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

[Qualidar]

There was a scientist on NPR last week explaining that the reason people are so strongly attracted to the music of their youth is because the brain is actually still forming. The neuron pathways (or whatever - I'm just an artist) continue to form until your early 20's, and the feeling of wonder and discovery are related to that. I imagine that if that statement's true, it carries over to artistic appreciation as well.

As someone in his mid 30's, this depresses me: I want my sense of wonder back.

~Qualidar~

 

[pawsplay]

In my opinion, the best art, of the new and the old, has a dreamlike quality. Ideally, the underlying elements are recognizable, comprehensible, and appropriate. But the scene itself evokes something out of the ordinary. For instance, a gang of adventurers in medieval gear is something that can reside easily in the imagination; the scene before them might seem stark, or mysterious, or glorious. The classic Erol Otus cover really works because the figures are presented in good detail, but the scene itself is flat, almost unreal. The dragon has an uneathly quality to it. The characters look stylized, yet if you can look close, you can see the lighting is extremely well done. It's painterly. It's fairly realistic, but with dashes of cartoonery, surrealism, and magic realism.

It's sort of like Hyperborean jazz.

 

[pawsplay]

There was a scientist on NPR last week explaining that the reason people are so strongly attracted to the music of their youth is because the brain is actually still forming. The neuron pathways (or whatever - I'm just an artist) continue to form until your early 20's, and the feeling of wonder and discovery are related to that. I imagine that if that statement's true, it carries over to artistic appreciation as well.

As someone in his mid 30's, this depresses me: I want my sense of wonder back.

~Qualidar~

Try to listen to something at least once a week you wouldn't ordinarily.

 

[XO]

The Reason Why...

..It is so fantastic, is that yo ucan ONLY ever do Cult of Cthulhu and Elric of Melnibone in the Deities & Demigods ONCE !

And those were the best, anywhere anytime

 

[Delta]

It looked like medieval woodcuts.

QFT. Or primitive rock-wall illustrations.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Personally, I've always loved Dave A. Trampier's work. IMHO, he was one of the finest artists to work on any edition of D&D.

It's such a pity that he has dropped out of sight and wants nothing more to do with RPGs. Last that I heard, he was driving a taxi for a living.

I also loved the work of Erol Otus Jeff Dee. I've been collecting the various modules from Goodman Games that they have illustrated just for the covers.

Recently, I've decided that I rather like Peter Bradley's work for Castles & Crusades. It would really captures the 1e feel for me at least. It would be great to see him do an updated version of Dave Sutherland's 'Paladin in Hell' or one of the other iconic pieces of 1e art.

I have to agree with those who express a preference for black & white artwork over color artwork. I loved Todd Lockwood's early B&W concept sketches for 3e....but hated how they looked once they had been coloured.

Going slightly off-topic for a moment, I was very fond of Valerie Valusek's artwork in various 2e Forgotten Realms products. With the sale of TSR to WoTC, she seemed to drop off the face of the earth. Does anybody know what she is doing now?

 

[Xyanthon]

QFT. Or primitive rock-wall illustrations.

Heh, it's interesting that you say that as my nonfantasy artwork tends to deal with petroglyphs and ancient artistic images. I'm drawn to those sorts of things. I also particularly enjoy folk art. I'm not sure what it is about it, but it seems that there is just an uncontrolable desire to create or to reach out and communicate back to the viewer in such a primal level that comes through in these images that it transcends technical ability. Like I said, no one out of the older artists really speaks to me like David Sutherland's work did. That was one guy who really could get alot across in an illustration.

 

[tx7321]

Q: "As someone in his mid 30's, this depresses me: I want my sense of wonder back. "

Nah, don't buy this guys story. He's just gunning for more public grant money.

