The Quintessential D&D Artist.

[Kilmore]

For my part, I've been working so hard to defend the old schoolers that I may have sounded like I have a problem with the new crew. That is not the way I feel. I like the new stuff too, spikes and all. For the most part, the varmints are especially good.

BTW, "http://www.erolotus.com". I'm off to see what else I can find.

 

[Dr Midnight]

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.

Gamer please.

I'm as qualified to speak out on the quintessential D&D artist as anyone. I pay attention to art. Art is what I do.

That you'd liken me to the kind of person who'd choose Jim Lee over a comics master because I'm a recent addition to gaming doesn't make any sense.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

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.



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.

So, is Picasso better than Rembrandt? One could say they prefer one to the other (I usually prefer Rembrandt), but saying - not just saying, but insisting - one is better, qualitatively, is pointless.

I'm careful not to make statements that one group of artists is better than another - I like 3e's art more than 1e's, on the whole. But there are 1e artists that I still think hold up. There are a lot of 2e artists that I like also, which weren't mentioned - for example: Tony Sczudlo (or however you spell it) and the guy who did the art for College of Wizardry.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

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

Well, I for one didn't get into D&D with 2e or 3e, but at the same time, I can recognize the improved art with each new edition of the game.

And it really doesn't matter *when* someone gets into D&D -- if they have seen samples of all artists involved, they are certainly capable of giving their opinions.

 

[Hakkenshi]

True, it's impossible to say which style is "better". I agree entirely there.

But since I've seen Lockwood paintings that were at least as evocative (IMHO) as Otus', and vastly superior technically speaking (an aspect which we CAN judge), I don't feel there's much more to be said, since it IS based entirely on opinion.

Sure, you can definitely prefer Otus. And, as Kilmore said, that IS only the Otus of the 1980s. Which may make a huge difference.
I got into D&D around 1990; I don't see how that makes me any less of a judge of which artist best exemplifies the hobby.

And it's not a flame war at all, I just think that whatever feel an artist captures, he does it a lot better if he's more proficient than the other guy who also represents that feel well but isn't as skilled. You're entitled to thinking that Otus is the one that does it better, skill or no skill. IMHO, proficiency makes a difference.

And there's no way a hack artist like Jim Lee can come CLOSE to the skill of the Great Kirby. But that's a different topic

 

[Sir Trent]

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

 

[Khan the Warlord]

So, is Picasso better than Rembrandt? One could say they prefer one to the other (I usually prefer Rembrandt), but saying - not just saying, but insisting - one is better, qualitatively, is pointless.

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.

I'm careful not to make statements that one group of artists is better than another - I like 3e's art more than 1e's, on the whole. But there are 1e artists that I still think hold up.

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?

 

[Lizard]

Okay, maybe I'm showing my age here,

Yeah, your youth. Elmore was a newcomer.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

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?

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).

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...

 

[Lizard]

My main question to you people that are mentioning Otus and the like: Do you truly feel that Otus is the best, quintessential D&D artist, even with today's standards, OR are these just feelings of nostalgia and respect for "old school", while ignoring the "superior" artwork of today's artists? I'm not being sarcastic or mean -- I truly don't understand.

The question was, roughly, "What artist means "D&D" to you?". To me, that's going to be Erol Otus. His art was seen pretty much only in D&D and related products, was very distinctive, and would almost certainly not be used on the covers of sci-fi novels or generic fantasy posters.