The Quintessential D&D Artist.

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Did you guys miss the on my post? I think that implies that I'm just joking around.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Elmore is the man, without question. He hasn't worked much for WOTC recently, and that was WOTC's decision, not Elmore's from what I've heard, but no one else can top him in D&D fame. The covers for the first three box editions, the dragonlance stuff, his women! Check out his website, I think's at LarryElmore.com

I will have to agree that Elmore's painted covers scream out D&D more than anyone, except for possibly Erol Otis.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Heh... I'm not falling for that one, my dear Colonel.

You can't truly compare the skill of Picasso vs. Rembrandt, simply because they didn't paint the same subject matter at all. Also, Picasso utilized many different styles throughout his career.

When it comes to D&D artists, they're all pretty much depicting the same thing, just at different skill levels and personal styles.

So while Picasso and Rembrandt can't truly be compared, Otus and Brom certainly can be.



If you prefer the art of 3e more than 1e, then does that not mean that in your opinion, 3e art is better than 1e art?

Then you can't compare the art of 1e and 3e either, along the lines of what you just said. The subject matter isn't entirely the same, and the attitude and general climate of the RPG world is much different now. The needs of the public are different. Picasso and Rembrandt come from different eras, where the art reflected the times; the same with D&D artists. There is a different style (or, more appropriately, school) of art holding sway in each era.

Do I think 3e art is better? See, this is more of a semantics argument now.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

True, but you weren't really making that kind of supporting statement. It was more like: "I think that what you like sucks, so therefore, what I like is better." That's not much of an argument. What are the criteria for what is better or worse? technical proficiency? That would exclude a lot of great artists (I'm talking about beyond RPGs also).

Hardly!

You must have missed this snippet of text by me:

I played "way back" when Mr. Otus and others mentioned in this thread provided excellent artwork for D&D. I loved his art, I really did... for that time period of fantasy art.

Now at no point did I say, or even hint, that Otus' art "sucks" -- I even complimented it! Now, I did of course follow it up with a kind of "while he is/was good, I don't think he can be compared to X".

But that is far from insulting the man or his art.

I still feel the comparison between art of variosu editions is faulty. Another analogy is: which is better? Baroque music or Classical? I prefer Baroque, but I know it doesn't make it superior to Classical (or Romantic) - especially given that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven weren't Baroque composers, but that's a tangent, sorry...

And it is that exact type of "getting heated, then cooling down, and being a good humor man" example that makes me love and respect ya, dear Colonel!

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Now at no point did I say, or even hint, that Otus' art "sucks" -- I even complimented it! Now, I did of course follow it up with a kind of "while he is/was good, I don't think he can be compared to X".

But that is far from insulting the man or his art.

Mmmmmwweeelll, to be honest, I think I - and some others, judging by a few other posts - seemed to find an implication of "sucks" in your assertions. It's like saying: "you're good looking, for a fat guy." So, it was a back-handed compliment. Come on, I'll admit whose art I think is better if you admit you were strongly implying Otus sucks.

And it is that exact type of "getting heated, then cooling down, and being a good humor man" example that makes me love and respect ya, dear Colonel!

I have a pattern? Damn!

 

[Khan the Warlord]

Then you can't compare the art of 1e and 3e either, along the lines of what you just said. The subject matter isn't entirely the same, and the attitude and general climate of the RPG world is much different now. The needs of the public are different. Picasso and Rembrandt come from different eras, where the art reflected the times; the same with D&D artists. There is a different style (or, more appropriately, school) of art holding sway in each era.

Hmm... either I didn't word it right, or you're just not getting my point. Let me try again!

Picasso and Rembrandt painted COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Picasso painted produced a range of images from classical figures to radical abstractions to... you name it. Rembrandt painted portraits primarily. This isn't comparable.

Otus and Lockwood illustrated fantasy heroes and monsters, mixing in landscape on occasion. This can be compared.

Easily.

Do I think 3e art is better? See, this is more of a semantics argument now.

