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

[Ourph]

Oh?

As usual, you're trying to pick a fight over something completely innocuous. Take it somewhere else.

 

[WayneLigon]

What percentage of 60 year olds (no matter what their interests at 30) get on the internet at all, let alone post to ENWorld?

'Elderly' as a category usually begins at 65. Most studies I've looked at say about 13%-15% of people 65+ use the internet on a regular basis. Of the next tier down, 50-64, that number goes to 65% to 70% - higher, in fact, than the national average.

“The growth of this gray market is impressive: according to US
Department of Commerce figures ... In 2007, 70.9% of those aged 50-64 will be
surfing the Web, and 32.2% of those over 65% will be Googling in
retirement.-- Enterprise Marketer

I had no idea.

 

[Ourph]

Eh? No there isn't.

Sorry. Yes there is. Creating artwork that's familiar to kids because it's similar to things they are already interested doesn't preclude adults from liking the art too. Are you actually suggesting that if kids like it, it must be crap?

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?

I have no idea and WotC doesn't either. TSR didn't do marketing research to find out who exactly was playing their games and in what numbers until the mid to late 80's (after the peak of D&D's popularity), so those numbers just aren't available .... to anyone. As for ENworl being OK for a quick guestimation, I still find that laughable. ENworld attracts a specific, older, demographic of gamers. It's in no way representative of gamer culture as a whole even today. To suggest that it's somehow representative of the demographics of gamer culture from 30 years ago is ludicrous.

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.

I have to disagree with this. Otus's work is similar in many respects to current artwork of the time in adult weird fiction and fantasy magazines. Look at the work published in Weird Tales and Analog during that time period and Otus doesn't stand out as anything unusual. There was nothing to give it a "kiddie" stigma compared to contemporary artists. If anything the manga-inspired poses and costumes of the current edition of D&D do more to stigmatize the game than Erol Otus or any of his contemporaries did.

 

[Melan]

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.

Now that I plain disagree with. As an adult, I looove Otus artwork, and I think I first encountered it when I was, hm, probably 21-22. It isn't the kind of art kids tend to dig (and I know other people have said things to the contrary - well, I disagree with them!). I am sure most kids would prefer Trampier and DCS; more abstract art is usually liked by older audiences.

I also have to second the poster who wrote he would like to see more experimentation in RPG artwork. Yeah, whether it is the Otusian weird fantasy, or the elegnat black and white beauty of Polaris (pictured below), or something entirely different, this variety would be welcome indeed. Again, I recommend reading Brilliance and Dross in RPG Artwork in Imazine - it is a very good summary of the topic. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/panurge/imazine37.pdf

Clean, characteristic and beautiful.

 

[Maggan]

Perhaps we are working from different definitions of "serious hazard". From the above, it seems that you would contend that if the iconic adventurers were depicted with armor, weapons, and spells, in a field filled with fluffy bunnies and kindergarten children, there is a serious hazard in the offing due to the iconics having armor, weapons, and spells.

Actually, yes, depending on the style of the picture you describe, I could interpret the picture as being the backdrop of a serious hazard, or that a serious hazard would appear. Nursery themes in horror stories always bring a chill to my spine. One of my official Kult scenarios featured a child's bedroom as the final backdrop for a battle with a demon, and I've used bunnies to great effect in Call of Cthulhu.

It just takes a shadow among the trees, or a weird perspective, or a dark cloud in the sky, to turn a picture of a field filled with bunnies into a harbinger of doom. The fact that so heavily armed iconics is in a situation like that, could be a nice juxtaposition of symbols, that could convey a message other than "the iconics are having a picknick with the bunnies".

EDIT: BTW, I don't think drawing absurd conclusions such as "oh, since you say they've got weapons and that implies a serious threat being in the offering you think a field of bunnies is a serious threat then" is helping your argument. On the contrary, actually. My advice is to read more into the context of my posts. Because that's what it's about, context. In the context of the PH, I expect the iconics to be armed because they are planning to, about to, or in the middle of engaging a serious threat.

I fully agree that both the DMG and PHB in 1e shows PCs succeeding and in definite risk of failure roughly to the same degree (so that the success/danger ratio is roughly the same in each book).

I'm glad you agree, but you're not agreeing with anything I said. I only looked at the 1e PH, and according to your unique style of analysing pictures, the majority of those pictures convey basically the same message as those in the 3e PH. That is, no serious threat is evident, hence the adventurers are special snowflakes.

/M

 

[Maggan]

Again, I recommend reading Brilliance and Dross in RPG Artwork in Imazine - it is a very good summary of the topic. .

I read it, and I find that his throw away dismissal of the artwork in the 3e PH is a bit too .. casual. He claims that we could replace Tordek with a picture of a cabbage, and that no one would notice. That's hyperbole, and it doesn't help his argument, since its such an absurd claim. It is so absurd that his further analysis is let down by that introduction, since the rest of the article talks very seriously about the kind of art he likes.

