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

[Maggan]

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

Yes, I gathered. But I still don't think it helps his argument or the article. It being an attempt at humour doesn't mean that it's automatically a good thing for his argument to quip like that. He makes a very conscious decision to be formal and knowledgable about other types of art, which makes the humour used when talking about 3e art stand out like a sore thumb.

/M

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Sure, but that is true of a blank page as well....and few people I know look at a blank sketchbook and then say, "Wow, those guys are in trouble." For most people I know, trouble requires some kind of context. Generally that context has something to do with a situation that is out of control, or a situation where the viewer has a better understanding than the subject, and the subject seems to think it is in control.

For example, one might say that "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" but this would imply some form of contextual background. Few people I know go screaming because of bunnies and the potential of rain.

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.

So, if I am to understand you, all those posing pictures convey a serious threat?!?

I expect that the iconics are armed because being armed reduces threat. A serious threat, IMHO, is one which your level or armament and/or preparation may not be equal to. A serious threat suggests that you should perhaps have prepared more, and that things are spinning out of control.

Of course, I'm obviously not the cleverest, or smartest, person on this forum -- not even close. In order to perceive a serious threat, I need to see evidence of it. I can't pick up on the subtle clues you so easily perceive.


RC

 

[Maggan]

So, if I am to understand you, all those posing pictures convey a serious threat?!?

You are reading too much literal meaning into the posts of a non-english writer. So, no, you are not understanding me.

I'll try to make it clearer:

It is my impression that you say that the pictures in the PH don't convey a sense of the people in the pictures being in a seriously threatening situation, thereby implying that no harm can befall pcs.

I then say, well, the fact that they are armed is a message to the viewer that they are planning to, about to, or even in some cases in the middle of engaging in a seriously threatening situation. So a pc should expect harm to befall them as well.

Of course, I'm obviously not the cleverest, or smartest, person on this forum -- not even close. In order to perceive a serious threat, I need to see evidence of it. I can't pick up on the subtle clues you so easily perceive.

In the case of the PH pictures, I don't think it's subtle at all. They've got huge fricking axes and armor and stuff, and probably the most common reation for most people looking at the picture is to assume that they are carrying all that stuff because they are afraid of being killed or otherwise harmed without them.

As for you hypothetical picture, I don't perceive anything at all. I only offer other hypothetical ways that could imbue a picture such as the one you describe with meanings other than "no threat".

EDIT:

Sure, but that is true of a blank page as well....and few people I know look at a blank sketchbook and then say, "Wow, those guys are in trouble." For most people I know, trouble requires some kind of context.

BTW, I see you're still jumping to outrageous conclusions. Look, this isn't a debate about logical reasoning. It doesn't follow that I would think a blank sheet an illustration of a serious threat to the pcs, just because I could theoretically conceive of a picture with the fully armed iconics among bunnies and flowers with a threatening undertone.

/M

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

It's a dwarf. His proportions are suppossed to be huge and square and kinda scrunched.

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.

That's because it is a 2E pic. Instead of trusting random search engine results, how about going to Wizards' Art Gallery? That has almost every illustration from the trade and hardbacks save the main core books.

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.

You call those huge ears? Whatever.

THESE are huge ears.... Dragon Magazine, 1981

Vaan's looking kinda good now, huh?

I think you need to realize that time has kinda passed you by on this: people like looking at pretty people. Hey, color me surprised. Go look at fantasy book covers, or the Spectrum collections of the best of fantasy art (Hey, look at that; WoTC's art director is on this years panel of jurors. Todd Lockwood is in this year's collection and several other D&D artists have made it in previous years.) You're not going to find all that many pics of old and scruffy and realistic, let me tell you. WoTC's art direction has simply taken a more modern direction.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

Stigmatize? Have you been in a big-box bookstore lately? Go look at their graphic novel section. It's huge and it's almost all manga. Younger people - you know, the people that are going to perpetuate the hobby - are going to look at manga-inspired art as something mainstream and normal. This isn't a flash in the pan fad anymore; big-box retailers don't waste that much shelf space on something that doesn't sell well and sell consistantly.

You may not like anime-inspired artwork but let me tell you there are a large number of people that do and they outnumber all the D&D gamers - hell, all the tabletop gamers - by a considerable amount. Manga sales in this country in 2003 were $90-$100 million and it's kept growing. If manga-influenced art - which there is very little of in most D&D books - can attract more people to the hobby, then bring it on.

 

[Darth Shoju]

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.

I seriously doubt it. I'd bet good money that the number of people who even know what D&D is in 100 years will be significantly less than now. The thought that 1ed art will be collected and revered is delusional. At best I'd say a smattering of the best from all editions will be kicking around somewhere.

 

[tx7321]

Wayne, thats a dwarf? It doesn't look much like Gimli or any other dwarf I've ever seen And it still couldn't walk, though I suppose Steven Spielburge could use it in a movie where it roles.

Hey, I agree with you, WOTC moved on to a new style of artwork, thats my point. Thats the point of this thread. We are using 3E artwork as a back board to show whats so "magical" and great about 1E artwork. Any Percieved "slamming" of 3E is not so, it is the result of contrasting it the artwork of 1E. To some 3E has a "magic" and spirit of its own (there is a thread I started talking about this) and although I like some things about 3E art (some of its photoshop inky/watercolorish colors (though way over done, and why the hell use photoshop), some of its sketchy illustration stuff (alot of which never got published...I saw most of it here at ENworld before the PH was released many moons ago, and of course, some of the MMs monsters)

Once again, go check out the "what is your favorite Module cover" thread and see for yourself. 1E is still popular with this crowd (which is suprising since this is primarily a 3E site....more or less). And being the largest of its kind I'm shocked not to see more 3E covers.

