Game Book Art Work
J F
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/panurge/imaz1.htm)
and came across the article in issue 37 discussing the quality of the art
work present in roleplaying games.
"as roleplaying artists have become more professional, and the industry has
grown more commercially savvy, bland, corporate pabulum is becoming even
more prominent than it used to be. It 's important for us to recognize that
much of today's rolegame art is worse than bad. It's ordinary .The quality
of draftsmanship has improved mightily since the late 1970s. Clearly, there
are lots of people in the industry who know how to draw. This makes it all
the more tragic when they produce work of little or no value."
Werebat
It's true. Sometimes Bad is better than Ordinary. Consider Erol Otus'
recent revival in Goodman Games' "Dungeon Crawl" series.
And to think that man designed the Arilou.
- Ron ^*^
Stephenls
> "as roleplaying artists have become more professional, and the industry has
> grown more commercially savvy, bland, corporate pabulum is becoming even
> more prominent than it used to be. It 's important for us to recognize that
> much of today's rolegame art is worse than bad. It's ordinary .The quality
> of draftsmanship has improved mightily since the late 1970s. Clearly, there
> are lots of people in the industry who know how to draw. This makes it all
> the more tragic when they produce work of little or no value."
Bitter, nostalgic nonsense. Sure, D&D's art is pretty mediocre
nowadays, but that's because they've gotten rid of most of the
technically competent (and expensive) artists in favor of less skilled
artists and craftsmen who cost less money. I'll take Todd Lockwood over
Erol Otus any day.
And check other RPGs for better work ('cause they can hire skilled black
and white artists for significantly less than the money WotC pays for
crap "full color" stuff). See, for example, any damn thing by Melissa Uran.
http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Exalted/night_caste/mirror.gif
http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Abyssal/archer_final.jpg
http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Akashic/alchemist.gif
http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Akashic/thunderbolt1.gif
(that one's a bit big)
http://www.melissauran.com/boneflower.gif
http://www.melissauran.com/wallpapers/confrontation_wall1280.jpg
http://www.melissauran.com/wallpapers/shikuzi2_1280lt.jpg
Or Ross Campbell, while I'm talking about artists who do work for Exalted.
http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonkeast.jpg
http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonknorth.jpg
http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonksouth.jpg
http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_evolution.jpg
http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_leeayta.jpg
http://www.greenoblivion.com/es_emilysketch03.jpg
http://www.greenoblivion.com/es_emilysketch01.jpg
The trick is that gaming grognards tend to like art in a very specific
non-stylized semi-photo-realistic "western fantasy" style, and like to
deride anything new done in that style as unoriginal, while
simultaneously deriding anything outside of that style as being not to
their tastes. At this point, the western fantasy style has very nearly
played itself out, so publishers other than WotC are turning to other
aesthetics, which gets them a lot of criticism from gaming grognards.
Bah, I say.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
--Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
Robert Singers
> The trick is that gaming grognards tend to like art in a very specific
> non-stylized semi-photo-realistic "western fantasy" style, and like to
> deride anything new done in that style as unoriginal, while
> simultaneously deriding anything outside of that style as being not to
> their tastes. At this point, the western fantasy style has very nearly
> played itself out, so publishers other than WotC are turning to other
> aesthetics, which gets them a lot of criticism from gaming grognards.
I like Eric Hotz, especially the wood cuts. http://www.erichotz.com/
I'm also a big fan because of Larry Leadhead
http://www.larryleadhead.org/index.html and the fact that Eric is
absolutely the nicest person I've meet on Usenet.
--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Stephenls
> I like Eric Hotz, especially the wood cuts. http://www.erichotz.com/
Huh.
Nice stuff.
I'm going to say it's not to my taste, but I won't deride it for being
such. Those are some damn nice woodcuts.
