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

[Maggan]

Emrikol isn't exactly hurting either. He's roasting some poor guard on his way out of town.

Heh, yeah the message there is "look what PCs can get away with!"

/M

 

[Hussar]

To me, I stick Otus in with Peter Bergting and Chuck Lucacs. Artists that I either like or violently loathe. Some of their stuff sticks with me, but much of it I can't stand.

Pitch DeTerrlizzi on that pile as well. (I know, heresy, but, I hated DT's stuff)

 

[tx7321]

Q: "Uh... I don't think so. I didn't post that to praise it as a positive quality. It made the D&D stuff look amateurish and silly, IMO"

Your opinion (which seems to be in the minority) is noted.

 

[WayneLigon]

The art in the 3.0 PHB suggests that the PCs are special snowflakes who are rarely in danger (and even then, not real danger), who always come out on top, and who are seperate from the world. The art in the 3.0 DMG suggests that the PCs rarely come out on top and deserve no special treatment. These mixed messages are liable to cause conflict with anyone new to the game.

That is just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year. Certainly within the last couple of months.

 

[Desdichado]

Your opinion (which seems to be in the minority) is noted.

Uh... yeah. The minority. As opposed to your opinion which is essentially "yeah, the art was BAD, but that's why it was GOOD!" I really miss the rolleyes smiley sometimes.

That is just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year. Certainly within the last couple of months.

Holy crap, QFT, Wayne.

 

[Nightfall]

Go Claudio! (Nightfall has a new cause to champion. )

Anyway, give me something other than old school art. Cause honestly it looks too damn faded to be much of an impact.

 

[RFisher]

Let's see, in the 3e PHB, we got Lidda getting blowed up, and Jozan and Krusk in a serious problem while climbing.

& one of my favorites: The dwarf in the dragon's mouth.

I loved the pic in the d20 CoC book of the big C stomping on the iconics.

 

[Nightfall]

I liked that one pic of the dragon in Arcana Evolved myself. The one on the front of the book that is.

 

[RFisher]

Vallejo, Whelan and other great artists produced great looking fantasy art before or simultaneous to the creation of D&D, so it's not as if the D&D artists didn't have prior art to consider and be inspired by.

-shrug- I always found most of Vallejo's work amatuerish. His figures look like mannikins. His pallette, uninspired (or badly inspired). It may have a certain photo-realism, but it feels plastic instead of inspired.

One person's "great looking" is another's "meh".

I'd claim that some of Tramp's or Willingham's work was better looking than anything Vallejo ever produced, but that'd just be nostalgia talking. After all, I never saw any Vallejo's work when I was a kid & it was never associated when things I enjoye...wait a moment...hmm

 

[tx7321]

You also have to consider whats being painted or illustrated. If the image is of some stiff mowhawked tattooed elf with huge thighs in skin tight pants that croch ride, holding some contrived squat pose, with giant ears staring out at the viewer with some cheesy expression, in portrait form...brother, you could have Michael Angelo painting it, and I'd still hate it, never mind some realist commercial artist using photoshop. Infact, I'd rather a book not be illustrated if the illustrations show figures and subjects I strongly dislike.

I realize some of you guys like those types of 3E images, and no offense. There just not my cup of tea.