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

[Qualidar]

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.

Yes, that is a good point.

Edit: But that's a point about the art direction, rather than the actual art itself.

~Qualidar~

 

[Delta]

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.

I do think this is an interesting and telling observation. I'd suggest that part of why this happens is through the use of the iconic characters -- in some sense they can't be dead or lost, because clearly they develop through all levels 1-20 in various contexts. The iconics are presented as faces that will always be around to introduce new rules, so they can't be in trouble, and by happenstance they therefore suggest that that will be true about your PCs as well.

The really interesting thing is the raise dead illustration on 3.0 PHB p. 153 (now that's probably the worst situation portrayed in the book). The healer is Jozan. The victim? An unknown "friend", not apparently an iconic, the only such figure in the PHB.

 

[Ourph]

QFT.

His humanoids are as ugly as ugly can get.

I'll give you that he doesn't draw his humans "pretty" or whatever, but I'm astounded that Erol Otus would get the rap of drawing humans and humanoids poorly.

The three wizards picture from the 1980 Basic set that Melan mentioned above is one of my favorite pieces of D&D artwork from any time period and I think demonstrates that Erol Otus is incredibly proficient at drawing humanoid figures.

http://jrients.tripod.com/otus/otusbasic.html

And the alchemist picture from the Expert set is also, IMO, very good.

http://jrients.tripod.com/otus/otusexpert.html

Concerning the comparisons between the 1eMM and the 3eMM, all I can say is that I prefer the one where the orcs don't look like axe-wielding troll dolls TYVM.

As for Emerikol showing "what PCs can get away with", who says Emerikol is a PC? From as far back as I can remember, I assumed Emerikol the Chaotic was an NPC; someone for the PCs to track down after he went on his magical rampage through the City of Greyhawk.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time understanding how realism in paintings hinders immersion. When I think of Elmore's picture from Bloodstone Lands (with the wizard fighting the knight) I have no problem putting myself in that scene. The environment seems real enough to touch and, for me, reminds me of home (minus the mountains). I can look at the leaden sky and feel the cool but mild spring breeze on my face and hear it whisper through the boughs of the pine trees. I can look at the dead brown grass breaking through the snow and imagine the crunch under my feet. Now, obviously my experience dueling wizards IRL is limited ( ) but the two figures add the fantasy element to the picture for me. I look at them and see rich detail and they just complete the scene for me (although I do agree his figures look fairly stiff most of the time). I find that a lot of the time a decent background is essential to gain the immersion factor for me and pictures that lack this lack context IMO. In the world of comic book art I find this particularly important; compare George Perez's fantastic backgrounds and detailed characters to some of the one-colour backgrounds found in other comics.

I suppose I could see where *some* of the 2e and 3e art comes off as "commerical", but for the most part I've never had a problem finding wonder in most of it. Elmore's "Dragon Slayers" piece from the 2ed AD&D PHB screams adventure to me. How about Easley's piece from the same book, the one where the female warrior has carved up a giant's equipment and is holding him by the nose ring? And I think anyone would be hard pressed to consider *any* of Brom's work "commercial"

I guess ultimately I'm in the camp that says there has been good and bad in all the editions. A lot of the 1ed art cited here is great IMO (although I've never really warmed up to Otus...the appeal is mostly lost on me). I remember finding the Fiend Folio in my elementary school library (it used to have a lot of cool books before the less-tolerant folks of my town got to it) and finding the monsters in there actually frightening (well, except the Flail Snail...although I still liked it). Flipping through it now doesn't have the same effect. 2ed had Elmore, Easley, Caldwell and Brom, but it had its share of dreck too. 3ed has Todd Lockwood (easily one of my all-time favourites), Wayne Reynolds, William O'Conner and Sean West. However it, too, has crap. I think there is inarguably a different over-all style to the art of each edition, defined by the stable of artists working at the time, but I believe that whatever you take away from the style of each edition is entirely your own. YMMV as it were.