Justisaur
Stephenls wrote:
> J F wrote:
>
> > "as roleplaying artists have become more professional, and the
industry has
> > grown more commercially savvy, bland, corporate pabulum is becoming
even
> > more prominent than it used to be. It 's important for us to
recognize that
> > much of today's rolegame art is worse than bad. It's ordinary .The
quality
> > of draftsmanship has improved mightily since the late 1970s.
Clearly, there
> > are lots of people in the industry who know how to draw. This makes
it all
> > the more tragic when they produce work of little or no value."
>
Well I don't know if I agree that the work I see in D&D is that
technically good. There's some that is, but in general I find it
rather booring and poorly executed. the style is rather high school
watercolorish, which I never liked. I don't hate it, it's too bland to
hate. If I hated it, I'd call it art. If you like buying $5 prints of
wilderness, great for you...
> Bitter, nostalgic nonsense. Sure, D&D's art is pretty mediocre
> nowadays, but that's because they've gotten rid of most of the
> technically competent (and expensive) artists in favor of less
skilled
> artists and craftsmen who cost less money. I'll take Todd Lockwood
over
> Erol Otus any day.
>
Any links? ah what the hell I can google. Wow. o.k. he's got
technical through the roof. Very Frizetta-ish, technically better
though, and quite striking. I'd have to review a bit more of his work
before I say I like it better than Otis. But then all art other than
the technical aspect is graded individually, it's all personal opinion.
Speak to any non-commercial artist, they don't care if it's
technically good, they care if thier art speaks to you, makes you feel
something.
I love Otis, his work has character. Having character and being
destintive is more important than technical expertise.
> And check other RPGs for better work ('cause they can hire skilled
black
> and white artists for significantly less than the money WotC pays for
> crap "full color" stuff). See, for example, any damn thing by
Melissa Uran.
>
>
http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Exalted/night_caste/mirror.gif
>
http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Abyssal/archer_final.jpg
>
http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Akashic/alchemist.gif
>
http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Akashic/thunderbolt1.gif
> (that one's a bit big)
> http://www.melissauran.com/boneflower.gif
> http://www.melissauran.com/wallpapers/confrontation_wall1280.jpg
> http://www.melissauran.com/wallpapers/shikuzi2_1280lt.jpg
>
These are quite good, actually reminds me of Otis a bit, just
technically much more proficient. Throw in whoever did the old
melinbone' covers, japaneese influence, and reminds me a bit of the
art from the original champions, so comic book influence as well.
> Or Ross Campbell, while I'm talking about artists who do work for
Exalted.
>
> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonkeast.jpg
> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonknorth.jpg
> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonksouth.jpg
> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_evolution.jpg
> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_leeayta.jpg
These are all technically & stylistly crap. They are so muddy you
can't tell what the hell they are supposed to be, "C" highschool
student work.
> http://www.greenoblivion.com/es_emilysketch03.jpg
> http://www.greenoblivion.com/es_emilysketch01.jpg
>
These are decent at least.
> The trick is that gaming grognards tend to like art in a very
specific
> non-stylized semi-photo-realistic "western fantasy" style, and like
to
> deride anything new done in that style as unoriginal, while
> simultaneously deriding anything outside of that style as being not
to
> their tastes. At this point, the western fantasy style has very
nearly
> played itself out, so publishers other than WotC are turning to other
> aesthetics, which gets them a lot of criticism from gaming grognards.
>
Eh, whatever, every one I've talked to has different tastes. And I'm
speaking of all my old grognard friends.
- Justisaur
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Ross Campbell ....
>> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonkeast.jpg
>> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonknorth.jpg
>> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_dragonksouth.jpg
>> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_evolution.jpg
>> http://www.greenoblivion.com/rathess_leeayta.jpg
Justisaur wrote:
> These are all technically & stylistly crap. They are so muddy you
> can't tell what the hell they are supposed to be, "C" highschool
> student work.
>> http://www.greenoblivion.com/es_emilysketch03.jpg
>> http://www.greenoblivion.com/es_emilysketch01.jpg
> These are decent at least.
