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

[Hussar]

*snip*

If you don't like 1E artwork, no biggy. But it wouldn't kill anyone to think about some of the points those that do like it have brought up and visa versa.

One thing that 1E art captures is the feeling of mystery, shadows and blackness you'd expect going underground (for instance the covers of the PH and DMG). Even OD&D had a strong underground feel to it...where details were only suggested rather then glorifide.

I wonder if the shift in art (from early 1E to late (dragonlance) 1E to 2E and now to 3E, reflects a change in focus between the different games: in 1E the majority of game time was spent inside a pitch black dirty, stinking dungeon (getting there was less then a paragraph in the front of the module), where 2E and 3E focus more on "outside the dungeon" activities...either outside adventures, where the dungeon delving was not the vast majority of the game.

Now this I could possibly agree with. There has been a massive shift to get the adventures out of the dungeon (whether smelly or not) and that has been reflected in the artwork.

Another point someone else brought up was that 1E artwork didn't idealize the depicted PCs or monsters (where 3E portrays most PCs looking like "swimsuite models" in skin tight clothing etc., 1E depicts most everyone pretty much you'd expect, tough but human.

Again, could you please give some examples of the swimsuit models? 1e had more than its share of beefcake pics as well. And, looking up at that pic I put up earlier, that pic looks nothing like a human I would expect to see. You seem to be hung up on the idea that 3e art is all dungeonpunk when that style died before 3.5 was even released.

 

[Hussar]

Your right, of course.



Well, that's something.



As a fairly simple test of this theory, how many pictures in the 1e PHB show the PCs triumphing, and how many show the PCs in potentially serious straits? Which pictures do you include in each? What is, therefore, the ratio of triumph to danger?

Now, do the same thing with the 3.0 PHB.

If the numbers are the same, and you can adequately defend your choice of pictures, then I will gladly admit that I am wrong in my surmise.



Why would that be great if the ratio is already the same as in the 1e PHB? What would those pics add?


RC

Considering most of the pics in the 3e PHB are static portraits, there is no sense of danger or the lack thereof.

Your point is that the art of the 1e PHB somehow lends itself to the sense that the PC's are not the heroes, that their death could be imminent and meaningless. Nothing could be farther from the truth IMO. The cover of the 1e PHB shows the PC's stealing the gems from the statue. A few pages in, we have a full page spread of the Paladin in Hell. Later we have another full page spread of a bunch of dwarves listening to a magic mouth. Sure, there are some smaller pictures showing PC death, but the big pictures, the ones that are going to be remembered, all show the PC's doing heroic things and succeeding.

 

[Qualidar]

Of course. Someone in the advertising industry would be in a good position to critique my statements directly following that question in my previous post.

Well, I'm a graphic designer / art director, and I admit that you've sold me on the fact that the 3rd edition art is conveying a message, and I can see where you are coming from with what that message conveys. But all of that is superfluous to the actual original question: what gives 1e art the "sense of wonder". The actual merits or lack thereof of 3e, 2e, silver age comic books or art deco are just a distraction from that question.

I would maintain that the answers were in the first 2 pages of this thread: It's nostalgia, and favorable associations with certain magical times in our lives. I also buy the brain chemistry issue I brought up originally. The real test would be to remove our feelings from the judging. I bet if we took all the 1e art down to the local bingo parlor tomorrow and asked around, most of those polled would find a distinct lack of "magic".

~Qualidar~

 

[Gentlegamer]

My love of the "old school" artwork has nothing to do with nostalgia since I came into AD&D with 2nd edition.

I think cover illustrations for The Dragon ought also to be considered.

 

[tx7321]

I also strongly disagree with this statement. Nastalgia is part of it sure, but a small part I think. Case in point: I see new artwork everyday thats different then 1E but still has that kind of energy and feel. Just look around you.
Hell, I just watched "Underworld" again 2 nights ago. Check out the history book on Vampires they briefly show (dark and dangerous illustrations) or the LOTR movie concept art (you can find this in books at B&N thats where I saw it). And there's a ton more (kids sections of book stores, album covers, etc. etc.). This stuff is GREAT...and its proof that not everythings gone totally 3E... and that perhaps it may one day make inroads back into the FRPG market. Presently though, besides a few GG, PPP and OSRIC products everything else looks pretty D20 standard.

