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

[Klaus]

For those who wanted a 3e version of A Paladin In Hell, it's in Fiendish Codex II:

"A Paladin In Hell", by Carl Frank

Personally, this captures none of the magic of the original.

The 3e painting that came closest to being the "Paladin In Hell" of 3e was "Alhandra Charges The Balor" in Complete Divine, by William O'Connor:

 

[schporto]

Uhhh.... what?

Say what you want about the art, but this honestly doesn't make sense to me.

To explain a little. If you look at one book from the early years you will see a bunch of different artists and different styles. In the same book as the Emrikol the Chaotic is a group of dwarves (or gnomes?) charging a giant snake with a forked stick.
If you look in today's PHB it appears there were ~2 artists. The one did all the color drawings, and the other did the black and white. Now I know there were more then 2, but thematically all of the images are done in the same style. Every image of Lidda you can tell it is Lidda cuz she's done in the same style. If you don't like the color pictures or they aren't evocative to you, then the entire book's art is kinda shot.
The older versions you might not have liked the cartoons, but the Emrikol really grabbed you. Or the other way around. The point is there was a variety in style which allowed people with different tastes to like different things.
-cpd

 

[Maggan]

Another difference was that body proportions were "normal" in 1E art, but still hardenned and tough looking...

I must have radically different printings of my books. They are filled with some great art, some ok art, and lots of non-proportioned art.

A bit like 3e, in my mind.

Yes, the great 1e art is great, but there were naff pictures then as well as there is now. Some 3e art is mind blowing, but some is not so good.

To me it seems a comparison like the one you make takes the very best of 1e, disregard the bad, and compare that to the average or bad art of 3e. I hold the cover of Draconomicon higher than most 1e art, for example. And there are many such examples.

So it would be rather more interesting to find the best of 1e, the best of OD&D/BECM, the best of 2e and the best of 3e and put them next to each other.

/M

 

[WayneLigon]

There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today.

That's the nostalgia talking.

 

[replicant2]

My poor perception of 3E art is colored heavily by the Players' Handbook. As a player with only a few 3E books in my possession (PHB, DMG, MM), I use the PHB almost exclusively, and I absolutely loathe the dungeonpunk style. Look at the depiction of the Paladin in the 3E PHB, vs. the paladins of 1E (particularly the paladin from The Rogue's Gallery, whose just slain the black dragon. The latter is far, far superior).

That said, I do like a lot of the 3E images people have posted here, I'm thinking particularly of Merric's picture of the frost giant battle, and the image of the paladin on horseback charging the huge demon in the Complete Divine. These are great pieces of art; I would have loved to have seen more of their ilk in the PHB.

To sum up, I don't think the artists as a whole of the 1E generation were necessarily any more talented than the 3E artists, but I think the artistic direction chosen by WOTC, at least for the core rulebooks, is very poor.

 

[tx7321]

Wayne: That's the nostalgia talking."

No, its not nostalgia its taste...there is a difference. Infact I like alot of new artwork just as much as the best of 1E, some even more (and it generates the same kind spirit). Unfor. the styles I do like don't appear in 3E or D20 artwork (but rather in childrens books, movie preps (like those for LOTR battle scenes0 etc.) It makes no difference to me when artwork was made... I either like it or I don't.

I think the big thing is that the 1E artists painted and drew the same images I saw in my head already. They didn't define the mental image for me, they just re-affirmed it and added to it a bit. Now, when I started playing 3E I still saw the same basic world as I did in 1E (very similar to what you see on the cover of the 1E PH or DMG). I just NEVER pictured (and no one I know pictured) the crazy stuff depicted by todays 3E artists, for instance: tattoo covered, mowhaked, and giant eared elves walking around in skin tight pants with thighs so big they couldn't walk, standing in some wacky stiff almost cheeky pose in spikey armor. I mean, do ANY OF YOU GUYS picture these freakish things walking around in your imagination when you play 3E...tattooed covered, mowhawked elves with giant ears...? I think 3Es art isn't meant to be used as a tool to get into the game. If it is, I guess I'm just not hip to it. Of course this could be coming out of video games etc. I don't play.

Oh, and I agree there were some real dogs in 1E art. I'm already assuming were talking about the better of each period when making comparisons.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

for me, the art really grabbed my imagination. I used to flip through the books and pour over the illustration (well, actually I still do). For whatever reason, David Sutherland's works probably speak to me the most. I know some of his work can be tecnically pretty crude, but there is just a love for the subject matter that really comes though to me. Sutherland, Otus, Trampier, Wham, Laforce, Darlene, Dee, Rosslof, and the rest all had a sort of unabashed glee to them. I still can sense that now. They were for the most part not as polished as the art now is but it is magical. There are great artists now, but for some reason, they don't capture the same feel as the 1e artists for me.

I know what you mean, and the work you are doing for the OSRIC Companion recaptures the feeling of the 1e art for me. Your work has its own style, but is every bit as "old-school" as the 1e artists that today we consider classic.

 

[Ghendar]

I think this is reading too much nostalgia in. Good art is good art. Some of the 1E art was good. Some was not. Some 3E art is good. Some is not.

I think this really gets to the heart of it.
Many people really can't stand Erol Otus's work for example. To me, his stuff is some of the most unique I've ever seen and really sparked my sense of wonder and imagination back in those days.
My avatar is the Trampier Lich from the 1st ED MM.

 

[Ghendar]

Toda all the pictures are the same style.

Maybe the word style is not what you were going for? Compare Rebecca Guay to Todd Lockwood and tell me if they are the same style.

 

[dcas]

I'm not that familiar with 3e art, since practically the only 3e product I've ever owned was the PHB. But I noticed a very clear tendency in the PHB for portraits over art depicting action. There are only 3 or 4 such portraits in the OAD&D PHB.

The Frostburn picture highlighted by Merric is a great picture -- and not least because it depicts action.