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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3233976" data-attributes="member: 18280">3.0 PHB only.  The 3.0 DMG is quite another matter, as I said previously.  And, please note, that there are all kinds of messages in this thread that describe the art as conveying a "feel" or a "sense" of an edition.  IMHO, what these people are saying is, in effect, that specific artwork conveys a message that speaks to them.  When they say that they do not like the "feel" of other artwork, it is my opinion that they are influenced by what the artwork is conveying.In some cases, we are looking at specific technical aspects of the art.  From a technical standpoint at least, the art of earlier editions was far more varied than the artwork in 3e.  Some of the older artwork was extremely good, and other pieces were not.  If the piece was technically not so good, but successfully conveyed a message that the viewer liked, the odds were that they liked the piece nonetheless.  The piece spoke to them.Likewise, if a piece is technically fantastic, but you are opposed to the message it is conveying, then you are likely to be less interested in the piece of work.Obviously, the works that people tend to like best are those which contain both technical expertise (which may or may not be the same as photorealism) and a message that is well conveyed and/or at least compatable with the worldview of the viewer.Sometimes an orc is just an orc.....which is why I suggested that the monster manuals might be a good place to look for comparisons without having wide variations in the messages conveyed by various editions.  I would imagine that, regardless of edition, the illustration of a griffon is intended to convey the same monster (although that monster may be conceptualized very differently).And, yes, I do claim that there are one or several overarching messages in the art of any product that uses multiple art pieces.  This is not based upon some form of conspiricy, or evil goblins in the offices of TSR and WotC.  It is based upon the simple observations that(a)  Art contains messages. (b)  Multiple pieces of art contain messages that have synergy or disharmony with each other. (c)  Therefore anything that contains multiple pieces of art contains both the messages of the individual pieces or art, and the message derived from the synergy or disharmony of those pieces.In my view, it takes no special action to include an overarching message.  Indeed, in my view it is impossible not to once you begin the process of selecting pictures and putting them together.  In some cases, the overarching message is the result of what the art director thinks about the project, what he or she thinks fits and is cool.  In other words, there is a form of indirect communication with the mind of the person behind the project.  I would say that the more amature the project (in an advertising/packaging sense) the more likely this is to be true.In other cases, the overarching message is the result of intentional design, where the art director has consulted marketing specialists as to what message should be conveyed to maximize sales, and an attempt is made to convey this message or messages.  Rather than experiencing a sort of glimpse into the art director's mind, the viewer gets a glimpse as to what message the marketing specialists thought would sell the most product.  I would say that the more slick the project (in an advertising/packating sense) the more likely this is to be true.I would further claim that 1e was, in this sense, amature, and the core 3.0 books were, in this sense, slick.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that when I read complaints that the 3.X art is "commercial", that these complaints actually mean that the art is "slick" in the advertising/packaging sense.RC</blockquote>

Verification