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

[Melan]

Qualidar wrote:

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".

As someone born a year after the 1st edition DMG was published, I believe I can safely say that no nostalgia is involved on my part. In fact, going by the nostalgia argument, I should be nostalgic for 2nd edition’s art, which I am clearly not (and I didn’t like itt hat much „back then”, either - preferred artwork from Fighting Fantasy, fantasy and SF pulps, and so on). Old art, like new art, should be judged on its own merits. It is impossible to discount nostalgia, and it it may naturally colour someone’s judgement... But claiming that it is „only because of nostalgia and rose coloured glasses” is a cheap debating tactic, and frankly, very insulting - especially since it discounts the possibility that it can be good. Strictly speaking, we could even say it is a sort of ad hominem attack, because you are arguing against the person, not the point being made.

I say that the „look of old D&D” is not just „cheap production values”, but something with its own aesthetics. You can see the things it was inspired by on pulp fiction magazines, comic books (making the accusation that 3e D&D looks comic bookish rather... comical), and things like the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series. Clearly, it is not the face of today’s fantasy art, as today’s fantasy art has generally rejected its pulp heritage and seeks visual inspiration elsewhere. There is a „look” that seems to have vanished, and been replaced with more „realistic”, but also more mundane art.

Last but not least, I like new examples of art done in the „old” style just as well as classical pieces. Erol Otus is still producing fascinating and weirdly imaginative pieces, and there are many new artists who „get” that vibe, often using today’s tools. John Massé (who did some of Necromancer Games’ older covers) and Stefan Poag (whose B&W and colour art is featutred in the Dungeon Crawl Classics line, as well as OSRIC products like Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom) are just two examples. In fact, with good art direction, I maintain that Wayne Reynolds could be capable of it.

 

[jensun]

I realize some of you guys like those types of 3E images, and no offense. There just not my cup of tea.

Its amazing how much nostalgia combined with a bit of 1e/3e rivalry can spawn quite so much rambling debate.

You arent related to diaglo by any chance are you?

Personally I much preferred the art in the old D&D red-white boxes and the RC. The original 1e PHB/DMD/MM stuff looked and felt amateurish, even as a teenager. I did however like some of the 2e art, a number of the FR peices managed to evoke the mood quite well. The cover of the Red Wizards of Thay certainly delivered.

3e art seems technically well produced although I was never a big fan of dungeonpunk. Fortunately that seems to have faded away.

 

[tx7321]

Q: "3e art seems technically well produced although I was never a big fan of dungeonpunk. Fortunately that seems to have faded away."

IMHO, 3E artwork is still bland, and has many of the elements of dungeon punk still alive and well (huge proportions, perfect bodies, odd poses, giant elf ears, etc.)


Q: "The original 1e PHB/DMD/MM stuff looked and felt amateurish, even as a teenager. I did however like some of the 2e art,"

So were you a fan of those 2e paintings where the artists litterally painted his overwieght out of shape boss in a costume, or the genre with feathers and fur stuck on mid to late 80s chicks with 80s hair cuts. In many ways 2E art gave birth to 3E (9 months after "getting it on" with WOTC's Magic).

 

[Maggan]

So were you a fan of those 2e paintings where the artists litterally painted his overwieght out of shape boss in a costume, or the genre with feathers and fur stuck on mid to late 80s chicks with 80s hair cuts.

When you put it as eloquently as that, all I can say is "yes". Because as we all know, there were only two types of art for 2e, ie the fat boss type and the feathers and fur type.

Not the Planescape type, or the Birthright type, or Dark Sun type, or any other types. Just the fat boss and the feathered chick.

Thank you for making my life a lot easier when it comes to distinguish between different styles in 2e!



/M

 

[tx7321]

Well sure I could have mentioned Dark Sun and BRs "Welcome to Thunderdome" everyone huge and dressed in revealing tight black leather strips in bright desert sun (not exactly a dungeon delving Midieval look), PlaneScape on the other hand had some older school looking stuff if I remember. The "Well of the Worlds" cover sucked though.

So what was up with the fat boss dressed up in costume thing anyway? I understand those litterally were Tom and Sally from accounting types walking around the TSR office, who dressed up in cheesy costumes and were painted. 1. Why was this so popular (it lasted a very long time if I remember) and 2. I wonder if any of those guys dressed up were head hanchos at TSR worth noting.

 

[Desdichado]

IMHO, 3E artwork is still bland, and has many of the elements of dungeon punk still alive and well (huge proportions, perfect bodies, odd poses, giant elf ears, etc.)

It'd be nice if someone clarified exactly what dungeonpunk is supposed to mean, since none of those things you list are things that I would consider to be dungeonpunk.

