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

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

Thanks, I really needed that laugh.

 

[Darth Shoju]

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.

Well you've pretty much lost me at this point. Somehow you see "machismo" and "inner vision" and "spirit" where I see some cool atmospheric illustrations along side some goofy filler material (a description which can apply to all editions IMO). You imagine some bearded rebels flipping the bird to society while striving to produce art in its purest form. I picture it more like this:

[Gary G.] Ok, we need someone to flesh out our adventures and supplements with some illustrations of people going into dungeons and fighting weird-looking monsters in the pursuit of treasure...
[Art Director] Well there are some pretty decent fantasy artists out there now...
[Gary G.] We also don't have a lot of money
[Art Director] Ok well we've got these guys...some of their work is pretty cool looking. They work pretty cheap too...
[Gary G.] Sold !

That's a kinda cheeky example but I tend to go with the simplest explanation until someone "in the know" can come on and validate that they were indeed devil-may-care mavericks publishing art that reflected the "true spirit" of the game. While I agree that art can have a message (hence art directors), I'd have to say the majority of what is being bandied about in this thread is just personal opinion. Outside of RC's posts there is little objectivity (and even there I'd say opinion is weighing pretty heavily). IMO YMMV and so forth.

 

[Klaus]

The original poster asked what was so "magical" about 1e art.

What was "magical" about it was it came first. The artist there had next-to-nothing for reference. Later editions had a road to tread, but the OD&D and 1e artists blazed that trail. So it was a make-up-as-you-go generation.

And for that alone they deserve praise.

 

[tx7321]

Darth: "Well you've pretty much lost me at this point. Somehow you see "machismo" and "inner vision" and "spirit" where I see some cool atmospheric illustrations along side some goofy filler material (a description which can apply to all editions IMO). You imagine some bearded rebels flipping the bird to society while striving to produce art in its purest form."

Machismo relates to throwing caution to the wind and putting out just what you want to put out, without compromising your vision. And thats what 1E pre UA is.

Anyhow, the comment relates not just to this example, This was a general time period evolution, going from pre-PC (early 80s and before) to PC (mid 80s and after). There are still those who buck the trend, some perish some do extremely well (doing the opposite of what they are advised).


As far as TSR goes, it developed with Gygax having control over the product in the begining(and thus controlling what art was used where and who was to do it). Now, I think I read Tramp was friends with Gary (I don't know when that developed or how long it lasted). Also, if you've communicated much with Gygax, you'll see he's not the type to be PC, nor listen to anyone else over his own instinct (like a marketer worried about mommy being scared of Billy playing with a demonology book).

As for flip flops, I don't see Gygax in them.

 

[Darth Shoju]

The original poster asked what was so "magical" about 1e art.

What was "magical" about it was it came first. The artist there had next-to-nothing for reference. Later editions had a road to tread, but the OD&D and 1e artists blazed that trail. So it was a make-up-as-you-go generation.

And for that alone they deserve praise.

Now *that* is a position I can get behind. That makes certain amount of sense to me. It takes the subjectivity and the question of their relative talent out of the argument and focuses on something a bit more quantifiable: the idea that these artists were innovators.

Thanks Klaus!

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Please note that my original post on this topic mentions this specifically, and leaves aside the static portraits. So, you could quite easily do a similar survey leaving those illustrations aside. It might be noted, however, that a static portrait -- a picture in which the primary figure is not engaged in any obvious or discernable activity apart from posing -- implies the ability to pose, and hence an inherent lack of danger. I did not use this assumption in my analysis, but I would accept an analysis that did so.

(In fact, if anything, such an analysis would skew the results in favor of similar percentages in the 1e books.)

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.

Not at all. My point in reference to the message of the 1e artwork breaks itself down as follows:

(1) The PCs are part of a larger world, to which they are interconnected.

(2) That world is a frequently hostile place.

(3) That world contains unknown elements.

(4) That world contains danger, and the possibility of death or serious damage is real.

(5) Likewise, the possibility of spectacular success is real, but requires skill and/or luck.

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.

The cover depicts two PCs stealing the gem eyes from a large statue. They have apparently just killed two lizardmen. A fighter cleans his sword. A mage stands on, perhaps speaking to the fighter. Two other characters in the foreground seem to be examining and discussing a map. This is clearly a PC success, and in terms of risk vs. reward scenarios, a resounding one.

Paladin in Hell shows a paladin in hell (duh) engaged in combat with several devils. Two are slain, one is currently being hit, and three more can be seen entering the combat. The implication is that the paladin is doing well, and certainly that the PCs can do cool things in interesting places, but there is no guarantee that the paladin is going to win.

The picture with the magic mouth shows a group listening to a magic mouth, while a pair of eyes watches them from the lower left hand corner, further into the dungeon. The implication is one of mystery, with a small element of lurking menace. I quote from http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...din+in+hell&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=G:

I think that it would be safe to assume that Emirikol could have just as easily filled the number one position, but there’s something about this illustration (found in the Player’s Handbook) that, in my opinion, out classes it. First off, there are effects that are taking place in it that are outstanding (the floor texture is amazingly handled, achieving a beautiful 3D quality). Secondly, and most importantly, this drawing sums up adventuring at its best: delving down in the darkness, the company encountering a magic mouth (one can only imagine what it is saying), and further down the stairs, the eyes of an awaiting denizen. Awesome.​

The same site had this to say about Paladin in Hell:

Flipping through the original Player’s Handbook, you couldn’t help but stop and stare at this full page illustration of a paladin — on the brink — fighting valiantly with his holy avenger against this party of devils. There are many different stories one could attach to this image, but I always figured that he was a on a suicidal crusade attempting to vanquish as much evil as possible before he himself met his maker. Notice his aura of protection from evil and the comparable scale of each of the devils.​

