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

[tx7321]

Ever heard about the d20 license?

Why change to another system when people can crank out 3e compatible stuff (in print or pdf or whatever) in perpetuity?

/M

Good point Magaan. And were getting the same thing now with OSRIC. Personally, I think in about 2 years 1Eers and 3Eers alike will be in the same camp, shaking our heads together at the direction WOTC goes. But like you said, who'll care if new quality 1E and 3E material is being pumped out. .

Num: "I always thought that Otus' style, for example, was very immature. The style reminds me of childrens books and there is that apparent lack of artistic skill."

Nah, those aren't super young studlings running around, they still look to be over 25. Anyhow, in the world of 1E, Otus was the most "out there", almost fluid and abstract in his style (when looked at as a whole) I know this looks amature to you, but so did Monet and Vangoeh for most artists and members of the general public at the time (and look what happened there...after Vincent killed himself his work exploded in popularity, and is considered masterful). I didn't care for it much as a kid, but have grown to appreciate it. Tramp is more what I'm thinking of as "typical" fantasy, but a bit more hard core.

 

[Qualidar]

Again, however, this is a great illustration. Those who worry about unrealistic armor can hardly complain about how Tordek is depicted -- his spikes are very small, and well within the realm of possibility/what is depicted in earlier editions. The action is very wahoo but this, again, falls well within the norm for all editions. The figures are well rendered, and it is a nice detail that Tordek's helmet has gone flying.

I found this comment curious. Why the need to have depictions match across editions? You say it like that's an assumed plus. I've never heard anyone put that out as a positive (or, for that matter, negative) factor before.

~Qualidar~

 

[Qualidar]

From this site. A lot of people here (according to polls) started with 1E, and this board is not filled with 60 year olds. With a bit of math I can guess that people here started with 1E while they were young.

I believe the vast majority of us were about 13, give or take 5 years.

~Q~

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Anyway, I just get feelings like I was watching comics on LSD when I look at Otus' stuff, no way I get a sense that something like that would go on even in a fantasy world. That is an indicator for lack of skill, IMO. The art aint doin what its supposed to be doin.

Psshh, you hit the nail on the head on exactly why I like his cover art. I don't think it's amateurish/lack of skill at all. I would prefer more daring/experimenting in fantasy art. There's a lot of art across any of the editions that "ain't doin what it's supposed to be doin" (hello Moonsea cover art...hitting someone with a baguette???). I love Erol Otus's art because he adds a heightened sense of fantasy to his work. Strange tableaus, unseen vistas, all that good stuff. Hell, if I wanted to see spectacular, realistic scenery, I could drive in about any direction for about 40 minutes and take a walk.

 

[Ourph]

Break given. I was just answering tx's similar claims about 3E. He was trashing 3E art as "for kids" while 1e art was for 30-40 year olds.

There's a difference between saying that 3e's art is directed to appeal to kids and saying anything about maturity levels. If 3e artwork is drawing heavily from other mediums which are already popular with kids/teens (and I would argue that it is) in an attempt to interest kids in the game with artwork that already strikes a chord with them, then the style is "for kids" in the sense that it's meant to grab the attention of a young audience, not in the sense that it is "childish" artwork. If that's the message you got from the previous posts I suspect you were either reading very uncharitably or simply missing the point.

From this site. A lot of people here (according to polls) started with 1E, and this board is not filled with 60 year olds. With a bit of math I can guess that people here started with 1E while they were young.

I'd say using ENworld polls as the basis for judging demographics for the game from 30 years ago is a bad idea. It seems to me that ENworld is populated by an older audience than a lot of other 3e gaming sites and probably not reflective of current gaming demographics, let alone demographics from ca. 1980. The mere fact that it's an internet messageboard should tip us off to that. What percentage of 60 year olds (no matter what their interests at 30) get on the internet at all, let alone post to ENWorld?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think this may be part of the problem with the current art direction at WotC. Early D&D didn't draw its artwork from popular kid culture.

