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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 782457" data-attributes="member: 5100">That is pretty good.  It doesn't really "move" me, but it's quite good.I think my perceptions of Lockwood may be tainted by the horrid artwork in 3E in general.  I still really can't put my finger on it, but there is something about 3E art that just blows (especially the Dragon covers, but that's a whole different topic).The pieces of Lockwood that were posted above are way cool.  Some of his stuff may be much more inspired/inspiring than Elmore's.  Unfortunately, it isn't D&D art, so I really didn't take it into account in my voting.I just looked through my PH and there are _no_ really inspired/inspiring pictures in it.  The only ones that I think actually improve the quality of the book (diagrams aside) are some of the chapterheads and the races on pp. 12-13 (although the latter is practically a diagram -- and the elves still have elephant ears).  There is not a single other picture in the book that really adds in a significant fashion.  About the best I can say is that Vadania, Tordek, Eberk (p 90), and Kerwyn (p 94) aren't bad.  Tordek is the least of these, but the other three at least spark a little something.So, after that long rant, my basic statement is that _no_ 3E artist could be the "best" (subjective) D&D artist.  This isn't through any fault of the artist (in most cases), but is because whoever did the layout at WotC chose some of the most bland and uninspired work to include in their products.  There are no great "D&D artists" in 3E because there is no great art in 3E -- although there may be some great artists doing work for 3E.Note: I haven't looked through too many 3rd party suppliments (hard to get in my area), so I'm only talking about the WotC books and Dragon/Dungeon (the covers of which were once the best showcase for D&D art and are now screams of blandness).</blockquote>

Verification