The dynamic range of the first four is weak; there's too much gray, and
the few strong light & dark areas tend to break up shapes. Unless he's
deliberately going for a camouflage effect, that's poor composition.
However, all of the line work is excellent, proportions are excellent,
and there's a good sense of depth and solidity. If it weren't for the
composition problems, I'd say this is excellent professional work. Even
with those issues, it's still vastly better than amateur work, certainly
better than C-grade high school. Amateurs just don't do proportion or
depth this well.
>> The trick is that gaming grognards tend to like art in a very
>> specific non-stylized semi-photo-realistic "western fantasy" style,
>> and like to deride anything new done in that style as unoriginal,
>> while simultaneously deriding anything outside of that style as being
>> not to their tastes. At this point, the western fantasy style has
>> very nearly played itself out, so publishers other than WotC are
>> turning to other aesthetics, which gets them a lot of criticism from
>> gaming grognards.
> Eh, whatever, every one I've talked to has different tastes. And I'm
> speaking of all my old grognard friends.
I'm with Stephenls on this point. Grognards /do/ like some stylized art,
but it's mostly stylized in comic-book directions, like the stuff Jeff
Dee and Bill Willingham used to do for TSR.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
J F
"Stephenls" <step...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:368qlpF...@individual.net...
> Bitter, nostalgic nonsense. Sure, D&D's art is pretty mediocre
> nowadays, but that's because they've gotten rid of most of the
> technically competent (and expensive) artists in favor of less skilled
> artists and craftsmen who cost less money. I'll take Todd Lockwood over
> Erol Otus any day.
>
The article in question was written a few year back and it does talk about
the Lockwood "Tordek" of the PH.
> The trick is that gaming grognards tend to like art in a very specific
> non-stylized semi-photo-realistic "western fantasy" style, and like to
> deride anything new done in that style as unoriginal, while
> simultaneously deriding anything outside of that style as being not to
> their tastes.
I would not consider DAT, Otus or Sutherland semi-photo-realistic. If
anything, these fellows -especially Otus- had abysmal artistic talent and
are totally incapable of realism in their artwork.
Bradd W. Szonye
> And check other RPGs for better work ('cause they can hire skilled
> black and white artists for significantly less than the money WotC
> pays for crap "full color" stuff). See, for example, any damn thing
> by Melissa Uran.
>
> http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Exalted/night_caste/mirror.gif
> http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Abyssal/archer_final.jpg
> http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Akashic/alchemist.gif
> http://www.melissauran.com/professional/White_Wolf/Akashic/thunderbolt1.gif
> (that one's a bit big)
> http://www.melissauran.com/boneflower.gif
> http://www.melissauran.com/wallpapers/confrontation_wall1280.jpg
> http://www.melissauran.com/wallpapers/shikuzi2_1280lt.jpg
Yikes. Stylistically it's OK, but technically it's inferior to Ross
Campbell's stuff. The dynamics problems are even worse, and color
composition is just a mess in the samples above. Proportions are a bit
weird, albeit still better than most amateurs, and solids have no depth
at all. The flat look might be a stylistic thing, although artists with
similar styles (like Nagel and Mukai) do a much better job of it with
the same basic technique. I definitely wouldn't recommend this artist
based on these samples.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I like Eric Hotz, especially the wood cuts. http://www.erichotz.com/
Those are some nice woodcuts. It's no Albrecht Dürer, but then who is?
Stephenls
> Yikes. Stylistically it's OK, but technically it's inferior to Ross
> Campbell's stuff. The dynamics problems are even worse, and color
> composition is just a mess in the samples above. Proportions are a bit
> weird, albeit still better than most amateurs, and solids have no depth
> at all. The flat look might be a stylistic thing, although artists with
> similar styles (like Nagel and Mukai) do a much better job of it with
> the same basic technique. I definitely wouldn't recommend this artist
> based on these samples.
Huh.