While I shouldn't have generalized and used the terms "1e" and "3e", I was only running off your own words. But when you said that you prefer 3e art over 1e art and most everyone can agree that Otus exemplified 1e art while Lockwood does the same for 3e, then we are pretty much discussing those two individuals when we used "3e art over 1e art". Now, if you can give me a 3e artist that you enjoy more than Otus, then we can continue.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

Mmmmmwweeelll, to be honest, I think I - and some others, judging by a few other posts - seemed to find an implication of "sucks" in your assertions. It's like saying: "you're good looking, for a fat guy." So, it was a back-handed compliment. Come on, I'll admit whose art I think is better if you admit you were strongly implying Otus sucks.

Ouch. Well, I truly wasn't meaning to imply that I think Otus' art sucks per se, because I really don't think that. My apologies, because I really hate saying that anyone's creative efforts "suck" -- when there is bound to be some good in even the most "horrible" effort.

Now, if you're forcing me to compare Otus vs. Brom/Lockwood/War, to find out which of those four I would say "sucks the most out of the lot", then yes, I would go for Otus.

Now sir, I do believe its your turn.

I have a pattern? Damn!

Yes, actually. I've been with these forums much longer than what my post count would indicate, but that pattern really shined in the "THE ENnies were FIXED" thread in the d20 Publisher's forum.

And don't worry, I think you handled the situation far better than I would have.

 

[Vargo]

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.

Chalk up another EO junkie - although I was a big fan primarily of his black 'n white stuff, not the colorized book covers such as Dieties & Demigods. There was this weird "woodblock" lineart quality to it that somehow implied to me an otherworldliness that didn't show up for me in the Larry Elmore "chainmail bikini pinup of the month" pictures.

In fact, the only other set of pictures that every really captured the whole otherworldliness of D&D in a D&D product was the art in the "Against the Slavers" A1-4 "megamodule" that was released later on - and I have no idea who did the art for that. The people were drawn near photo quality, but there was a misty surreality to the art, and the nonhumans were often smudgy, yet real-looking - I really don't know how to define it.

Oh, and Erol did the artwork for the Might & Magic folks for a bit - I don't know how long, but at least through M&M 5. He also did a bit of the artwork for Heroes of Might & Magic.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Hmm... either I didn't word it right, or you're just not getting my point. Let me try again!

Picasso and Rembrandt painted COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Picasso painted produced a range of images from classical figures to radical abstractions to... you name it. Rembrandt painted portraits primarily. This isn't comparable.

Otus and Lockwood illustrated fantasy heroes and monsters, mixing in landscape on occasion. This can be compared.

Easily.[/B]

I see waht you're saying, but...well, I'll leave that for now. Except - when Picasso painted portraits...naw, I'll leave it.

While I shouldn't have generalized and used the terms "1e" and "3e", I was only running off your own words. But when you said that you prefer 3e art over 1e art and most everyone can agree that Otus exemplified 1e art while Lockwood does the same for 3e, then we are pretty much discussing those two individuals when we used "3e art over 1e art". Now, if you can give me a 3e artist that you enjoy more than Otus, then we can continue. [/B]

Who do I enjoy more than Otus? There are plenty of artists from every edition I enjoy more than Otus:

* Jim Holloway
* Paul Jacquays
* Trampier
* Tony Szczudlo
* The guy who illustrated College of Wizardry
* George O. Barr
* Stephen Fabian
* Sam Wood
* Wayne Reynolds
* Arnie Swekel (who I voted for - see his stuff in the Encycopedia Magica, the Pendragon RPG, or Return to the Tomb of Horrors)

...and more. I just think Otus is pretty close to being the quintessential D&D artist.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Yes, actually. I've been with these forums much longer than what my post count would indicate, but that pattern really shined in the "THE ENnies were FIXED" thread in the d20 Publisher's forum.

And don't worry, I think you handled the situation far better than I would have.

[/B]

Hmm. Well, I guess I need to work on throwing change-ups now...