As always I don't expect everyone to "get it" as far as it comes to 1E art. No more then you can expect me to for 3E. But those who do like it will probably agree that its not just nastalgia.

PS Concerning you "bingo parlor" comment; would it be considered a good thing to have artwork to be liked by patrons of a bingo parlor...have you ever been to bingo parlor.?
Unfort. I have....once. But oddly, I actually think they'd like it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Your right, of course.

Well, that's something.



As a fairly simple test of this theory, how many pictures in the 1e PHB show the PCs triumphing, and how many show the PCs in potentially serious straits? Which pictures do you include in each? What is, therefore, the ratio of triumph to danger?

Now, do the same thing with the 3.0 PHB.

If the numbers are the same, and you can adequately defend your choice of pictures, then I will gladly admit that I am wrong in my surmise.

See here: http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/showpost.php?p=415630&postcount=16

 

[Maggan]

Of course. Someone in the advertising industry would be in a good position to critique my statements directly following that question in my previous post.

Well, I don't feel that I have made a thorough enough analysis of both PHs and the potential messages conveyed by the art to discuss you theory.

Suffice it to say that I think it is probable that the art direction for 3e was more deliberate and dictated by target group tests than 1e, who seem more haphazard and at time whimsical.

Whether the pictures of 3e convey a "safer" message than the pictures of 1e is not for me to say. I'd like to test it on a broad representation of the target group before I make any conclusions.

/M

 

[tx7321]

Whether the pictures of 3e convey a "safer" message than the pictures of 1e is not for me to say. I'd like to test it on a broad representation of the target group before I make any conclusions.

Yep, 3E lacked machismo all the way around (safe covers, safe action heroes, girls and guys rendered looking very similar to each other, few close to impossible odds going out in glory scenes, etc. etc.). Truely a biproduct of the politically correct 90s. Back in the 70s guys were guys and chicks were chicks. And old fat dudes with beards launched books with covers made by their professional artist friends, not worried about who might feel offended or left out, but rather, is the work truely expressing what the product is "all about". Making a mint came second to making a product that was a joy to behold. And they were'nt afraid to give you the bird if you objected. Hell, even todays leading men (with the exception of a few like the new bond perhaps) are girly guys...Brad Pitt, Leonardo Decrapio, etc. etc. so the PC steam roller continues on. And 4E will undoubtedly be more of the same.

Marketers have there place, but they need to remember to remind their clients to grow a pair and take some risks on their own. Defy what the numbers say, present your inner vision and spirit. People see it and appreciate it.

 

[Maggan]

Yep, 3E lacked machismo all the way around (safe covers, safe action heroes, girls and guys rendered looking very similar to each other, few close to impossible odds going out in glory scenes, etc. etc.).

After a casual glance at the covers of the original adventure path modules for 3e, I deduce that your sample size must be incomplete, which therefore results in an incomplete analysis.



In other words, "all way around" the art of 3e looks nothing like what you are describing.

Marketers have there place, but they need to remember to remind their clients to grow a pair and take some risks on their own. Defy what the numbers say, present your inner vision and spirit. People see it and appreciate it.

Or reject it wholesale, which is a far more common outcome. Sometimes that inner vision and spirit resonates with the target audience, but I'd wager that 90% of the time it doesn't.

As a clear example; no one has been able to topple D&D as the major medieval fantasy rpg, even after thousands of games have been released, some of them even with extremely similar mechanics and artwork.

Note that I' not saying that people shouldn't go for conveying their inner vision and spirit. Just be realistic as to what is the outcome. It worked for Vampire, so it could work for someone else.

EDIT: And btw, marketers aren't unfallible! We make mistakes as well. The best makes very small mistakes. We of lesser skills sometimes make huge mistakes.

/M

 

[tx7321]

I also need to mention, I haven't seen much of the 3E art in the last year.