That's the first technical criticism of Melissa Uran I've ever read.
I've read other criticisms, but they all amount to "OMG manga suxxors."
Murf
chuckle - check out some of the artwork in the 1st edition "Monster
Manual 2".
Ok, some of it is fine, but the "quality" black and white art includes
-
The base modrons - which look like they were lifted from the back cover
of a 10 year olds school book
and
The picture of the Stone Roper (Sto-roper) which still amuses my group,
so many years after its release.
Overall, I still think the 1st ed DM's guide and Monster Manual were a
landmark in quality, OK some of the cover art was cack, but in terms of
physical quality and the variety of artwork styles it was a "wow" at
the time, esp the MM.
(btw - my copy was bought second hand about 2 months after the 1st
print run and is *still* in ace condition, despite being carted round
and used a lot)
As wider issue, things started going downhill with the release of
Unearthed Arcania - after that TSR seemed to cut corners in the print
and binding quality. (and the font size went up and usable contrent
went down)
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Yikes. Stylistically it's OK, but technically it's inferior to Ross
>> Campbell's stuff. The dynamics problems are even worse, and color
>> composition is just a mess in the samples above. Proportions are a bit
>> weird, albeit still better than most amateurs, and solids have no depth
>> at all. The flat look might be a stylistic thing, although artists with
>> similar styles (like Nagel and Mukai) do a much better job of it with
>> the same basic technique. I definitely wouldn't recommend this artist
>> based on these samples.
Stephenls wrote:
> That's the first technical criticism of Melissa Uran I've ever read.
Heh. I forgot to mention the good parts: She uses dynamic poses and
tension very well. This is especially noticeable in the archer, the
alchemist, and the "boneflower" illustrations. The first two are
especially impressive, because they capture motion subtly. The archer
has clearly just released his bowstring, and the alchemist is just about
to raise his hands (most likely to cast a spell on the target he's just
acquired out of the corner of his eyes). That's good action drawing.
Some of the things to look for in art:
Dynamics - a full range of dark black through bright white, broad and
narrow strokes, bold and subtle elements, etc.
Focus, balance - draw the eye toward the main subject, but echo its
traits throughout the work to avoid dead areas; generally avoid
"lonely" colors, shapes, etc.
Pen/brush/etc technique - strokes are solid and confident, with
controlled variation in thickness and pressure
Action, tension - the main subject suggests motion occurring, about to
occur, or just completed
Proportion - all subjects have plausible (not necessarily realistic)
shapes and sizes, both internally and relative to each other
Depth - solid subjects look solid, distant subjects look distant, etc.
"Composition" mostly refers to dynamics, focus, and balance, and it's
one of the hardest things to get right. Unfortunately, it's also one of
the most important elements, because it determines the overall look and
feel of the work.
Also, a note about action: Some kinds of illustration, like still lifes
and portraits, are inherently static. However, even then great artists
tend to incorporate subtle motion or hints at action. For example, the
Mona Lisa's smile is famous for its subtlety. Look at a copy (e.g.,
(e.g., http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/joconde/joconde.jpg),
and see how it's a smile in transition -- it's the look of somebody
about to giggle or break into a broader smile. That's action.
Notes on a few of my favorite and least favorite D&D artists:
As much as people dislike Erol Otus, he's pretty solid on most of these
points (especially action, proportion, and depth), and he unquestionably
has style. His dynamics and focus are a bit weak, especially in his
color paintings, but they're not awful. The most notable thing about
Otus's work is that his strokes and his shapes are very /crude./ It's
hard to say whether that's good style or poor skill, and I suspect that
most Otus lovers & haters are divided on that issue. As a kid, I didn't
like his work, but it's grown on me over the years.
