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: 3234101" data-attributes="member: 18280">I don't think you've read my posts as closely as you think you have.  Or else I have not been as clear as I think I have.My point is not that 1e art is better than 3e art.I do personally prefer much of 1e art to much of 3e art.  There are quite a few pieces of 1e art that leave me cold, though, and a few pieces of 3e art that speak to me.I do think that some of the design/marketing decisions in the 3.0 Core Rulebooks caused the art to be viewed in a negative way by a certain percentage of the viewers, though, and that this has to do as much (or more) to do with marketing strategy as it does to do with the actual artwork.  IOW, my points defend the artwork itself (whether I like it or not) and claim that a large part of the reason some do not is contextual.Likewise, I think that the "magical" quality of 1e art is largely due to the message conveyed in that artwork.  In fact, I think that this is the factor that many claim as being "merely nostolgia".  While this means that the enjoyment of 1e artwork is also largely contextual, I would certainly agree that certain pieces of 1e art contain more inherent context (due to background and detail, particularly the full-page spreads) than some other pieces (occuring in all editions).I also said, several times, that examination of the art in the monster books is the easiest way to minimize contextual differences and focus on the quality of illustration itself.  Doing this, I like all editions roughly equally, though for different creatures.  The almost watercolor-like fey of 2e, the darkmantle and gnoll of 3e, the centipede and intellect devourer of 1e.  An iconic monster, like the rust monster, can be examined in each of its incarnations and the artwork appraised regardless of message.  The 1e rust monster is goofy-looking, almost cartoonish, and is eating its frame.  The 2e rust monster is sort of creepy in a cockroachy kind of way.  The 3e rust monster is a more precisely lined version of the 2e rendition.  Given the choices, I'd prefer 2e or 3e for this monster.  While 3e is roughly the same in terms of technical proficiency, it doesn't always supply the version of the monster I like best (I'd rather have the displacer beast from 2e, for example).So far as I know, no one else is taking this "side" of the argument!   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> (Though I'd be happy to learn that I am wrong.)RC</blockquote>

Verification