He also discusses the effect a nude succubus had on teenagers, and concludes that since 3e Tordek does not illicit the same response, the Tordek picture is inferior. I found that line of reasoning strange ... a naked seductive demon illicits a greater response than a fully armed dwarf? Oh my, what a surprise ...

I guess I don't know enough about art to really understand all the parallells he makes. The feeling I got out of the article was more "I know what I like, and I like what I know" and a lot of name dropping than anything else. It's still a good read, especially the bit about "naturalism".

/M

 

[Hussar]

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. :\

And, once again, I will ask for examples of "GQ underwear models". Since, after 9 pages, you still cannot provide a single example of what you are talking about, I'm wondering if you have actually ever opened a 3e book. It's not like it's hard to find links to the artwork. www.tsr.com is your friend here.

 

[Melan]

I read it, and I find that his throw away dismissal of the artwork in the 3e PH is a bit too .. casual. He claims that we could replace Tordek with a picture of a cabbage, and that no one would notice. That's hyperbole, and it doesn't help his argument, since its such an absurd claim. It is so absurd that his further analysis is let down by that introduction, since the rest of the article talks very seriously about the kind of art he likes.

Ugh, it is an attempt at humour. As in "not meant to be taken absolutely seriously".

 

[Raven Crowking]

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~

I seem to note that there is discussion on this thread about art of various editions, and how they compare to each other. The idea that there are spikes and/or too outre action has come up before, and the comments starting with "Those who worry about unrealistic armor can hardly complain about...." address that portion of the thread.


RC

 

[tx7321]

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

Yes. And thanks for blowing off the point rather then addressing it (that Otus's unique style wasn't for kids or amature and was "artistic" and studied and appealed to adults who wanted a general since and mood of the place...once again, almost in a fine art kind of way).


Hey M., thanks for the link. I'll need to read it when I have a bit more time (perhaps this weekend).

H. I'm going to give you 10 minutes to find some examples. It won't take long since almost every piece of artwork put out by WOTC share the same flaws (or I guess qualities if you like this kind of thing).


1. This guy couldn't walk. His squinty face is just stupid and hokey, and he's a pin head. Making the guy huge and kewl seems to take the place of realism and logic in 3E art. This was the first 3E pick that popped up when I googled. http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/539/539896/dd-memories-20040818070250384-001.jpg

Not an example of the underwear model look of 3E, but the other look of way overly muscled and cheeky faced characters in some kind of portrait sitting not doing anything (just looking rad). This is the look you'll see on most game boxes that involve anything fantasy these days. Where the essence of the image is given rather then the story.

2. http://www.ludusbergomensis.org/giochi/torneodd2.asp This is the second pic on google that came up. This chick looks almost straight out of 2E (with that quasi-mullet hair) but I guess its 3E. Check out her tight pants and thighs. Did you see any chicks running around in TLOR looking like that? And the face she makes stairing at the viewer looks like a bad Vouge cover rather then a real person going on an adventure. I mean, why exactly is she staring at us? Why isn't she doing anything? This is not how a real women warrior would look, this is how a model in armor would look. The guy behind her with his little vest and pumped body also very 3E. And the sad thing is, this pic. is one of the better I've seen.
What ever happened to depicting the average position, why pose and stage every shot.

3. http://images.google.com/images?q=t...images/mverickarts/artforsale/WildShifter.jpg This is the next pic that popped up (after skipping past a bunch of basically non-illustrated 3E books), Its some chick with her arms stuck up. Well she's some sort of monster by looking at her feet, but Wowwywowwow, check out that rack. And a slightly beefy but otherwise perfect figure once again in tight clothing. Swimsuit model.
This is actually good for 3E as well, her thighs aren't the size of tree trunks and her ears aren't gigantic.

4. http://www.calendars.com/images/029/2955/200600007682_fc.jpg
The 4th pic to be illustrated that popped up. Check out the chicks stomach (another obsession with 3E artist defining chicks stomachs) she's another swimsuit model, and here is an example of the giant ears I can't stand in 3E art. Compare those babies to TLOR...and these ones are very short compared to others Iv'e seen. The fighters in the foreground look very 3E as well, hugely thick plate armor, but with pants on, too small almost squarish heads, too overly developed.
And check out that midget thing, she's wearing a "sand suite" or whatever they were called, from the movie "Dune", nice and tight, just how the teen kids supposed to like'em. I could of course keep going on making comments, but whats the point.


That wasn't fun, I hate looking at 3E art having cleared it from my system...something that took a loooooooong time.

Anyone who can't see the difference between 1E and 3E art (when litterly the first 4 illustrated pictures that popped up on a google search are classic examples of typical 3E and D20 art in general (ie contrived, bland backgrounds, either overly muscled (all in the same fashion), or in tight cloths and too perfectly figured (ie the swimsuit model), looking at the viewer, hokey posing, lack of doing ANYTHING (with the exception of the 4th, and there just running), boring, and obviously artists who went to the same school, or who have copied each other too closely, etc. etc. etc. I could literally go on forever.