My very least favorite D&D artist is Clyde Caldwell. He's got some good
traits, like a strong sense of proportion. However, all of his work
looks lifeless to me. His textures are awful; mail armor looks like a
T-shirt with chain links painted on, and some of his flesh tones look
more like waxed maple than human skin. What's most irritating to me is
his ability to suck all the life out of a picture. He uses many action
poses, but they almost always look posed rather than dynamic. There's no
point in action if the only tension it creates is the muscle ache from a
model holding the pose too long.
Speaking of action: Larry Elmore creates beautiful paintings and
sketches, but he too is weak in the action department. He's capable of
it -- his cartoon work shows a strong sense of action and tension -- but
it doesn't show up much in his paintings, which are mostly static
portraits. While Todd Lockwood is not my favorite D&D artist, he does
have an excellent sense of action and tension. I especially liked his
Sheen covers for Dragon magazine.
My two favorite D&D artists are Tony DiTerlizzi and Wayne Reynolds. They
pretty much nail everything on the technical side, and they both have
strong style. Reynolds favors bold strokes and bold action, while
DiTerlizzi's work is more subtle and whimsical, but otherwise their
styles and media are very similar. DiTerlizzi is notable for
exaggerating proportions in ways that make the subject seem fantastic or
comical while still looking natural. Unfortunately, he was overworked on
the Planescape project and couldn't work to his full potential. I see
signs of the same thing in Reynolds; some of his recent stuff looks
rushed and not as good as his earlier pieces.
Justisaur
Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Some of the things to look for in art:
(Snip art critquing 101)
Thanks for the overview, nice to have someone go over it who can
express it so eloquently.
>
>
> Notes on a few of my favorite and least favorite D&D artists:
>
> As much as people dislike Erol Otus, he's pretty solid on most of
these
> points (especially action, proportion, and depth), and he
unquestionably
> has style. His dynamics and focus are a bit weak, especially in his
> color paintings, but they're not awful. The most notable thing about
> Otus's work is that his strokes and his shapes are very /crude./ It's
> hard to say whether that's good style or poor skill, and I suspect
that
> most Otus lovers & haters are divided on that issue. As a kid, I
didn't
> like his work, but it's grown on me over the years.
>
While I consider Erol Otis one of the greats of the "golden age" David
Trampier (creator of Wormy - my favorite piece of artwork of his is the
1st ed MM Lizardman) is probably my favorite.
> My very least favorite D&D artist is Clyde Caldwell. He's got some
good
> traits, like a strong sense of proportion. However, all of his work
> looks lifeless to me. His textures are awful; mail armor looks like a
> T-shirt with chain links painted on, and some of his flesh tones look
> more like waxed maple than human skin. What's most irritating to me
is
> his ability to suck all the life out of a picture. He uses many
action
> poses, but they almost always look posed rather than dynamic. There's
no
> point in action if the only tension it creates is the muscle ache
from a
> model holding the pose too long.
>
I never did care much for the dragonlance covers, most of the stuff I
found on the web looked like that. Although he did do my favorite
dragon cover... If you like the chainmail bikini look he's the right
artist for you.
> Speaking of action: Larry Elmore creates beautiful paintings and
> sketches, but he too is weak in the action department. He's capable
of
> it -- his cartoon work shows a strong sense of action and tension --
but
> it doesn't show up much in his paintings, which are mostly static
> portraits.
More DL crap IMHO.
> While Todd Lockwood is not my favorite D&D artist, he does
> have an excellent sense of action and tension. I especially liked his
> Sheen covers for Dragon magazine.
>
After contemplating some more what I see out there on a quick google
"immage" search and checking out his web site, I'm finding him quite
stunning. I might have to move him to my #1 favorite.
> My two favorite D&D artists are Tony DiTerlizzi and Wayne Reynolds.
Mr DiTerlizzi is a little too cartoony for my tastes, but he does nail
the "fairy" genere. Wayne Reynolds did the races line up in the PHB,
frankly I hate that one, and most of his work looks a little muddy to
me. I see some really good stuff out there as well though. Perhaps
he's being pushed too hard.
