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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So guys like Trampier and Otus had "very little skill?"

I disagree STRONGLY with this.

No doubt. Otus did some amazing work on older editions, he did some quick and simple stuff too, but some of his covers were great compositions with excellent use of color and shape to create a specific feeling, and a lot of his b&w drawings were great as well. Very stylized of course, but that is excellent. Everyone shouldn't try to look like Elmore.

Personally I think it is nuts to imply that the 1e MM looks better than the 3e MM. I do prefer the 1e PH to the later editions due to the feel of the pieces and the type of drawings used. I have issues though with the style choices used in the new stuff, not the technical merit of the artist themselves. The "iconics" should be dropped, I think more variety in the types of characters illustrated would help the book too.

 

[tx7321]

Wayne: "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."

As far as I know, no one is claiming there is "an overarching message" to early 1E art. There just saying it captured the mood (ie. a bunch of cool guys exploring dark and mysterious places filled with monsters, treasure, and traps...that there was always something more just out of sight...that the focus of the game was the setting and monsters (not the characters)... and it was about "high adventure", it allowed the viewer to imagine himself as the person in the painting or illustration because it wasn't so photo-real. What came later was a switch from early 1Es "adventure focus" to 2Es linear story focus (well that really started with Dragonlance) followed by 3Es character focus (likely a reflection of Magics influence). If you think about it, 1E would be a terrible style of art to portray 3E, and vice versa.

Fisher, I was responding to a claim that one could tell if an artists was a hobbiest or professional by looking at their work. I was simply pointing out thats not always that easy (some may truely be "amatures" while others might be masters that just paint in a similar style...perhaps to capture a mood better then extreme realism can.

 

[WayneLigon]

Wayne: "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."

As far as I know, no one is claiming there is "an overarching message" to early 1E art.

Go up there and read RC's posts.

Another thing. There is a small button on the lower right hand side of the message you're reading. It says 'quote'.

For God's sake, Use it.

 

[tx7321]

Give me a quote.

 

[Psion]

(& 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. (^_^))

I think some of his stylings are similar to Dee.

Dee is my favorite old school artist. Frex, I freakin' love his Paladin in the Rogues Gallery.

For my money, though, the only thing Otis should be illustrating is cthulhoid monstrosities or aberrations. His illustrations of characters just look... wrong. But looking wrong is right for Aberrations. It'd be cool if he could illustrate every aberration in the game.

 

[Psion]

Go up there and read RC's posts.

Another thing. There is a small button on the lower right hand side of the message you're reading. It says 'quote'.

Yeah, tx. What's up with your curious reluctance to use the quote button?

 

[tx7321]

Yeah, tx. What's up with your curious reluctance to use the quote button?

I have no idea. Habbit I guess, and no ones ever asked. There, I'm reformed.

 

[diaglo]

I have no idea. Habbit I guess, and no ones ever asked. There, I'm reformed.

praise be.

welcome aboard

 

[Strithe]

Another art thread?

Are we still beating this dessicated equine?

Art discussions are always amusing because they deal with something that's extremely subjective. Which is why the discussion never ends.


From my point of view, I have to say that while the bulk of 1E art was not as technically proficient as some of the later stuff, there's a couple of things it did better:

Some of the B&W art was incredible. Way better than what little B&W art is seen today, and even better than a lot of today's color art with respect to evoking the subject material. As has been said before, black & white art these days is mostly in low-budget products and often crude. About the only thing WOTC uses it for is equipment illustrations.

There was a good amount of artwork in 1E that wasn't just about wish-fulfilment. There was a lot more art (especially in the core books) that showed adventurers in awkward positions, often in a tongue-and-cheeck manner. You also had heroes that didn't look like swimsuit & underwear models (is there a hero in a core WOTC product WITHOUT high cheekbones & 2% bodyfat?).

Yeah, a lot of the old stuff was tacky, cheesy, & silly. A lot of the new suff is as well, it's just shinier, and in FULL COLOR!

 

[Pants]

No doubt. Otus did some amazing work on older editions, he did some quick and simple stuff too, but some of his covers were great compositions with excellent use of color and shape to create a specific feeling, and a lot of his b&w drawings were great as well. Very stylized of course, but that is excellent. Everyone shouldn't try to look like Elmore.

Indeed. Otus had lots of skill, I just hated his art.

Dee is my favorite old school artist. Frex, I freakin' love his Paladin in the Rogues Gallery.

Yeah that's a good picture.

I tend to use it as an example pic whenever anyone says that 1e art was more realistic than 2e or 3e art.

For my money, though, the only thing Otis should be illustrating is cthulhoid monstrosities or aberrations. His illustrations of characters just look... wrong. But looking wrong is right for Aberrations. It'd be cool if he could illustrate every aberration in the game.

QFT.

His humanoids are as ugly as ugly can get.

Yeah, a lot of the old stuff was tacky, cheesy, & silly. A lot of the new suff is as well, it's just shinier, and in FULL COLOR!

And full color is bad.... why? Is B&W somehow better than full color? Do explain please.