WotC Artwork in books

[farscapesg1]

Now, that artwork I like. If this is the trend that 3.5 artwork is going to go, I'll be much happier with it. Loose all the spikes and tattoos and get rid of the punk hairstyles and I won't complain about the new artwork compared to the old 2e days.

 

[LeapingShark]

I think EO is loved because his style is especially unique. You can look at any picture he has done, and you instantly know it's EO.

Most of his color images have a unique "3-D" apect to them that most other artists do not have.

His images have a toy-like quality too. Sometimes when looking at a scene, you almost get the feeling that you are looking at a diorama of miniatures that have been animated to life. So the figures in the illustration sorta resonate with your childhood, when you used to play with plastic toys. Maybe that's what does it.

The WOTC artwork is as good as ever. When I buy a book, sometimes I look forward to the pictures as much as the information. Sometimes you can look at a picture and get an instant inspiration for a character, an encounter, or an entire campaign.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I like dungeonpunk AND Erol Otus. To me, they're trying to depict different things. When it comes to slobbering dungeon horrors, Otus is terrific. When it comes to grim-n-gritty (a trite thing for superhero comics, an appropriate thing for sword and sorcery), I think the dungeonpunk stuff (much of which is actually modelling armor spikes or the number of pockets player characters ACTUALLY USE) is fine.

And hell, I think Larry Elmore is great high fantasy with a side order of boobies.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

The whole 'dungeonpunk' with spikes and such was never as common as many tried to scream that it was.

 

[Testament]

The whole 'dungeonpunk' with spikes and such was never as common as many tried to scream that it was.

Oh, good, I'm not the only one who thinks that. I still don't get that term, or the accusations of anime-ish influence.

And yeah JD, I still think of Ron Spencer as Mr Werewolf too.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Oh, good, I'm not the only one who thinks that. I still don't get that term, or the accusations of anime-ish influence.

Part of the problem, I think, was that in the Countdown to 3E days, there were only so many pieces of art floating around, so that even a few pieces of pointy and spiky artwork represented a larger portion of the whole. And given that WotC had chosen those pieces to advance out to the public, it wasn't unreasonable to assume it was going to be a more sweeping change in aesthetic than it really ended up being.

And, of course, there's the iconic sorcerer, Pierced Nipples Bondage Man. He doesn't help.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Oh, good, I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Nope, you definitely aren't. But those that do are very, very vocal. Sometimes I wonder if they ever actually open the books at all, or just keep harping back on the few images that do have spikes or whatever.

I still don't get that term, or the accusations of anime-ish influence.

When I started sketching, I had a very strong anime influence in my work. I know the style. I know how it looks and works. There is only one artist who does work for D&D that's even close to an anime style, and even then its more of a simplified way of drawing the features and the body than an actual anime look.

And given that WotC had chosen those pieces to advance out to the public, it wasn't unreasonable to assume it was going to be a more sweeping change in aesthetic than it really ended up being.

Maybe not then, but that was five to six years ago. Its definitely unreasonable now.

 

[spunky_mutters]

If you're going to say Otus is bad technically, at least spell his name right.

Comparing the black and white pictures of old with the photoshopped images of today is not comparing apples to oranges. I think Erol Otus has done some great images (and his art direction on computer games such as Star Control 2 has shown his eye for good art, and his ability to create memorable images in colour). Trampier is long gone from D&D art, but for me he is the master of clear lines. My biggest problem with the more modern artists is their inability to fill in the background texture of whatever fills their picture unless it is in colour. Trampier really stands out here with his ability to mix appropriate textures.

I'm not trying to start an argument of old versus new, but it hurts to see guys who did good work in an era of low production values being compared unfavourably to the artists of today with no qualifying statements.

Edit:spelling

 

[ColonelHardisson]

If you're going to say Otus is bad technically, at least spell his name right.

Yup. It's "Erol Otus." No "i." His stuff has a very definite look to it, very evocative. I don't know about it being "technically" bad - he's very consistent in his proportions, for one thing. Besides, Jeff Easley gets a lot of love, but I've often found his stuff to be "technically" poor - proportions are often off, for example, and his anatomy sometimes just looks outright bizarre if you look at it closely. But I think a lot of his earlier, black & white art in modules like Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is spectacular.

Anyway, I find the new edition's art to also be very good, much more consistent than it's given credit for. The Draconomicon, for example, has some truly wonderful art. Anything by Wayne Reynolds gets high marks from me. I, too, have never gotten why the newer art gets called "dungeonpunk" so often. The only thing that I can see that gave it that label was the art for the iconic sorcerer, Hennet. The disdain for armor having spikes has always seemed odd to me - spikes on armor make sense in a world where big critters like giants and dragons can pick up and squish adventurers.

 

[Gez]

The artwork of Errol Otis strikes me as medicore at best...

What's great with olde timey D&D was the high number of creatures with silly portemanteaux names. Medicore, for example, would not be a typo, but a manticore with healing powers.

Trying to derail the derailment.