- Justisaur
http:\\justisaur.rpgpit.com
Rupert Boleyn
<bradd...@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> My very least favorite D&D artist is Clyde Caldwell. He's got some good
> traits, like a strong sense of proportion. However, all of his work
> looks lifeless to me. His textures are awful; mail armor looks like a
> T-shirt with chain links painted on, and some of his flesh tones look
> more like waxed maple than human skin. What's most irritating to me is
> his ability to suck all the life out of a picture. He uses many action
> poses, but they almost always look posed rather than dynamic. There's no
> point in action if the only tension it creates is the muscle ache from a
> model holding the pose too long.
I've never liked his work either, but could never say exactly why. Now
I can, thanks.
> Speaking of action: Larry Elmore creates beautiful paintings and
> sketches, but he too is weak in the action department. He's capable of
> it -- his cartoon work shows a strong sense of action and tension -- but
> it doesn't show up much in his paintings, which are mostly static
> portraits. While Todd Lockwood is not my favorite D&D artist, he does
> have an excellent sense of action and tension. I especially liked his
> Sheen covers for Dragon magazine.
For some reason, despite this, I still like Elmore's work a great
deal, and not just for the scantily-clad chicks. Lockwood's work is
easily my favourite D&D art.
> My two favorite D&D artists are Tony DiTerlizzi and Wayne Reynolds. They
> pretty much nail everything on the technical side, and they both have
> strong style. Reynolds favors bold strokes and bold action, while
> DiTerlizzi's work is more subtle and whimsical, but otherwise their
> styles and media are very similar. DiTerlizzi is notable for
> exaggerating proportions in ways that make the subject seem fantastic or
> comical while still looking natural. Unfortunately, he was overworked on
> the Planescape project and couldn't work to his full potential. I see
> signs of the same thing in Reynolds; some of his recent stuff looks
> rushed and not as good as his earlier pieces.
DiTerlizzi's work is good, but it just doesn't suit my taste.
Reynold's work I don't like at all - I find myself saying "Wow! That
piece doesn't stink" when I see a piece I don't dislike, it's that
uncommon.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Christopher Adams
>
> Also, a note about action: Some kinds of illustration, like still lifes
> and portraits, are inherently static. However, even then great artists
> tend to incorporate subtle motion or hints at action. For example, the
> Mona Lisa's smile is famous for its subtlety. Look at a copy (e.g.,
> (e.g., http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/joconde/joconde.jpg),
> and see how it's a smile in transition -- it's the look of somebody
> about to giggle or break into a broader smile. That's action.
Yeah, but what the fuck is with the forefinger of her left hand?
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
*Nine!* This is *nine!* We have killed your friends! Every friend is now dead!
Christopher Adams
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>> While Todd Lockwood is not my favorite D&D artist, he does
>> have an excellent sense of action and tension. I especially liked his
>> Sheen covers for Dragon magazine.
>
> After contemplating some more what I see out there on a quick google
> "immage" search and checking out his web site, I'm finding him quite
> stunning. I might have to move him to my #1 favorite.
>
>> My two favorite D&D artists are Tony DiTerlizzi and Wayne Reynolds.
>
> Mr DiTerlizzi is a little too cartoony for my tastes, but he does nail
> the "fairy" genere. Wayne Reynolds did the races line up in the PHB,
> frankly I hate that one,
That's funny, because that was Todd Lockwood.
In the 3.5 Player's Handbook his first piece of art is Gimble, the iconic gnome
bard. He's not even in the 3.0 Player's Handbook.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Wayne Reynolds did the races line up in the PHB, frankly I hate that one,
Christopher Adams wrote:
> That's funny, because that was Todd Lockwood.
>
> In the 3.5 Player's Handbook his first piece of art is Gimble, the
> iconic gnome bard. He's not even in the 3.0 Player's Handbook.
Reynolds did draw the psionic races line-up in the XPsiHB. Maybe
Justisaur has the two confused.