I have the suspicion that if WOTC hired Tramp to do the covers for 4E, and the interior art, you'd see that it was just as popular as 3E and 3.5 artwork with the young generation. Don't think for a minute that kids are completely "gone". The fact that The LOTR movies had normal proportioned characters, in normal armor, doing normal generic fantasy stuff (completely unlike ANYTHING we see in 3E, but typical of what we see in 1E) should be heartening to all.

 

[Scribble]

I just want more elmore.

m'elmore.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Wayne, thats a dwarf? It doesn't look much like Gimli or any other dwarf I've ever seen And it still couldn't walk, though I suppose Steven Spielburge could use it in a movie where it roles.

Why should it look like Gimli? I can't see how it is a bad thing that it doesn't. That dwarf looks like it would be far more capable in combat than many other renditions I've seen.

Hey, I agree with you, WOTC moved on to a new style of artwork, thats my point. Thats the point of this thread. We are using 3E artwork as a back board to show whats so "magical" and great about 1E artwork. Any Percieved "slamming" of 3E is not so, it is the result of contrasting it the artwork of 1E. To some 3E has a "magic" and spirit of its own (there is a thread I started talking about this) and although I like some things about 3E art (some of its photoshop inky/watercolorish colors (though way over done, and why the hell use photoshop), some of its sketchy illustration stuff (alot of which never got published...I saw most of it here at ENworld before the PH was released many moons ago, and of course, some of the MMs monsters)

Yeah well when you use extremely derogatory and condescending terms in description of the art of 2ed and 3ed, it tends to imply a lack of respect for those who enjoy that style.

Once again, go check out the "what is your favorite Module cover" thread and see for yourself. 1E is still popular with this crowd (which is suprising since this is primarily a 3E site....more or less). And being the largest of its kind I'm shocked not to see more 3E covers.

Well I'd suspect there were a lot more modules released in the 1st edition than have been done in the 3rd. 3ed hasn't been known for it's proliferation of modules. Besides, I'd hardly consider relying on module cover art alone to be a strong example fo the art of an entire edition.

I have the suspicion that if WOTC hired Tramp to do the covers for 4E, and the interior art, you'd see that it was just as popular as 3E and 3.5 artwork with the young generation. Don't think for a minute that kids are completely "gone". The fact that The LOTR movies had normal proportioned characters, in normal armor, doing normal generic fantasy stuff (completely unlike ANYTHING we see in 3E, but typical of what we see in 1E) should be heartening to all.

I wouldn't count on that.

Also, I find it odd that you can claim realism=quality on one hand, then espouse the virtues of Otus on the other, while also claiming that realism "hurts your immersion". Frankly, after looking through my 3ed PHB and DMG the other night, I don't see any examples of "overly-muscled" characters. I see hardened, well-equipped adventurers. The only real dungeon-punk I see is Hennet, and I'm not a fan of his picture anyway. To me, seeing an average slob that looks like me (not fat but certainly out of shape) descending into a dungeon is far *less* realistic than seeing someone like Jozan or Tordek or Lidda or Regdar doing so. An adventurer should look strong and capable, not like some bloody jabroni.

Further, your examples provided above prove nothing of your point IMO. The first three I don't even recognize (the first does seem to be a Lockwood piece, but I'm not sure where from). The last is easily recognizable but proves nothing objective about the quality of the work, just that it does not meet your own personal taste. You make claims of bland backgrounds and post pencil scetch pictures as supposed proof. I second the idea that you try the actual wizards site for pictures and use those to build your case for mohawked elves and such.

The bottom line is that 1ed art is not "fine art". It was decent art that suited the game it accompanied. It was no more accomplished than that of any other edition. Frankly there hasn't been any convincing argument made to disprove that any of this "magic" of 1ed art is anything more than personal opinion.

 

[Ourph]

Stigmatize? Have you been in a big-box bookstore lately? Go look at their graphic novel section. It's huge and it's almost all manga. Younger people - you know, the people that are going to perpetuate the hobby - are going to look at manga-inspired art as something mainstream and normal. This isn't a flash in the pan fad anymore; big-box retailers don't waste that much shelf space on something that doesn't sell well and sell consistantly.

If you go back and look at my previous posts (the two before the one you quoted) I think you'll see that I agree with you 100%. "Stigmatize" here is used in the sense that Numion (the person I was responding to with that comment) seems to be suggesting that if artwork appeals to kids that it's somehow bad for adults to like it. Numion suggests Otus's artwork stigmatized D&D ca. 1980 as a "kids" game. I'm suggesting that the current artwork does much more to appeal directly to kids by introducing elements from other media that are already popular with them (manga) than Erol Otus did 30 years ago when he was producing artwork that had no relationship with the artwork you were likely to see in popular kid culture at the time. If you have a problem with the word "stigmatize", take it up with Numion; he was the one who suggested that liking artwork that appeals to kids is somehow immature.

I also agree with you that introducing elements of artwork from other genres is good for the hobby. I don't particularly like manga, but I'd rather see SOME variety (no matter what the source) than see a continuation of the self-referential, bland, processed artwork that has dominated WotC's books for the last 6 years.