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

[Nightfall]

This coming from a guy with Vanilla Ice as his avatar...

Sorry man but any mentions of taste just got tossed out the window by that usage. (Not that I disagree with you just saying...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, but there wasn't any magical spirit in the old art. Really, it just wasn't very good or interesting. I think what you're experiencing is your mind playing tricks on you.

Disagree.

Art is about communication. What is important for art is therefore twofold: (1) It is cool enough or technically proficient enough to catch your attention, and (2) That once it catches your attention, it communicates something worthwhile.

Looking at the 3.0 PHB, there are only two pieces of art I like. One is the illustration of the druid, which is a pose but contains good "class atmosphere", and the other is of the dragon trying to Swallow Whole on poor Tordek. Other pieces in the book are technically proficient, but these two pieces in particular seem to communicate something worthwhile to me.

The druid picture is a portrait, but it seems rooted in the world where this druid lives. Maybe this is because the character's animal companions lend a sense of community (that therefore extends out to a world). Perhaps it is because her equipment looks like it has more history and in-world reality than those of other characters shown in the book (antlers, for example, imply deer, and hence an unseen part of the world).

The Tordek picture is good because it implies that Something Can Happen to the PCs. I.e., the PCs are not simply safe uber-powerful beings for whom everything works out well and who are not really in danger after all. Of course, this impression is somewhat ruined by the caption.

The picture of the thief whose Use Magic Device check failed is interesting, too, but for reasons that honestly have very little to do with the game. In terms of "bad things happening", this one has already happened, and, while surprising, it wasn't really so bad.

Even before I crack the 1e PHB, though (assuming original cover), I already have an impression of people performing something dangerous because of the potential rewards. Within the book, I see pictures of people who look like they live in a fantasy world, such as dwarves pulling carts of ore and people gathered in a tavern (with no way to tell who is a PC and who is an NPC).

On one page, a fighter is using string to navigate and is about to meet a troll around the corner. Are we certain who will get the best of this? The locate object illo shows that the characters have learned where the treasure is....but not that there are giant spiders right next to it.

Looking only at the 1e PHB, the illustrations tend to communicate: "This is a dangerous world. You can prosper, but you'll have to be lucky and clever." Looking only at the 3e PHB, the illustrations seem to communicate: "You can make a really cool character, who is sort of removed from the world (it is just an out-of-focus backdrop at best), and who will never be in any real danger." 1e offers mysteries and danger. 3e offers characters. (To be a completist, 2e offers worlds, but started the trend toward "character pose moments" that 3.0 followed.)

EDIT: In other words, the 1e PHB artwork suggests a world of which the PCs are a part, and which will do them no special favors. The 3.0 PHB artwork suggests that they are special snowflakes.

Mind you, I am not saying that this is what the game rules deliver, but it is what (to my eye, and IMHO) the artwork seems to say. And this, far more than nostolgia, is what differentiates the artwork.

And I'll also certainly agree that some of the later artwork in WOTC products offers more situation, more mystery, and more danger. Indeed, while the artwork in the 1e DMG and PHB seem to mesh pretty well, the artwork in the 3.0 DMG seems to me at odds with the PHB art. In the DMG, characters can face tough situations. In the PHB, not so much so. This is also problematic to me, because it communicates two opposing views of what the game is going to be like. Again, regardless of what is written, the artwork is 3.0 seems to communicate mixed messages.

I'd like to see more situational (danger/mystery) artwork that has nothing to do with the Iconic Characters. It seems to me that WotC is starting to move in that direction with projects like the Environment books and more homages to classic illustrations (a very nice homage to the skeleton in the water-filled room trap from the 1e DMG in the 3.0 DMG, btw....while I prefer the original, I was glad to see the piece, and wish the 3.0 PHB had taken more from the 1e version).

Anyway, YMMV and probably does.


RC

 

[Nightfall]

RC,

I still say you should harp on the fact the man uses Vanilla Ice as an avatar. Man that's just some serious bad taste!

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC,

I still say you should harp on the fact the man uses Vanilla Ice as an avatar. Man that's just some serious bad taste!

Too easy.

(Vanilla Ice.....Shudder)

 

[Joshua Randall]

Sure it's nostalgia, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

Well said. It was about time someone cut through the amazing pile of bullsh*t in this thread.

Certainly artistic tastes vary, but to say that 1e art was all great and 3e art is all terrible is just silly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

double post

 

[Pants]

Certainly artistic tastes vary, but to say that 1e art was all great and 3e art is all terrible is just silly.

I don't think anyone has gone that far yet, though I'm sure it's all mostly nostalgia, since I place the 2e MM art up there on the same pedastal that others place the 1e PHB or DMG art up on. It was the first D&D book I owned and I loved to read that thing. Looking back, alot of the (non-DiTerlizzi art) sucked hardcore, but I can recall cracking open the 3.0 MM for the first time and being... less than impressed with some pics.

"That's a displacer beast?! That's no displacer beast!" and so on and so on...

I still do it now.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well said. It was about time someone cut through the amazing pile of bullsh*t in this thread.

Certainly artistic tastes vary, but to say that 1e art was all great and 3e art is all terrible is just silly.

Whenever someone disagrees with you, it is best to call their position "silly". Much better than a refutation, after all.

What about the content and effective communication of the illustrations, as mentioned above? Surely if you disagree, you can tell me on the basis of which illustrations you do so. If I am completely wrong (and if we are only talking nostalgia, I must be), that should be pretty simple to demonstrate.

RC

 

[Joshua Randall]

Whenever someone disagrees with you, it is best to call their position "silly". Much better than a refutation, after all.

Some statements are so obviously wrong that they do not require refutation. "All 1e art was great but all 3e art is terrible" is such a statement.

Further, your attempt to drag me into an argument is recognized and ignored.

 

[tx7321]

As the originator of this thread, I'd hoped it wouldn't degrade into anything nasty (Ice ). I realize alot of people don't like 1E artwork, and thats cool with me. I don't like the vast majority of "abstract art" yet others love it. That said, try to be a little more informative about why you don't like it (if you don't).

One observation I have made over the years, is that with fantasy art, there comes a point where realism hurts the feel and spirit of the work. Impressionism is a good example. Its not overly realistic yet communicates alot of feel.