What was so magical about 1E/OD&D art?

[tx7321]

I'm talkng about the stuff put out pre-UA and pre-Dragonlance.

There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today. I know some of this has to do with the posing, placing of modern hair cuts, tattoos and such; and the fact that everythings in full color these days rather then black and white. But what else?

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Me thinks, perhap, thine estimate of protean roleplaying artistry is tinted a rosey hue.

 

[Crothian]

During the time of first edition there was not a lot of fantasy art that was easily accessiable as it is now. Since it was practically the only source for me that made it a lot better and a lot more inspirational. Now fantasy art is all over the web and there is just so much of it that it just doesn't seem as cool.

 

[Aaron L]

It looked like medieval woodcuts.

 

[schporto]

I think it also made a difference that the pics were by different folks and different styles. You looked in those books and there were some cartoonish, some realistic, some stylized etc. Toda all the pictures are the same style and so the book has better theme, but if you don't like the art, well, its throughout the entire book. The old books you just skipped a page or two.
And the other reasons mentioned.

 

[Tarek]

I'm talkng about the stuff put out pre-UA and pre-Dragonlance.

There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today. I know some of this has to do with the posing, placing of modern hair cuts, tattoos and such; and the fact that everythings in full color these days rather then black and white. But what else?

Ultimately, I think it's because the drawings and artwork weren't drawn, for the most part, by artists who went to commercial or fine arts schools.

Some were talented, some were... less so, but the lack of a unified 'look' to the art made these books feel more honest, somehow.

The new art just feels a bit too static. The lack of symmetry doesn't help, either. In the case of the Eberron stuff, it's too dynamic. I'm thinking of the Races of Eberron book where they put EVERY race found in Eberron in a bar fight on the cover. It just doesn't feel or look real. It kind of reminds me of the original cover for the 1st edition Monster Manual, where you had a whole bunch of monsters on the cover for no particular reason.

 

[Mark CMG]

Mostly it's a matter of nostalgia, though there were some true gems in the hoard.

 

[Shemeska]

Nostalgia, and nostalgia enhanced by the fact that many people who played the game in its earliest years were very young at the time.

I mean, I have rose colored memories of He-Man, GI-Joe, She-Ra, M.A.S.K., and Inhumanoids, but I can assure you that I'm probably not judging them by anything but subjective standards of my memories of childhood.

 

[Klaus]

This covers why 1e art was so awesome:

http://www.fierydragon.com/db/2003-07-09.htm

 

[Wild Gazebo]

This covers why 1e art was so awesome

But, arguably, Keith Parkinson was one of the frontrunners of 'new fantasy' art--especially with his extreme attention to the background.


edit: 'course I don't thing his work should have been on that list.