PawsPlay wrote: "In my opinion, the best art, of the new and the old, has a dreamlike quality. Ideally, the underlying elements are recognizable, comprehensible, and appropriate. But the scene itself evokes something out of the ordinary. For instance, a gang of adventurers in medieval gear is something that can reside easily in the imagination"

Great observation. It definitely had that dream quality...it literally was illustrating the battle going on in the artists imagination. Early 1E/OD&D has a strong since of motion, like your watching that event. Later 2E and now 3E/D20 is much stiffer, almost portrait or still life like. But the model is asked to hold some extreme pose.

I think the early 1E stuff does have a more painterly quality to it, more "fine art" then "commercial art" look. Ironically, some of the 2E artists were the most proficient with their mediums...but what they painted was dead (to me anyway).

Another difference was that body proportions were "normal" in 1E art, but still hardenned and tough looking...like you'd expect adventurers fighting trolls to be. In 2E the figures started to take on modern hair cuts, feathers, etc. and also started to look like modern people. As if the artist were literally painting their personal out of shape friends.

Then with 3E, there is a trend to make body proportions that are completely unbelievable. check out the hips and thighs of the way girls and guys are painted by D20 artists to see what I mean...thats just one example. Its almost like their trying to blend the 2 sexes, almost a hermaphrodite-ic style.

Also, painting tattoos, modern haircuts, elves with giant ears, dwarves with huge round bulbous noses, etc. just drives the viewer further away from the generic fantasy look (even if it does cetch your attention), and thus hurt rather then help the player get into the game
(as todays art doesnt' match their own imaginations). Imagine if Lagolas had the huge ears that 3E art depicts; or if Aragorn was running around with jumbo thighs wearing spikey armor. Half the audiance would have walked out of the theaters. Yet were told to LOVE the 3E style of art. Its trendy after all.

 

[Zogmo]

During the time of first edition there was not a lot of fantasy art that was easily accessiable as it is now. Since it was practically the only source for me that made it a lot better and a lot more inspirational. Now fantasy art is all over the web and there is just so much of it that it just doesn't seem as cool.

Crothian is exactly right.

It's like punk music from the 70's. It was unpolished, energetic and it was speaking to a very small specialized crowd of people who were not fitting in with the "norm" of society. We loved it and appreciated what it added to the game.

We got to finally see a half decent interpretation of what we had been doing in game. You could actually see spells, characters and monsters in action. None of that was being done by any artists of renown yet.

Just try to imagine what your interpretation of the game would be if there was no art at all.
You would appreciate almost anything that eventually came out.

Plus, as "bad" as it might be it was way better than anything any of us could do at the time.

Like Crothian said earlier, it was the only thing

 

[tx7321]

Zogmo: "It's like punk music from the 70's. It was unpolished, energetic and it was speaking to a very small specialized crowd of people who were not fitting in with the "norm" of society."

Exactly, and great observation. The art from the early days had true love of the game shining through (like the early punk musicians), it wasn't technically perfect, but then making it technically perfect would have ruined it (for the many reasons listed above by others) like the early punk movement, it wasn't about being perfect...it was about "something" else.

Later on as the game was moved more "mainstream" (by marketers for the most part...I think this first shows up in Dragon Lance in a big way) the less detailed ruddy but inspired look was swapped for stiff and refined (similar to musical movements (or hell even movements in fine art)...until it gets so technically proficient, so acceptable to everyone, so mainstream...that everyone looses interest in it...effectively killing its mystery and edgyness; then the next trendy radical thing takes hold (ironically 1E was most "mainstream" in the beginning and declined from that point on). There is some evidence for this. Take a look at the sales data for TSR from the early 80 to the mid 90s, you get a rise from nowhere in the beginning (with the classic art of Tramp and Otus etc.) till we reach the late 90s with high realism but greatly reduced sales numbers. Of course the artistic changes went along with changes in the writing and focus of the game...also IMO an attempt to make the game more mainstream (the branching out into other more "mainstream" products like novels seem to support this notion). What ever TSR did, they destroyed themselves, and I suspect their change in artists, writers and general focus had something to do with that early boost in sales post-gygax, and then later decline. And before you say anything , it can't all be blamed on video games, and competition.