Worlds and Monsters Art Gallery

[WhatGravitas]

@ those who said the art's not CGI but digitally painted -- my bad, that's actually what I meant. And you can tell. Some of the stuff looked traditionally done to my graphic-designer-in-training eyes but I showed it to the more experienced department head (who is also one of my d&d players) and he scanned through both preview books and said that pretty much all the color art was done on a computer. Most of it is done well but the ones like that castle landscape with the duplicated skull & shield are really obvious (if you look closely at the strokes, theyve got digital layering/transparency and are all the same thickness - eg. clearly done with a photoshop brush).

Well, if you look at Lockwood's stuff, the distinction between digital and non-digital is almost impossible to see. And for the visible photoshop brushes, it's a style-thing - while I'm totally untalented at photoshop as a medium (I can only work with acrylics), I visit art pages fairly often.

And the visible brush style thing is a telltale sign, but it's often a) an effect that people aim for, because it's something traditional media cannot produce or only very imprecise - so it's kind of a fad. b) the brushes are the result of quick sketches - with the large obvious brushes, you can sketch things fast and get a picture that gives you a "complete"-looking impression. Fully worked, it'll look more refined, and less "photoshop-brushed". But yeah, you can almost always see a slight difference, especially because digital art lacks the "grittiness" of the underlying texture and because of the brighter whites.

On the other hand, what's the problem? I mean using computers as a medium doesn't mean that that artwork is "lesser" art, generally people who can work very well on a digital artwork are often similarly skilled in using a normal brush, computers just give an extra range of effects, for example, Lockwood isn't worse than before, just because he switched to computers. And AFAIK, many artists use computers nowadays, even if it's only for touch-ups.

Just compare these three: Silver Dragon, Reaper's Gale, and Gasfish. Without looking, which one is painted with acrylics, oils, or computer?

Cheers, LT.

 

[pukunui]

Well, if you look at Lockwood's stuff, the distinction between digital and non-digital is almost impossible to see. And for the visible photoshop brushes, it's a style-thing - while I'm totally untalented at photoshop as a medium (I can only work with acrylics), I visit art pages fairly often.

And the visible brush style thing is a telltale sign, but it's often a) an effect that people aim for, because it's something traditional media cannot produce or only very imprecise - so it's kind of a fad. b) the brushes are the result of quick sketches - with the large obvious brushes, you can sketch things fast and get a picture that gives you a "complete"-looking impression. Fully worked, it'll look more refined, and less "photoshop-brushed". But yeah, you can almost always see a slight difference, especially because digital art lacks the "grittiness" of the underlying texture and because of the brighter whites.

On the other hand, what's the problem? I mean using computers as a medium doesn't mean that that artwork is "lesser" art, generally people who can work very well on a digital artwork are often similarly skilled in using a normal brush, computers just give an extra range of effects, for example, Lockwood isn't worse than before, just because he switched to computers. And AFAIK, many artists use computers nowadays, even if it's only for touch-ups.

Just compare these three: Silver Dragon, Reaper's Gale, and Gasfish. Without looking, which one is painted with acrylics, oils, or computer?

Cheers, LT.

Fair enough. I don't really know why I don't like it. It just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I'm just being a grognard about art and part of me does think it's "lesser" art if it's done on a computer (says the guy who's almost a fully-fledged graphic designer *rolls eyes*).

BTW, I guessed the middle one was digital (my eye can't distinguish between oil or acrylic paints but there's just something about the light in the Reaper's Gale one that said "digital" to me). Turns out I was right!

 

[lutecius]

It's a lamia, according to the W&M caption.

intriguing. i thought lamia were serpentine in mythology or quadrupeds with human faces and breasts in medieval engravings.
is the artist credited for each picture? some i can't figure out.

 

[pukunui]

intriguing. i thought lamia were serpentine in mythology or quadrupeds with human faces and breasts in medieval engravings.
is the artist credited for each picture? some i can't figure out.

Nope, the artist isn't named ... but considering that WotC has gotten captions wrong in the past, it's entirely possible that it's not a lamia.

 

[I'm A Banana]

intriguing. i thought lamia were serpentine in mythology or quadrupeds with human faces and breasts in medieval engravings.

They were half-snake, half-women monsters that ate children. The legend basically goes that there was a queen named Lamia who had her children stolen away by a jealous Hera (because like every other lady in ancient Greece, she was makin' it with Zeus), and became monstrous as she ate other people's children in vengeance. There's also a bit about her being able to take out her eyes, or never close her eyes, and it's said that she created more in her image that now go around kind of like bogeymen, eatin' kids up.

She was kind of a monster in the model of Scylla or even Medusa or the Gorgons: a woman-snake-beast. She was dangerous to men because she wasn't really the family type: she'd eat up her own children, too. But her top half was supposed to be very comely, and she was supposed to have magical abilities (probably including shapeshifting).

I'm not sure where the lion-bodied person comes from, or the wisdom drain, but I'd be happy if the 4e version had something to do with snakes and liked to eat babies and could hide out/use disguises to trick others. That'd be sweet enough.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

intriguing. i thought lamia were serpentine in mythology or quadrupeds with human faces and breasts in medieval engravings.
is the artist credited for each picture? some i can't figure out.

Yeah you are right that is what they classically are but I dunno about the new one. Perhaps it is just a bad caption or a placeholder name.

 

[lutecius]

I'm not sure where the lion-bodied person comes from, or the wisdom drain, but I'd be happy if the 4e version had something to do with snakes and liked to eat babies and could hide out/use disguises to trick others. That'd be sweet enough.

i was sure i had seen it somewhere so i just had to dig a little. i was wrong about the period though. it was in one of Edward Topsell's bestiaries (early 17th C.)
http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/lamia.htm
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ian.mccormick/lamia.jpg
note that the 2nd one has male genitalia and breasts... curiouser and curiouser


there are 3 different pics of some kind of angel with metal wings and a fiery sword. they look somehow related to archons. anyone knows what they are called in w&m?

 

[Zamkaizer]

there are 3 different pics of some kind of angel with metal wings and a fiery sword. they look somehow related to archons. anyone knows what they are called in w&m?

Those would be the new Angels.

 

[Kunimatyu]

That would be the new *ahem* "quickling"....

Right, because the old keebler-elf-on-speed was a worthwhile concept to preserve...

 

[Guild Goodknife]

I loved the landscapes. The monsters not so much.
But please tell me this http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/104091.jpg
wasn't done by Dennis Cramer, it kinda looks like his style.
Please, i absolutely despise his art, don't let him taint 4E with his water colors!!