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

[Hussar]

Hey, now I generally liked the art in Villains and Vigilantes.

 

[tx7321]

This thread didn't really start out as a comparison between 1E and 3E styles of art. The question was: what was so magical about early 1E artwork (as a whole).

As far as there is no good or bad artwork, thats true in a way, as art is personal. But still, there are qualities in any piece that many can like collectively and talk about. And THAT is the point of this thread. If 10 of us love 1E art, and we discover its for the same reasons cool.

If you don't like 1E artwork, no biggy. But it wouldn't kill anyone to think about some of the points those that do like it have brought up and visa versa.

One thing that 1E art captures is the feeling of mystery, shadows and blackness you'd expect going underground (for instance the covers of the PH and DMG). Even OD&D had a strong underground feel to it...where details were only suggested rather then glorifide.

I wonder if the shift in art (from early 1E to late (dragonlance) 1E to 2E and now to 3E, reflects a change in focus between the different games: in 1E the majority of game time was spent inside a pitch black dirty, stinking dungeon (getting there was less then a paragraph in the front of the module), where 2E and 3E focus more on "outside the dungeon" activities...either outside adventures, where the dungeon delving was not the vast majority of the game. Another point someone else brought up was that 1E artwork didn't idealize the depicted PCs or monsters (where 3E portrays most PCs looking like "swimsuite models" in skin tight clothing etc., 1E depicts most everyone pretty much you'd expect, tough but human.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

This thread didn't really start out as a comparison between 1E and 3E styles of art.

Sure it did. Your initial post:

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.

Looks like a comparison to me, with 2e and 3e art, in your opinion, coming up short. If you'd simply said something like "1e art, while perhaps less technically proficient than more modern RPG art, had a certain magical ambiance all its own," then you could have easily avoided having the thread become one in which the relative merits of art from different eras are directly compared in a qualitative sense.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The 'arguement' is that the idea that there is an overarching message conveyed by the art in the various editions of the PHB and DMG is just silly.

Is it?

If your belief is that art does not convey message, then any line of reasoning that relies upon art conveying message would seem to be silly. But, given that art conveys message, it is almost impossible -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to convey messages via the art chosen.

Example: If I choose to illustrate a rpg product using a wide range of illustration styles, then I am (again, consciously or not) conveying a message that the rpg product itself should be able to support a wide range of styles.

Another example: If I choose to illustrate a rpg product using many portrait-type pictures (rather than action pictures), I am sending a message that character is more important than event.

Third & final example (for this post, anyway): If I choose a dreamy, moody style of art and use it consistently throughout a rpg product line (such as the 2e Ravenloft style), then I am sending a message that mood is of paramount importance in the setting.

Attempting to claim that art does not convey message, and that art cannot be examined to see what message it conveys is silly. Claiming that art conveys message, and that that message can be at least partially decoded, is merely claiming that art is itself a message-bearing medium.

That's not even looking for deeper meaning in something that has no deeper meaning, that's making up meaning where there simply is none beyond a broad stylistic choice. That's conspiracy theory at it's finest.

The picture of Lidda, for instance (and that's not an exploding cigar she's holding - even though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar). The art direction for that probably went:

Art Director: "I need something for the Use Magic Item skill, probably a failure of such"
[Since almost all of the art is directly tied to a part of the text around it to illustrate a point, it's obvious that's what has happened here]
Artist: "Can I make it humorous, like maybe a Wile E. Coyote moment?"
Art Director: "Sure."

Is there anyone on these boards who works in advertising?

For the following argument, I am assuming that WotC took as much care in the design of the 3.0 books as it did in its customer research prior to designing 3.0. In other words, I assume that WotC took as much care in the "look" of the 3.0 core books as an advertising firm would in the creation of advertising materials, or any reasonably large company does in the creation of promotional literature or catalogues.

There is a very good chance that there are more illustrations produced than used in any of the WotC books. The art director, from basic materials prior to the writing of the final text, listed some very basic ideas of what sort of illustrations were needed, and the artists produced mock-ups of their ideas. The art director then determined which mock-ups would be used, and these pieces were completed. The other mock-ups were probably retained, for possible use in further products, and some of them may well have later appeared.

(An example of how the text might have changed between mock-up and final illustration can be found in the 3.0 Monster Manual, where the locathah is described as not having teeth in the text but has impressive teeth in the illustration.)

I would then assume that there was some thought given to the captions, and what the captions would convey.

I assume that, during the time that 2nd Ed was being produced, TSR spent some time considering these issues....after all, the Ravenloft setting shows consistent design elements...but that they didn't spend any more time on this than they did on market research. I would assume, conversely, that during the heady days of 1e (and earlier), illustrations were produced to fill space after text was written and/or largely independent of the text....in other words, the production was amateurish.

I would certainly accept that the overarching message of 1e artwork, and, to a large extent, 2e artwork, is an accidental byproduct of the ideas behind individual pieces.

Your counter to my thesis seems to rely, essentially, on the idea that (1) art does not convey message, or (2) WotC was unaware that art conveys message, and/or chose not to use the ability of art to convey message in the 3.0 core books.

