Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 325923" data-attributes="member: 4049">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.</blockquote>

Verification