Personally, I think dungeonpunk is just a buzzword that crotchety old grognards use to mean "I don't like it" but at least when they were using the word to talk about buckles, leather, tattoos and mohawks it made some sense. If you're using it to now talk about intimidating and unrealistic physiques and odd poses, then it doesn't.

 

[Melan]

Well sure I could have mentioned Dark Sun and BRs "Welcome to Thunderdome" everyone huge and dressed in revealing tight black leather strips in bright desert sun (not exactly a dungeon delving Midieval look), PlaneScape on the other hand had some older school looking stuff if I remember. The "Well of the Worlds" cover sucked though.

Actually, I have no idea why the "mediaeval look" should be touted as a goal. Considering that very talented artists like Frazetta painted clothing that was everything but mediaeval, and that G. Brom was a follower of the Frazetta tradition, I don't see your point here. Likewise, Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, I have no idea why the "mediaeval look" should be touted as a goal. Considering that very talented artists like Frazetta painted clothing that was everything but mediaeval, and that G. Brom was a follower of the Frazetta tradition, I don't see your point here. Likewise, Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier.

:ditto:

Oh, yeah--ENW doesn't have that smily.

Anyway, lately my fantasy has really taken a right turn away from mainstream, so I now prefer something that's part steampunk, part Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom, part Sergio Leone and part Warhammer 40k in style, so maybe I'm not the best guide here. But c'mon--this is fantasy, in a fantasy world. 1) Why are we supposed to assume that this fantasy world had a remarkable convergence in style with our own "jolly old England" in terms of clothing, arms and equipment, and 2) which artists have actually done that anyway, especially in 1e?

 

[tx7321]

J-Dawg, I didn't say todays stuff was "dungeonpunk" just that it has elements of it. Todays stuff is "something unique" to be sure.

Melan: "Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier" Sure, but their clothing was very fantasy generic. Frezetta, as much as I love his work, was pretty much focusing on Conan setting stuff (mostly outside, muscular, brutal strength of half naked savage men, total T&A for the chicks...very fighter focused, not into MUs or thief types much; he just wasn't about AD&D or OD&D (ie. average guys of varying professions and varying attributes doing extra-ordinary things down underground). He'd have been a poor match for AD&D if you think about it (you'd feel like your puney 12 str. fighter would be crushed by the first half naked Barbarian type you encountered). AD&Ds persons were relatable, (30-40 year old guys with beards and partly balding, slightly overwieght at times, while others are hardened as if weathered, shaped by experiance and training, but not overly-so) "hey I can picture being down there with these guys" is what you think when you see them. And the setting he chose was "generic fairy tale fantasy" like Tolkien. So, it was a tool to foster emmersion in a HIS and ARNESON'S "dungeon crawl" setting. The sheer variety of body types, ages and clothing, allowed you to picture what it would be like to be those different sorts. Frezetta was a body builder, loved that theme, and would probably have had his muscular fighter types squashing the weaklings around them.....as they should. But thats "Savage Swords" not Tolkein.

Picturing yourself as a perfect swimsuit model in almost nothing, or spikey armor that would snag on everything, down in a dungeon crawling with God knows what, cold and damp...thats just unrelatable and unrealistic. It may be good art, but doesn't help with emersion much.

I really think the shift in art (Dragon lance and on) reflects a change in the commercial direction TSR wanted to go (with launching novels, and pumping out series to really bring in huge amounts of revenue etc.), it attracted a different sort of player (and a shift in marketing strategy by TSR was required) and so the old artists were canned and the focused changed. It wasn't about picturing yourself in this world of the DMs creation, it was about following a romantic quest, and picturing yourself as someone else (like an actor).

 

[Desdichado]

Melan: "Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier" Sure, but their clothing was very fantasy generic. Frezetta, as much as I love his work, was pretty much focusing on Conan setting stuff (mostly outside, brutal strength of half naked savage men, total T&A for the chicks...he wasn't about AD&D or OD&D (ie. average guys doing extra-ordinary things down underground). He'd have been a poor match for AD&D if you think about it. AD&Ds persons were relatable, (30-40 year old guys with beards and partly balding, slightly overwieght at times, while others are hardened as if weathered, shaped by experiance and training, but not overly-so) "hey I can picture being down there with these guys" is what you think when you see them. So, it was a tool to foster emmersion in a "dungeon crawl" setting. Picturing yourself as a perfect swimsuit model in almost nothing, or spikey armor that would snag on everything, down in a dungeon crawling with God knows what, cold and damp...thats just unrelatable. It may be good art, but doesn't seem realistic (to me anyway). Where I can totaly believe the cover to the 1E PH).

In other words--painting your boss in SCA gear is actually now a good thing after all?