While the art in the 1e books shows a mish-mash of styles and ideas, the art in the 3.0 core books seems to indicate a concerted attempt to maintain a consistent style and message. This conclusion comes about from the simple process of examining each picture individually, determining what message it conveys and what style it is in, and comparing these messages and styles with the other pieces in the work.

The use of the same characters in the art, as in the text, seems to indicate some attempt at unity of purpose and message on the part of WotC. Unless, of course, you believe these things to have come about accidently under the aegis of random forces.

This is so simple, and so easily verifiable, that it amazes me that anyone would claim it to be "silly". Indeed, it is notable that you do not make claim that specific pictures convey alternate messages, and that Hussar's claims (referring to Liddia's Exploding Cigar and Krusk's Face Step) were so weak as to provide reinforcement for my argument were his messages for those pieces accepted. And it was Hussar's argument, not mine, that Liddia was getting "blowed up" in that picture.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, that is a good point.

Edit: But that's a point about the art direction, rather than the actual art itself.

~Qualidar~

True.

But, I am suggesting also that some of the reasons people like artwork in a product (or do not) is reaction to the art direction (or message) rather than reaction to the technical competence (or lack thereof) of the artist.

RC

 

[tx7321]

Sure it did. Your initial post:

Looks like a comparison to me, with 2e and 3e art, in your opinion, coming up short. If you'd simply said something like "1e art, while perhaps less technically proficient than more modern RPG art, had a certain magical ambiance all its own," then you could have easily avoided having the thread become one in which the relative merits of art from different eras are directly compared in a qualitative sense.

Fair enough. Remember though, some comparison is going to be needed (just as if I was going to define and discuss the merits of impressionism, I might need to compare pre-impressionists to impressionists: "the impressionists were better at xyz," kind of like describing to someone what white is by showing them black. In otherwords, I'm not knocking 2E and 3E (they do have more detail in them then 1E art for instance), as much as using that statement (you posted above) as a launching point for those who share the opinion that one of 1Es key values was that it expressed the feel and mood of the game very well. I'm sure when impressionism first came out, there were realist who argued that realism expressed expresson just as well. But that didn't stop art critics, and the general public from going bananas over the new style.

Anyhow, I have no problem with debating the problems and merits of 1E, 2E, and 3E art, as long as it doesn't devolve into a big girl fight. So far (for the most part) everyone's stuck to comments on the art and not each other which is nice for a change...and something I NEVER thought I'd see, least of all here at ENworld. So good for us.

 

[painandgreed]

I never cared for Erol Otuus. In fact, the ony reason I know the name is because I notably disliked his artwork so much as to figure out which artist it was. I do love Willingham, including the above image. I do think that current books and art direction lack the diverse styles of the old books from cartoonish to realistic. I'd prefer the vastly different artists of the old versions than the current unified looks, even if they are technically better. (This goes double for WW games where I loved the assortment of artists in their early stuff and hate the current single artist books that are graphically designed to the point of unreadability.) What I miss most about the art of 1E are the cartoons and jokes. Some of the most memorable artwork in the 1E books, especially the DMG, was the cartoons.( "This had better work." ) I miss that touch.

 

[Mycanid]

Hey, now I generally liked the art in Villains and Vigilantes.

Me too! But I always kinda liked Dee's art - the "early" things especially....

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I never cared for Erol Otuus. In fact, the ony reason I know the name is because I notably disliked his artwork so much as to figure out which artist it was. I do love Willingham, including the above image. I do think that current books and art direction lack the diverse styles of the old books from cartoonish to realistic. I'd prefer the vastly different artists of the old versions than the current unified looks, even if they are technically better. (This goes double for WW games where I loved the assortment of artists in their early stuff and hate the current single artist books that are graphically designed to the point of unreadability.) What I miss most about the art of 1E are the cartoons and jokes. Some of the most memorable artwork in the 1E books, especially the DMG, was the cartoons.( "This had better work." ) I miss that touch.

Me too...and I never really played AD&D 1E, only browsed the books now and then. The cartoons were high points, clearly demonstrating that AD&D wasn't to be taken 100% seriously, but with a large dose of humor and some sillyness attached.

The lack of that kind of humor even in the 3E core books is even more surprising to me after I finally got my hands on one of WotC's first books, Primal Order, where you are greeted by a cartoon showing a group of "heroes" battling a dragon, and the cleric looking skywards, asking "What do you mean Try again tomorrow, I'm tapped out?" That's the kind of humor that is missing from the game itself...and I don't buy the 6 years too late explanation that it is because the game designers didn't want to "impose" their idea of gaming humor on the players. After all, they imposed their ideas on nearly everything else connected to D&D on us, and made us buy it up by the metric ton.

 

[tx7321]

Me too...and I never really played AD&D 1E, only browsed the books now and then. The cartoons were high points, clearly demonstrating that AD&D wasn't to be taken 100% seriously, but with a large dose of humor and some sillyness attached.
QUOTE]

Me 3!

The writers of 3E seemed to afraid to put some personality in thier writing (compared to Gygax's witty and enthusiastic 1E pros). Possibly for marketing reasons, or possibly because they were boring stiffs. Sure 3E is easier to understand, but it lacks machismo.