more proficient. It has to do with who evokes the "feel" of D&D the most strongly (and even that is very subjective, given the various editions and 30 years of tiem that have come and gone).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

People who got into gaming the the last few years with 3e and 2e can't really have a solid opinion on this subject.

There are probably the same people who will tell me Jim Lee is a better artist than Jack Kirby becuase he uses a lot of speed lines to try and imitate detail.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

Who could a kid copy better - Picasso or Rembrandt?

Simple -- Rembrandt.

Picasso balked against the order that painting must mirror reality and thus presented objects represented simultaneously from several points of view.

Rembrandt made portraits.

Now, I'm not saying that the child in my example could mirror Rembrandt 100%, but he would come far closer than if he tackled Picasso.

Same thing for the Otus/Lockwood comparison.

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.

Well, I guess I'm a totalitarian egomaniac.

But seriously, I know how the thread was intended, but I've also been listening to the constant cries of how Otus and Co. are far superior than the artists of today and made my post asking people why they thought that.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

The poll's not about who's the "superior" artist -- it's about who's the "quintessential" D&D artist. Nobody who wasn't a part of 1E can be a serious contender for that role. I mean, come on.

No, this poll is about which artist clearly defines D&D -- NOT when D&D was defined by an artist for you.

Sure, Otus and others defined D&D in the days of 1e, just as Elmore and others did a fine job in 2e, while Lockwood and others have defined that in 3e for people.

But out of ALL of the editions, which is more defining?

 

[Khan the Warlord]

Look, I don't want to get into a flame war over this, so if I come off sounding heated, I apologize. I get irritated by anyone trying to tell me one style of art, music, literature, roleplaying game, whatever, is qualitatively better than another. It's all subjective.

I respect your passion about not liking someone taking subjective subjects and trying to come out with a clear-cut winner, but at the same time, we're all adult enough here to attempt to support why we believe one artist may be the superior of another, right?

The question of this thread has nothing to do with who is technically more proficient. It has to do with who evokes the "feel" of D&D the most strongly (and even that is very subjective, given the various editions and 30 years of tiem that have come and gone).

Well hopefully I've cleared up that misconception in my above posts that I "didn't know what the poll was about" -- I made a sub-topic within this post.

I have sinned!