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

[Delta]

Another way of putting what I said earlier -- Which illustrations look most like they could be contained in a medieval manuscript? The ones that do (line drawings, flat perspective) do the best job of sucking me into the atmosphere.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I think this whole thread has by now answered the original question twice over...what was so magical about 1E/OD&D art was that it appeared at the right time, to the right people, and got associated with the right emotions, gaming experiences and memories to make it magical to those who enjoy it. This goes for the artwork of all editions, not just 1E/OD&D.

Arguing about what makes good art is wasted bandwidth. It's all in the eye of the beholder (edition aside )

 

[tx7321]

Hey Melan, nice post! (or repost)


Melan wrote: "The earlier stable of artists were, on the other hand, talented amateurs. Let's face it, the late David Sutherland was never good with perspective, technical details or realistic human figures. Erol Otus was a dysmal failure if we measure him by "realism" and whatnot. Dave Trampier was probably the only one in the group who was really professional - he could have made it in the pro illustrating "industry"; he has a talent for capturing the "essence" of a monster or figure, and create an iconic representation which is both instantly recognisable and yet individual. "

I agree with this for the most part. The only thing that has to be considered though is how much of what appeared to be "amateurish" or lack of talent related to their conscious effort to find a style that expressed what they wanted to express. I've seen artists who paint what I consider total worthless crap...yet this is the stuff people like, and pay huge bucks for. And often, many of these artists can paint realism but they just choose not to (after having mastered that level of control in their youth, their focusing on "expression", "mood" etc.). Compare Micheal Angelo's later sculptures to his earlier. Or the impressionists drift from realism to full blown impressionism. Hell, go to B&N today and check out the number of covers you see that aren't photo real. Go to a gallery and look whats hanging on the walls.

I guess the comment made by an earlier poster, that 1E artwork has a more "fine art" then commercial art feel suggests this same thing. Talanted or not, many of the artists of the early 1E period managed to express the mood and feel wonderfully and IMHO far better then the 2E and 3E batch of commercially proficient artists.

 

[Aaron L]

Just as an aside, Michelangelo Buonarroti is the artist's name...

 

[tx7321]

I never new that.

 

[Ghendar]

Melan - All I can say is, meh. There are some great 1e art pieces. That is certainly true. But, a very, very large amount of it is garbage.

Let's face it, This:

is crap.

Let's face it, that



is YOUR opinion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umm, pardon. The paladin in the 1e PHB is IN HELL. And he's winning. There's stacks of dead devils all around him. Emrikol isn't exactly hurting either. He's roasting some poor guard on his way out of town. Heck, I played a paladin in 1e specifically because I wanted to be that paladin mowing my way through hordes of devils.

The paladin in the 1e PHB is in Hell, and is doing well. Emirkol is indeed showing what the PCs can get away with. Those are, I agree, the messages of those particular illustrations. However, that is not the overall message of the illustrations in the 1e PHB. The overall message is that you win some, you lose some, but that there are a lot of things out to get you.

Let's see, in the 3e PHB, we got Lidda getting blowed up, and Jozan and Krusk in a serious problem while climbing. Most of the other pics aren't action pics, simply portraits, so we don't really get any sense of anything from them.

You obviously define "getting blowed up" and "a serious problem" far differently than I do. In fact, there is nothing in the Lidda picture to indicate that she is more than surprised and (perhaps) inconvenienced. If you are arguing that the illustrations in the 3.0 PHB imply that puffing on an exploding cigar is equivilent to "getting blowed up", I would suggest that this supports my point more than anything else.

In the Jozan and Krusk picture, there is nothing to indicate that anyone other than Krusk is having a problem (and it is very doubtful that the problem...defined by the caption as though it were an "Aid Another" attempt) has any negative impact in game terms. If you are suggesting that having a fellow PC use you as a stepping stool to make a successful Climb check is what the 3.0 PHB illustrations imply is "serious trouble", again, I would have to say that you are making my point for me.

Again, the picture with Tordek in the dragon's jaws would be counter to my thesis if the caption didn't say that it was the dragon, rather than Tordek, who was in trouble. I would argue that this illustration, and only this illustration in the 3.0 PHB, implies any potential for serious consequences.

These are, in fact, addressed in my earlier post.

Now, while you might think that the art in the 3.0 PHB is crap, I have said before (and will repeat) that there are actually a couple of illustrations in that book that I am fond of.

I do believe that all art is a synthesis of communication and technique, and that both aspects are important to consider when deciding why someone might like Art A over Art X. In fact, if you go through this thread, you will discover many posts claiming that they don't like the technique of certain pieces, or that they don't like the message of certain pieces. Hence my thesis concerning what amounts to mixed messages in the 3.0 PHB and DMG artwork.

Now, I can understand that some people might react negatively to this idea. Some might even call it "just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year". I, for one, have yet to hear a compelling counter-arguement.

I tend to think that were the 3.0 PHB and DMG illustrations (with captions) differently divided between the books (so that roughly 1/2 of the action-type scenes in each book was instead in the other), there would be no mixed message. I also think that, were this the case, for a percentage of people who dislike the artwork in 3.0, the artwork would seem better simply due to consistency of message between the books.

Where the message portion of the artwork is most similar in all three editions, IMHO, is in the monster books. As a result, a comparison of (say) 10 randomly selected creatures that have appeared in all editions would focus perforce more on technique than message. Which is why, as an example, the 3.0 gnoll is such a kick-arse illustration.


RC

 

[RFisher]

Let's face it, This: [...] is crap.

Interesting. I like it. & I don't recognize it. So, I guess it must be nostalgia. (^_^)

(& I didn't notice Willingham's signature until he was mentioned. My first reaction was "Dee", whose stuff I tend to like less. I guess if I think "Dee" but I like it, I should look for the "Willingham" sig. (^_^))

Look at the original Monster Manual.

Didn't I read recently that Sutherland was in charge of the art for the 1e MM & that he was never happy with it, feeling it was too rushed?

I mean, not that that invalidates your point or anything. I just think he'd be a bit sad to see that choosen as the example.

And often, many of these artists can paint realism but they just choose not to (after having mastered that level of control in their youth, their focusing on "expression", "mood" etc.).

True. But in the end, that doesn't really have any bearing on whether I like a particular work. I'd enjoy OotS just as much even if that was the only style Rich could do. Of course, the little touches that make OotS's art really good may be the results of training & technical skill, but it could just be good instincts. Doesn't matter.

 

[RFisher]

You obviously define "getting blowed up" and "a serious problem" far differently than I do.

Eh? That picture was just a lame rip off of the blender illustration in (some copies of) the Gurps 3/e Basic set. (^_^)

Which I don't really mean. Even if it was derivative of that image--which was likely derivative of something else. I don't consider "derivative" to be a criticism.

 

[WayneLigon]

Now, I can understand that some people might react negatively to this idea. Some might even call it "just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year". I, for one, have yet to hear a compelling counter-arguement.

The 'arguement' is that the idea that there is an overarching message conveyed by the art in the various editions of the PHB and DMG is just silly. That's not even looking for deeper meaning in something that has no deeper meaning, that's making up meaning where there simply is none beyond a broad stylistic choice. That's conspiracy theory at it's finest.

The picture of Lidda, for instance (and that's not an exploding cigar she's holding - even though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar). The art direction for that probably went:

Art Director: "I need something for the Use Magic Item skill, probably a failure of such"
[Since almost all of the art is directly tied to a part of the text around it to illustrate a point, it's obvious that's what has happened here]
Artist: "Can I make it humorous, like maybe a Wile E. Coyote moment?"
Art Director: "Sure."