Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3230985" data-attributes="member: 18280">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.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.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> 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</blockquote>

Verification