Oh? It didn't draw from comic books or saturday morning cartoons or cover illustrations for The Hobbit?

It either created its own genre or drew from obscure adult fantasy.

Nothing exists in a vacuum...what were the influences for this early art? Where did they get their ideas from?

When I first got into D&D, it didn't present me with artwork and themes drawn from Jonny Quest, Underdog, The Herculoids and The Muppet Show.

Well, boiling those down to what is actually vaguely fantasy....The Herculoids and early D&D art have a lot in comon, from the perspective of this untrained eye. Usually the D&D stuff was better drawn than the Hanna-Barbara Assembly Line, but it still felt like a cartoon to me.

It seems to me that the current art direction at WotC is allowing for too much influence from other sources and that cross-pollination is creating a landscape of tabletop, console, computer and collectible card fantasy art that's much too self-referential to be anything other than bland and trite after a while.

I dunno, if the book says elves live in the forest and I occasionally see artwork of flying space-elves on the moon, I'm going to say "This artwork is bupkiss." I don't care if it's a lost Michelangelo of space-elves on the moon, it's not depicting what the game is describing, so it's purpose as illustration is completely lost.

And if you take a look at some of the stuff on, say, conceptart.org, I think you'll find enough variety and life in fantasy artwork yet, regardless of how much they don't resemble the covers of 1930's Wierd Tales magazine.

 

[Nightfall]

*cheers for Claudio*

 

[tx7321]

Kam, take a look at the ages of the guys on the cover of the PH and DMG for 1E. These guys are dirty, grimey, bearded, and just tough mofo's. Lets face it, did kids (I mean 10 year olds) want to see exclusively old guy like this. I did, and my friends did (I'll bet alot of you guys as well...infact it looked darn dangerous to my young eyes), but the "masses" the ones that never did get into role play games, surely a more general appeal would have hooked them. I don't think Gary and Arney had the interest or finances to do any marketing. They stuck stuff on the covers they thought actually captured the "feel" and "spirit" of the game. It was an honest "here is the game we love in picture form...we hope you love it too" from the heart painting. And the rest is history.

100 years from now these original books and artwork will still be talked about. But I doubt 3E's interior art will be collected or remembered.

Kam,
I really don't see what your getting at. If your saying there are parts of 1E art taken from cartoons or covers of the Hobbit (I'm not saying there was) so what. That doesn't mean they show kids, or the stuff kids want to see, they were hardened and sullied. These guys in on the PH cover (and alot of the interior stuff) look more like Jethro Tull's "Aqua Lung my friend" then GQ underwear models (like the ones I'm forced to look at when viewing 3E art) or some kiddy super-heroes. If you think 3E is doing the same as Gygax and early TSR did, I think your fooling yourself. :\

 

[Numion]

There's a difference between saying that 3e's art is directed to appeal to kids and saying anything about maturity levels.

Eh? No there isn't.

I'd say using ENworld polls as the basis for judging demographics for the game from 30 years ago is a bad idea. It seems to me that ENworld is populated by an older audience than a lot of other 3e gaming sites and probably not reflective of current gaming demographics, let alone demographics from ca. 1980. The mere fact that it's an internet messageboard should tip us off to that. What percentage of 60 year olds (no matter what their interests at 30) get on the internet at all, let alone post to ENWorld?

It's a bad idea if I was aiming for 100% accurate data. However, for a quick guestimation it's ok. Even WotC acknowledges that the player base is older now than it used to be before. Do you really think that D&D players are on the average younger than in 1E times?

There are many reasons for this. One is that D&D isn't considered just kids play anymore - and not having those wacky Otus pieces around is a factor in that.

 

[Numion]

I know this looks amature to you, but so did Monet and Vangoeh for most artists and members of the general public at the time (and look what happened there...after Vincent killed himself his work exploded in popularity, and is considered masterful).

Yeah, D&D art of any edition is a good compare to Van Gogh. You're a real art connoisseur, aren't you?