Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Garnfellow" data-source="post: 3222287" data-attributes="member: 1223">I think the old black and white drawings, much like the scant descriptions in the old modules, have considerable charm because their very unfinished nature leaves so much to the imagination. And I don't think this is a 3e vs. 1e thing, either -- the very technically fine color paintings by Easley, Caldwell, Parkinson et al. from late 1e just don't hang in my mind like the old, mysterious, sketched out line drawings by Willingham, Otus, or Trampier. A little ambiguity and uncertainty is always a good thing in art.But I do think nostalgia also plays a huge piece in all this, though. When I was 10, I had a heckofalot more time to drool over one of Russ Nicholson's many neat illustrations in the 1e Fiend Folio. Now I don't have much time to spend poring over the art in my books -- they're consumables that just get a glance or two on my way to the crunch.But here's an example of a real apples-to-apples comparison: My first AD&D monster book was the Fiend Folio, and I loved that thing to pieces. And much of that love came from Nicholson's art.For the last 10 years or so, I've gradually been building up my collection of White Dwarf magazines from the early 80s, and I've got most everything from issues 5-50. Nicholson was a frequent contributer to the magazine then, and one of my biggest treats is to "discover" "new" pieces of Nicholson art. Three missing issues arrived in the mail just yesterday, and one had a bunch of monsters illustrated by Nicholson. Huzzah!But I've got to tell you, it's not the same. The artist is the same, the mode and medium are all the same, the quality is the same, but these new-found illustrations just don't strike me in quite the same way.</blockquote>

Verification