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

[tx7321]

Tarek wrote: "Ultimately, I think it's because the drawings and artwork weren't drawn, for the most part, by artists who went to commercial or fine arts schools."

I've read several professional artists who've stated they wouldn't have gone the commercial art school route if they could do it over again The reason given: because what they learn to produce (after years of training) ends up looking the same as all the other trained artists around them (and despite their best efforts this is hard to break from for some reason). They claim technical proficiency can be learned, but style and expression can't. So, anyhow, your theory would make alot of since. The variety in styles, and the freedom to express (rather then immitate).

 

[Tuzenbach]

My belief is that so much of the 1E artwork possessed a sort of "unfinished" look that it was up to to gamer's own imagination to fill in the blanks. And, at the end of the day, what's D&D all about? Using your imagination!

I cringe at today's D&D art as well as CGI clogging up movies. In effect, these devices are disallowing the viewer any opportunity to use his or her own imagination. Why? Because absolutely every detail is presented to us, thus robbing us the use of our "imagination muscles", if such a thing even exists.

 

[rgard]

I'm talkng about the stuff put out pre-UA and pre-Dragonlance.

There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today. I know some of this has to do with the posing, placing of modern hair cuts, tattoos and such; and the fact that everythings in full color these days rather then black and white. But what else?

Sorry, but it wasn't that magical. It just looked weak compared to art by Frazetta, Boris and the like.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Klaus]

Tarek wrote: "Ultimately, I think it's because the drawings and artwork weren't drawn, for the most part, by artists who went to commercial or fine arts schools."

I've read several professional artists who've stated they wouldn't have gone the commercial art school route if they could do it over again The reason given: because what they learn to produce (after years of training) ends up looking the same as all the other trained artists around them (and despite their best efforts this is hard to break from for some reason). They claim technical proficiency can be learned, but style and expression can't. So, anyhow, your theory would make alot of since. The variety in styles, and the freedom to express (rather then immitate).

:raises hand:

Never had any art classes, ever.

 

[ssampier]

This covers why 1e art was so awesome:

http://www.fierydragon.com/db/2003-07-09.htm

Great article. I do disagree with "Magic Mouth" on that list, but number 2 is superb.

I think the appeal is nostaglia and also older art is not so "sleek" for lack of a better word. Emirikol the Chaotic looks old (a long time ago and a land far, far away). Third edition art by large seems modern. It may feature mythical creatures such as dragon, wizards, but you definately get a sense of the age it was produced.

As they say, art is subjective.

 

[ssampier]

:raises hand:

Never had any art classes, ever.

You produce some fantastic art. I'm not worthy. :\

 

[tx7321]

Q: "I cringe at today's D&D art as well as CGI clogging up movies. In effect, these devices are disallowing the viewer any opportunity to use his or her own imagination. Why? Because absolutely every detail is presented to us, thus robbing us the use of our "imagination muscles", if such a thing even exists"

I agree with this completely. And I think your right about todays FRPG art showing too much, and for the reasons you mention. Also, I'd add when you look at an illustration that doesn't show everything in detail its easier to imagine yourself in that scene. And that helps with this style of game in particular.

Also the artwork depicts a treasure hunting focus by average looking guys, while Frezetta was more into women and muscles.

I don't expect all to like 1E artwork, this thread was started for those that do. I for instance dislike most abstract art, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the fact others do.

 

[CarlZog]

For me, the lack of sophistication in the original artwork gave the entire game an air of being something exclusive or even slightly mystical -- inaccessible by the mainstream and commercial artists. It was as if only those who had really seen these wonderful sights could draw them, like the wartime sketches you see done by soldiers in the field.

The other aspect of it was that the artwork far more closely reflected the traditional medieval garb that I imagined my characters wearing. The character concept art in 3e looks like it was done by a bunch of frustrated fashion school dropouts, and is SO far gone from what I'm imagining that it really detracts more than it enhances the books IMO.

 

[Shadowslayer]

For me, the lack of sophistication in the original artwork gave the entire game an air of being something exclusive or even slightly mystical --

I was trying to come up with something like that, but you said it better.

It just looked more arcane, less slick. I won't say everything was wonderful...there were some clunkers too. I guess the old style of artwork made the books feel like textbooks on the game itself...that the artwork was just one part of something bigger.

Now the game almost seems to be there only to support the artwork. (cuz he artwork is where a lot of the minis come from)

 

[Dykstrav]

The single big thing I really dig about 1E artwork is that it's sparse and to the point. No pictures taking up a half-page of a sorcerer randomly casting a spell or adventurers reading at a library. Just adventuring. It's all contextualized as being part of an adventure.

I really liked some of the early 3E black-and-whites, such as the Wayne Reynolds and the Cramer material that appeared in the Builder guides (Sword and Fist, Defenders of the Faith, et cetera). That came reasonably close to capturing the 1E feel to me and was nicely detailed. It's partly also a quality of presentation issue too, I think. I've heard old and new players alike comment that the 3E material looks like video game manuals (some people liked this, some didn't really care).

I do think flashy graphics aren't always awesome. It sometimes makes me think that they're trying to distract you from the content.