It is noteworthy, actually, that the art in the 1e PHB was captionless, leading the viewer to determine what the story inherent in the picture was. This is something that comes up again in the aforementioned site's descriptions of Emirkol the Chaotic:

Truly, one of the classic illustrations of the time, "Emirikol the Chaotic" would likely be at the top of anyone’s list. From a technical standpoint, this drawing is fabulous, but really, like with most Trampier drawings, it is the implied story that really draws the viewer in. A late afternoon battle in the city streets between a known criminal wizard and city guardsmen? An assassination outside of the Green Griffon? Or a rampage of evil that threatens the city? Whatever the true story is, it is certainly a masterpiece of D&D illustration that one can find in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.​

Did the art in the 1e PHB imply that the PCs could triumph? Absolutely. Did the art in the 1e PHB imply that the PCs would triumph? Absolutely not.

Of course, when I went through my analysis of both PHBs and DMGs, I looked at all of the pictures. I didn't simply pick and choose. And, oddly enough, no one has yet pointed to a single picture in the 3.0 PHB and supplied a real counter example. OTOH, we have a link to a direct statement confirming a part of what I said relating to the early 3.0 art direction.

And the problem is not the implcation in 3.0 books that the PCs would succeed. The problem is that the 3.0 DMG keeps showing the PCs in dire danger while the 3.0 PHB shows the opposite. The illustrations are pitched to different demographics, but taken together they send a mixed message.

And I suggest, once more, that it is the conscious or unconcious recognition of this mixed message that has caused some (but not all) viewers to dislike the 3.0 artwork, rather than the actual quality of the work's technique.


RC

 

[Darth Shoju]

And the problem is not the implcation in 3.0 books that the PCs would succeed. The problem is that the 3.0 DMG keeps showing the PCs in dire danger while the 3.0 PHB shows the opposite. The illustrations are pitched to different demographics, but taken together they send a mixed message.

And I suggest, once more, that it is the conscious or unconcious recognition of this mixed message that has caused some (but not all) viewers to dislike the 3.0 artwork, rather than the actual quality of the work's technique.

While I feel your argument is certainly well thought-out and presented, I also feel it is over-complicating things a bit. I wouldn't think that the "mixed message" presented between the PHB and DMG in 3.0 is glaring enough to create the effect you propose. Rather I'd go with the simpler explanation: that the designers of 3.0 were determined to make it distinct from the earlier editions and make it appeal to younger audiences. The result, often referred to as "dungeon-punk" has seemed anachronistic to many who grew up on earlier editions of the game. Personally I experienced this to a mixed degree; I didn't mind the new look when handled by a talented artist such as Lockwood or Reynolds who could manage to make the new style seem both plausible and fantastic, but in the hands of other artists it seemed strange and silly looking.

I agree with Klaus's assertion that the 1e artists should be respected for being trailblazers. I also feel that many of those same artists were talented in every sense of the word. However, I also believe that whatever sense of "magic" ones takes away from the artistic style of any edition is due less to any deliberate message on the part of the art director(s) and more due to the positive resonance of said style with the viewer. In other words, each edition does have a style, but what the message of that style is is subjective. All we can say is whether that style works for us or not. Personally, the styles of all three editions work for me in different ways.

 

[tx7321]

Certainly it can be subjective. But its foolish to think artists aren't proactive in rendering their work....they expect others to "get" and see what they see. Thats why to those who get "old school" know it when we see it. And its not a matter of wondering if its totally subjective...we are all mentioning the same things as to why 1E has its magic.

 

[Desdichado]

Looks like a comparison to me, with 2e and 3e art, in your opinion, coming up short. If you'd simply said something like "1e art, while perhaps less technically proficient than more modern RPG art, had a certain magical ambiance all its own," then you could have easily avoided having the thread become one in which the relative merits of art from different eras are directly compared in a qualitative sense.

HAHAHAHA!!

I doubt that.

He could however, at least be able to say with a straight face that it wasn't his intention to have the thread become such.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Certainly it can be subjective. But its foolish to think artists aren't proactive in rendering their work....they expect others to "get" and see what they see. Thats why to those who get "old school" know it when we see it. And its not a matter of wondering if its totally subjective...we are all mentioning the same things as to why 1E has its magic.

I'm sure that some artists are trying to say something with their work. But sometimes, "an orc is just an orc" as it were.

And I don't think you are all mentioning the same things. On one hand you have claimed 2ed and 3ed art is too realistic and detailed and hurts your immersion, then you claim 3ed isn't realistic enough and doesn't model logical medieval armour and equipment, instead focusing on big-thighed mohawked elves or somesuch. Other posters have decried 2ed art because it was too mundane. You have claimed that 1ed art was more dynamic than later editions, others have claimed 3ed is too dynamic. You stated that no one was claiming an over-arching message to 1ed art, yet that seems to be what RC is claiming.

The only common thread I can find is that 1ed art was better at conveying the "mood", "feel" and "spirit" of the game. If you are going to make that comparison, you have to assume that all three editions were going for the same spirit or mood, yet I've seen posts here claiming they have different focuses. This is something I can agree with; 1ed was more dungeon crawl based, 2ed more adventure (outside the dungeon) based and 3ed more character based. So, if each edition has a different focus, then the comparison becomes which one does a better job of portraying its own focus? Can you say that 3ed art does a poor job of putting the focus on the PCs?

My opinion is that each edition has had a different focus and thus a different art style to emphasize that. Whether or not you like that style is personal opinion. Whether or not you feel the art portrays the style it intends is easier to quantify. When you claim the art of a particular edition has something as nebulous as "a certain magic", that just seems like opinion to me.