I would also like to second the request for an example of the "mohawked, big-thighed, leather-clad, big-eared elf". Outside of some bad fan art for World of Warcraft, I can't imagine where this is coming from.

 

[Tuzenbach]

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.

How can I say this nicely? You're wrong.

 

[Garnfellow]

As an aside, I didn't realize that Bill Willingham has gone on to have a long and fairly prestigious career in comics. (I followed his excellent Elementals series back in the day, but have mostly been out of comics for about 15 years.) His Fables series is said to be quite good, and I hope to check them out in the near future:

http://www.amazon.com/Fables-collections/lm/R3N55AK81NV0BM?tag2=downandoutint-20

 

[Pants]

I'll give you that he doesn't draw his humans "pretty" or whatever, but I'm astounded that Erol Otus would get the rap of drawing humans and humanoids poorly.

The three wizards picture from the 1980 Basic set that Melan mentioned above is one of my favorite pieces of D&D artwork from any time period and I think demonstrates that Erol Otus is incredibly proficient at drawing humanoid figures.

http://jrients.tripod.com/otus/otusbasic.html

And the alchemist picture from the Expert set is also, IMO, very good.

http://jrients.tripod.com/otus/otusexpert.html

I still think they're ugly and I don't care for his style. Only Dennis Cramer makes uglier looking humanoids.

Concerning the comparisons between the 1eMM and the 3eMM, all I can say is that I prefer the one where the orcs don't look like axe-wielding troll dolls TYVM.

I prefer a book without fat pit fiends, so YMMV obviously.

 

[tx7321]

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time understanding how realism in paintings hinders immersion. When I think of Elmore's picture from Bloodstone Lands (with the wizard fighting the knight) I have no problem putting myself in that scene. QUOTE]

I think a realist certainly can create mood, feeling and foster immersion. The point some of us are trying to make though, is that such realism isn't always the preferred way to do that, for some artists it might be abstract, for others impressionism, and for others the styles we see in 1E (which tends to not get hung up in realism. Thats actually part of why it seems less commercial. Its an axiom of fine artists generally to create focus points in a painting of high detail and concentration, and to de-emphasise the rest or in some cases blur it. This is how the eye sees at any given instance (like when you talk to someone only their nose and eyes are likely in sharp focus). Com artist tend to be scanners putting to much in detail on the painting.

 

[Pants]

I think a realist certainly can create mood, feeling and foster immersion. The point some of us are trying to make though, is that such realism isn't always the preferred way to do that, for some artists it might be abstract, for others impressionism, and for others the styles we see in 1E (which tends to not get hung up in realism. Thats actually part of why it seems less commercial. Its an axiom of fine artists generally to create focus points in a painting of high detail and concentration, and to de-emphasise the rest or in some cases blur it. This is how the eye sees at any given instance (like when you talk to someone only their nose and eyes are likely in sharp focus). Com artist tend to be scanners putting to much in detail on the painting.

Or maybe... just maybe, it's all just taste and arguing about this accomplishes nothing.

Also, calling another art style 'commercial' is just pretentious.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And the alchemist picture from the Expert set is also, IMO, very good.

http://jrients.tripod.com/otus/otusexpert.html

Concerning the comparisons between the 1eMM and the 3eMM, all I can say is that I prefer the one where the orcs don't look like axe-wielding troll dolls TYVM.

Yeah, that link pretty much highlights my thoughts on Erol Otus. Love the alchemist, like the wizard zapping the dragon ...

... wonder what the hell he was smoking when he drew the specter.

Similarly, most 1E-era art for me follows that progression: one's great, one's okay, and one looks like a bad Hannah-Barbera knock-off done by someone three sheets past Sunday.

I really, really question the taste of anyone who can say / type, that the specter was "one of my all-time favorite depictions of the Undead."

You want a good picture of the undead? Check out some of the better Ravenloft stuff, like Strahd at Castle Ravenloft, or Lord Soth's Ride.