-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What was so magical about 1E/OD&D art?
- Thread starter tx7321
- Start date
Qualidar
First Post
I guess my point is that your (talking to Raven here) issue seems not to be that the message isn't getting across, it's that you don't like the message. That's not really an issue with the artwork, but one of your own preference with the playstyle it's pimping.
~Qualidar~
~Qualidar~
Last edited:
diaglo
Adventurer
i miss Wormy 
but also i just plain miss the works from DAT.
i still get my fill of Tom Wham.
www.tomwham.com
but also i just plain miss the works from DAT.
i still get my fill of Tom Wham.
www.tomwham.com
Q: "It certainly does. Of the particular images from early gaming I find most compelling, most would be considered middle of the road today, but that doesn't make them any less dear to me."
I don't buy this completely. Sure nastalgia is part of it. But to a greater extent is the actual feel and spirit these illustrations set forth. Kids pick up my 1E DMG and PH today and stare at them, flip through the MM and love it; but that pass my 3E books up. Its always been that way.
Anyhow, "realism" and technique are sometimes poor measures of the quality of a work of art or illustration (what about mood, and hitting the purpose in the first place). I believe one of the first posters mentioned AD&D 1E art and OD&D art was more fine art, and the later came off as "commercial". Think about that for a moment. Check out some of the fine art galleries and see how many masterpieces are in impressionistic style. You may not like non-photo real artwork, but alot (if not most) people do. I've always thought it was a pitty fantasy art didn't utilize different styles and techniques, including qualities of abstract and impressionism. And now it seems computer illustrators dominate the scene all depicting almost identical images. In this case the only yard stick used to judge value is its "wow" factor and its technical proficiancy. Those who like 3E won't understand my views, I know.
I don't buy this completely. Sure nastalgia is part of it. But to a greater extent is the actual feel and spirit these illustrations set forth. Kids pick up my 1E DMG and PH today and stare at them, flip through the MM and love it; but that pass my 3E books up. Its always been that way.
Anyhow, "realism" and technique are sometimes poor measures of the quality of a work of art or illustration (what about mood, and hitting the purpose in the first place). I believe one of the first posters mentioned AD&D 1E art and OD&D art was more fine art, and the later came off as "commercial". Think about that for a moment. Check out some of the fine art galleries and see how many masterpieces are in impressionistic style. You may not like non-photo real artwork, but alot (if not most) people do. I've always thought it was a pitty fantasy art didn't utilize different styles and techniques, including qualities of abstract and impressionism. And now it seems computer illustrators dominate the scene all depicting almost identical images. In this case the only yard stick used to judge value is its "wow" factor and its technical proficiancy. Those who like 3E won't understand my views, I know.
Desdichado
Hero
What was so magical about 1e/OD&D artwork?
It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that.
It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Qualidar said:
Sure, if it makes you happy.
However, I hope you realize that suggesting "Special Snowflake Style" to the players and "Never Give a Player an Even Break" to the DM is probably not the best of ideas.
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
tx7321 said:Kids pick up my 1E DMG and PH today and stare at them, flip through the MM and love it; but that pass my 3E books up. Its always been that way.
I've got the opposite experience. Kids have been excited over a lot of the 3e pictures, and went "meh" over a lot of the 1e pictures.
There's no accounting for taste, I guess ...
/M
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
I think many people simply don't (or won't) realize that the appreciation for a piece of art is something made up of so many interwoven factors, not just the piece of art itself, and that it will always, if it made a big enough impression back then, will drag ALL the associated feelings and emotions with it. There is so preciously little objectivity in the human mind after all, and much less about what good artwork is.
Myself, I was "spoiled" by Elmore's work on the BECMI D&D editions that were published in Germany when I was a kid, and those pictures, together with Caldwell's and Easley's, defined the look of D&D for me and my friends. When I got a look at the AD&D 1E Monster Manual from a classmate, my first impressions were "Huh, some of those guys doing the pictures really should practice more before selling their stuff." Yes, I laughed with the cartoons in the 1E books, and the griffon from the MM made it to my letterhead (hey, I was a teen), but a lot, like the Mind Flayer, made me go "THIS is supposed to look scary?"
And to this day, I prefer the 1E MM with the Easley cover to the "original" cover, which looked like my plastic monster toybox set up on a lawn, even though I own both by now.
So, you can call me insensitive, but to me the artwork of AD&D 1E doesn't hold that much inspiration, Otus' artwork looks plenty goofy to me, and I'm sure there would be plenty of parallels if you compared who loves which artwork to who prefers which edition.
And not to sound snobbish or anything, but Lockwood's art is pretty good, too. His dwarf, for example, ranks higher in my mind than that of Elmore in the Basic Set.
Myself, I was "spoiled" by Elmore's work on the BECMI D&D editions that were published in Germany when I was a kid, and those pictures, together with Caldwell's and Easley's, defined the look of D&D for me and my friends. When I got a look at the AD&D 1E Monster Manual from a classmate, my first impressions were "Huh, some of those guys doing the pictures really should practice more before selling their stuff." Yes, I laughed with the cartoons in the 1E books, and the griffon from the MM made it to my letterhead (hey, I was a teen), but a lot, like the Mind Flayer, made me go "THIS is supposed to look scary?"
And to this day, I prefer the 1E MM with the Easley cover to the "original" cover, which looked like my plastic monster toybox set up on a lawn, even though I own both by now.So, you can call me insensitive, but to me the artwork of AD&D 1E doesn't hold that much inspiration, Otus' artwork looks plenty goofy to me, and I'm sure there would be plenty of parallels if you compared who loves which artwork to who prefers which edition.
And not to sound snobbish or anything, but Lockwood's art is pretty good, too. His dwarf, for example, ranks higher in my mind than that of Elmore in the Basic Set.
M: "I've got the opposite experience. Kids have been excited over a lot of the 3e pictures, and went "meh" over a lot of the 1e pictures.
There's no accounting for taste, I guess ... "
Go figure.
J Dawg: "What was so magical about 1e/OD&D artwork?
It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that. "
You've actually GOT IT. Those early guys weren't the best (or maybe they were but purposely used a particular style...not unlike many of the great impressionists. The point being, you could be a fine artist if your able to express the spirit, mood or love of something that moves you. I "get that" from Tramp. I don't get that from 99% of the 3E artwork floating around.
There's no accounting for taste, I guess ... "
Go figure.
J Dawg: "What was so magical about 1e/OD&D artwork?
It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that. "
You've actually GOT IT. Those early guys weren't the best (or maybe they were but purposely used a particular style...not unlike many of the great impressionists. The point being, you could be a fine artist if your able to express the spirit, mood or love of something that moves you. I "get that" from Tramp. I don't get that from 99% of the 3E artwork floating around.
Last edited:
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
J-Dawg said:What was so magical about 1e/OD&D artwork?
It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that.
QFT.
1e/OD&D art looks amateurish, executed with enthusiasm and occasional talent but very little skill.
Dragonlance through Dark Sun art looks like ART. Commericial art, perhaps, but art all the same, executed with talent, skill AND enthusiasm. This encompasses all of Rules Cyclopaedia D&D, very late 1e AD&D and most of 2e AD&D.
Starting with Planescape and continuing through 3e, the art has kept the same technical quality (with a few exceptions) but for a while adopted a very specific style - Planepunk, later Dungeonpunk. Fans of clean line drawing and traditional styling were both put off by this, especially when it was applied to the material plane; while this doesn't make it worse, per say, I can see where someone would dislike it.
Similar Threads
