Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5465294" data-attributes="member: 40177">Yeah, I have.&nbsp; But let's take a look at it a little bit closer, and I can explain where I'm coming from.First, in terms of quality, D&amp;D art has become better and better.&nbsp; While some may prefer the line drawings in 1e, if we're going to talk in terms of pure technical skill involved, the&nbsp; 4e art is generally better than the 3e art, which is better than 2e art, etc.&nbsp; But that's not really what I'm getting at, because we can talk about technical skill all we want;&nbsp; lots of people love Erol Otus, and he's pretty from being a &quot;technically proficient&quot; artist or anything like that.But let's take a look at the content of D&amp;D art.1e Art is a mixture of sword-and-sorcery art and humour.&nbsp; Most of the art has a strong background, and tells a story - whether it's a barbarian and a swordswoman fighting off a pack of hungry wolves, a warrior in a flooding room pounding on a door to escape a skeleton emerging from the waters, or a bunch of dwarves ascending a spiral staircase.2e art has more &quot;filler&quot; art, especially in the core book - those blue-inked drawings of treasure and celtic knots and the like.&nbsp; However, it is filled with many full colour paintings that are again evocative of scenes - orcs storming a castle, negotiations with an elven king, an elven woman negotiating with dwarves, or a wizard summoning a spectral woman to dance for his private amusement.3e art carries on in that tradition, although it morphs it - we have a lot more &quot;character pictures&quot;, wherein a character becomes the primary focus of the picture.&nbsp; Many pictures, especially in the core PHB, are characters on a white background.&nbsp; However, these characters are (except in the class section, for the most part) doing stuff - picking chests, casting spells, and the like.&nbsp; When we get out of the PHB, the art is still based around a story - although backgrounds are often absent, and the technical skill is leaps and bounds ahead of what was in 2e.&nbsp; And then there's the art in 4e - guy posing for an image.&nbsp; And then guy posing for an image.&nbsp; And then we have a guy jumping through flame, posing for an image.&nbsp; And dude holding sword.&nbsp; It seems like every damned image in 4e is some guy posing for an image over a white background.&nbsp; Every image - even on the covers of the books! - are PCs posing for images.&nbsp; It always seems to me that earlier editions' art would say &quot;hey, these are the adventures you could play in!&quot;, while 4e art seems to say &quot;hey, these are the characters you could play&quot;.&nbsp; And that bugs the bajeezus out of me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 5465294, member: 40177"] Yeah, I have. But let's take a look at it a little bit closer, and I can explain where I'm coming from. First, in terms of quality, D&D art has become better and better. While some may prefer the line drawings in 1e, if we're going to talk in terms of pure technical skill involved, the 4e art is generally better than the 3e art, which is better than 2e art, etc. But that's not really what I'm getting at, because we can talk about technical skill all we want; lots of people love Erol Otus, and he's pretty from being a "technically proficient" artist or anything like that. But let's take a look at the content of D&D art. 1e Art is a mixture of sword-and-sorcery art and humour. Most of the art has a strong background, and tells a story - whether it's a barbarian and a swordswoman fighting off a pack of hungry wolves, a warrior in a flooding room pounding on a door to escape a skeleton emerging from the waters, or a bunch of dwarves ascending a spiral staircase. 2e art has more "filler" art, especially in the core book - those blue-inked drawings of treasure and celtic knots and the like. However, it is filled with many full colour paintings that are again evocative of scenes - orcs storming a castle, negotiations with an elven king, an elven woman negotiating with dwarves, or a wizard summoning a spectral woman to dance for his private amusement. 3e art carries on in that tradition, although it morphs it - we have a lot more "character pictures", wherein a character becomes the primary focus of the picture. Many pictures, especially in the core PHB, are characters on a white background. However, these characters are (except in the class section, for the most part) doing stuff - picking chests, casting spells, and the like. When we get out of the PHB, the art is still based around a story - although backgrounds are often absent, and the technical skill is leaps and bounds ahead of what was in 2e. And then there's the art in 4e - guy posing for an image. And then guy posing for an image. And then we have a guy jumping through flame, posing for an image. And dude holding sword. It seems like every damned image in 4e is some guy posing for an image over a white background. Every image - even on the covers of the books! - are PCs posing for images. It always seems to me that earlier editions' art would say "hey, these are the adventures you could play in!", while 4e art seems to say "hey, these are the characters you could play". And that bugs the bajeezus out of me. [/QUOTE]

Verification