The Quintessential D&D Artist.

Who is the Quintessential D&D Artist?

  • Jeff Easley

    Votes: 6 3.8%
  • Larry Elmore

    Votes: 44 28.2%
  • Tony DiTerlizzi

    Votes: 25 16.0%
  • Todd Lockwood

    Votes: 24 15.4%
  • Sam Wood

    Votes: 11 7.1%
  • Glenn Angus

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Wayne Reynolds

    Votes: 18 11.5%
  • Arnie Swekel

    Votes: 3 1.9%
  • Richard Sardinha

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Puddnhead

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 22 14.1%

barsoomcore said:


So? What'd you expect?



We're not trying to settle the issue (as if), we're having fun yelling at each other. Sheesh. :D

Results? Who wants results? I want to see opinions, hear arguments, watch people get hot under the collar as their judgement is questioned. When I want results I'll call the Gartner Group.

EROL OTUS FOREVER!!!

Well, ok, if the point of the thread is basically to point at each other and say 'my dog is better than your dog! nyah, nyah! :p" then I guess it's spot on so far. :D

I guess I just found it kinda silly, that's all. *shrug* If the point is not to view/analyze/discuss results with clearly quantifiable winners and losers, then why was it a poll in the first place? Could've just been a simple question that evoked discussion.

Anyway, I'm done. Let the battle continue... ;)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Ristamar said:
Bah. This thread smacks of nostalgia. Personally, I think this is the wrong group people of to be polling, as a majority of the votes are going to be divvied according to the edition the voter first enjoyed and the artists corresponding to said edition. Better results would be acheived, IMO, by polling a group of less dedicated/passionate players. Casual gamers, I guess you could say. Show them pieces from every edition, and let them decide which ones truly exude the 'D&D feel'.

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.

I am clearly an abberation among those familiar with 1ed art. I loathed almost all of the art in 1ed until they redid the covers... and even then I didn't care for what I later found out to be Jeff Easely covers (I don't like his style. It tends to be too heavy and thick looking. His textures are either flat or grotesque, and his figures often contort strangely. But, I thought his covers were far better than the original covers in 1ed). I never liked most of the internal art. I thought the dragons all looked pathetic and cartoonish, I thought the Devils looked corny, and so on. It wasn't until 1ed MM 2 came out that I grew to like the art. In that book, there was some really interesting illustrations. I'm not home now, and I don't remember the name of the artist, but he went on to do a lot of work in the first Monstrous Compendium in 2ed. But, aside from that, I didn't care for the styles in 1ed. Particularly in the DMG and in 1ed Deities and Demigods.

I didn't care for them because they seemed only slightly better than the stuff one could find in cheap coloring books about super heroes. Furthermore, they tended not to convey a sense of wonder or magic. They looked like cheap cartoons done by someone who doesn't draw often or by someone who doesn't draw all that well but was available.

But, this is a thread about what good memories the artwork for D&D invokes to participants. For many people who played in 1ed for a good, long while, it stands to reason that a lot of the stuff I can't stand is what they like. It's like looking at old "classics" like Buck Rogers or that hideous Flash Gordon movie, or even the original Star Trek. Many people will continue to point to those as better or more memorable than a lot of the similar sci-fi fare that has come out since Star Wars because those works had a significant impact on them during their formative years and thereby have more meaning. Heck, quite a few people have even stated that they are aware that artists like Lockwood and others have far stronger technical mastery than the artists from yesteryear, but they still prefer those older artists. Does this make sense from an objective stand point? Probably not, but when it comes to polls like these, it's what one has to expect.
 

ForceUser said:
Elmore and Easley, Caldwell and Parkinson fired my imagination as a youth. I'm bored with their art now. When it comes to art, I enjoy fresh styles and exciting innovations more than anything. My taste in fantasy art fluctuates as newer artists make their mark. Right now, I love Lockwood's work, particularly the painting on the cover of Tome and Blood. That is quintessential Lockwood to me. I love Brom's moody pieces. Wayne Reynolds reminds me greatly of comic book artists, and his clean, detailed lines and precise inks just do it for me. His pic of epic Tordek from the Epic Level Handbook is the epitomy of 3E to me - and I dig it, man. I really dig it.

To me, Easley, Elmore and the others defined 1E art. 1E is so 1980, man. To me, DiTerlizzi defined Planescape, and Planescape was 2E to me. DiTerlizzi captured everything I loved from childhood novels like A Wrinkle in Time and Where the Wild Things Are, so I enjoy his art with fondness. But in 2002, man, Lockwood, Reynolds and Swenkle define D&D to me. 3E is D&D, D&D is 3E, and these guys give it the visual impact that inspires me. I'm not afraid of radical changes to the visual portion of the medium I love. Redefine, man! Reinvent! Refocus!

Spikes and all. Fawking groovy.

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. I love the material that some of these guys are doing because they are taking risks with established material and for them it's paying off.

The problem with commercial art is that consumers/fans tend to become accustomed to something and have a hard time when things change. With each new D&D generation, there are new artists who, although influenced by the past, use the past as a springboard or react against it.

There are two excellent examples of this.

The cover of Tome and Blood, by Todd Lockwood, features what most of us assume is a Cornugon devil. It looks nothing like any other Cornugon in print. However, it's obvious that Lockwood decided to read the descriptions of Cornugons in both 2ed and 3ed sources and spotted a number of things. First, they carry whips. Great. Next, they are none for flinging fireballs and lightning bolts. Great. Oh, and they are only vaguely humanoid and fly with wings. Great. So, what Lockwood presents us with is an image of something with fleeting humanoid appearance, no facial features (save a mouth), wreathed in flaming lightning, carrying a long whip. Brilliant! Clearly, he paid attention to the descriptions but presented something wholy new and fresh simultaneously.

Sam Wood did the images of the Outsiders in 3ed Monster Manual. The Glabrezu rising menacingly behind the Vrock is like nothing I've seen before. Again, he reads the description and may have even looked back at other images of this entity. It's a giant being with a humanoid body, giant pincers, humanoid hands sprouting from the chest, and a dog-like head. What he provides us with is this horrible entity that has all of those images and more, warped and covered in metal appendages and runes. Brilliant! Again, Wood pays attention to the description but presents something fresh as well.
 

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

As for the generation gap that seems to be the trend here, I think it's just "old fogeys" griping to all us "young whippersnappers" about how in 1E they had to walk 5 miles to school in the snow uphill both ways.

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.
 

garyh said:
As for the generation gap that seems to be the trend here, I think it's just "old fogeys" griping to all us "young whippersnappers" about how in 1E they had to walk 5 miles to school in the snow uphill both ways.

We did. Carrying our grandmothers on our shoulders.

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.

Yes, you do. Geez, whaddya think, you're entitled to an opinion just because you read stuff, think about it and express yourself? No sir! When you young whippersnappers are entitled to opinions, by gawd, us old fogeys will TELL you! It doesn't take brains, it takes...

em...

er....

AGE! Yeah, that's it. Now go... carry Grandma to school, or something. And fetch me a beer while you're at it, punk.

;)
 

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. :)
 

garyh said:
As for the generation gap that seems to be the trend here, I think it's just "old fogeys" griping to all us "young whippersnappers" about how in 1E they had to walk 5 miles to school in the snow uphill both ways.


In July, no less.

My dad claims that he had to walk 2 miles just to get to the bus stop...
 

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
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. :)

Well said!

EROL OTUS FOREVER!!!!
 

garyh said:
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.

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.
 

ColonelHardisson said:


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.

Yeah, that officially qualifies you as a "real old fogey." :cool:
 

Remove ads

Top