Legions Art/Artist Changes
Tim Lammarsch
the art in my first Legions booster here.
Enormous Baloth: Mark Tedin can draw big monsters, that's for sure. Again,
very good work. Despite the focus, it still looks like art, not like a
plastic toy as seen on some other cards.
Swooping Talon: An Aven. Again. Not a bad picture, I just can't see any more
humanoid birds.
Goblin Assassin: Finally, no more comedy goblins. But the art is getting
quite dark by now, isn't it? And is it just me or does every card have some
strange grid in the background?
Kilnmouth Dragon: This one has no grid. Perhaps some printer defect at the
uncommon slot? The rare could have been on another sheet. Still, very dark,
but the picture is ok.
Starlight Invoker: One of the better looking Clerics in this block. It won't
get much better with this wood armor. And still dark background, on a white
card.
Vile Deacon: Quite standard black art, but ok.
Needleshot Gourna: Don't really like it. Looks strange.
Lowland Tracker: As above. Strange colors.
Hunter Sliver: Seems ok, looks a bit like Tempest art. Then again, it's a
Tempest creature type.
Hundroog: Standard beast. Ressembles a Kavu, doesn't it?
Smokespew Invoker: A bit more creative than the standard zombie. Not bad.
Covert Operative: They like this mist effect on wizards. Standard wizard.
Defiant Elf: Ok, here is where they really could need Rebecca Guay - this one
looks like a goatman or something like that. My favourite elves were drawn
by Douglas Shuler, but then, he's one of the best artists they ever had
anyway.
Sootfeather Flock: Interesting art. Not the standard black, but still black.
Goblin Lookout: It's ok. Typical goblin of this block.
They are trying to make the game look as "one piece". But I don't think
that's the right way to go. I liked it more, when art was more individual.
Therefore, it's a bad thing that one of the last artists with own style had
to go.
The "feminin" story is crap. I'd rather describe the art as "adult", opposing
some art for 14-year-old boys.
--
Tim
David Chapman
> Kilnmouth Dragon: This one has no grid. Perhaps some printer defect
> at the uncommon slot? The rare could have been on another sheet.
Rares are by definition on another sheet.
--
Dark don't lie, dreams come true
Could be a few will see you through
Spa...@yahoo.com
Personaly i think wizards is pushing for more uniform art.
Personaly I dont like it, I like having a wide variety of art,
i mean look at stasis! That artwork fits the card.
For the most part im agains't the computer artworks that have been
popping up, but the firecat was just soo good looking that I decided
"hey, its yet another diverse thing that is good for the game".
Guay had a style that fit certain cards, wonder's art work is great,
and so are almost all of her artworks. Although she's not my favourite
artist from the MTG crowd i could name a lot I'd much perfer to have
their art decomissioned from mtg.
Xis
"Tim Lammarsch" <nu...@holycows.de> wrote:
> They are trying to make the game look as "one piece". But I don't think
> that's the right way to go. I liked it more, when art was more individual.
> Therefore, it's a bad thing that one of the last artists with own style
had
> to go.
Lately, I find myself collecting more than playing. I think that the new
uniformity is bad for collectors. The cards just aren't as interesting to
look at, which means I'm less interested in purchasing them. Less variety =
less interesting = less purchasing.
Morgan Lewis
> They are trying to make the game look as "one piece". But I don't think
> that's the right way to go. I liked it more, when art was more individual.
> Therefore, it's a bad thing that one of the last artists with own style had
> to go.
>
> The "feminin" story is crap. I'd rather describe the art as "adult", opposing
> some art for 14-year-old boys.
>
I agree here wholeheartedly. Whenever I saw Rebecca Guay's name on the
spoiler list, I always looked forward to seeing the card. I always knew
it would be good, and it would be different; the only other artists I
can think of that I ever really looked forward to seeing are John Avon -
primarily his landscapes of course - and Quinton Hoover, who hasn't done
much for M:TG in years.
It has become far too standardized. Rosewater made a comment regarding
the 8th Edition changes (specifically, on the type face for the name)
that most older players identify the card by the art. But this requires
that the player has memorized the artwork. Well, I can't anymore. It
all looks too much alike; it's not memorable. I've a stack of 7th
Edition cards sitting here, and I just went through them. I could pick
out Guay's art and Avon's art. Occasionally I could pick out Gary
Ruddell's art, but I couldn't identify it as his, just that it was
different from the norm (Unholy Strength, Creeping Mold, and Pride of
Lions; reasonably different styles for one person.) Mike Raabe's Canopy
Spider stood out, and so did Marc Fishman's Angelic Page. Out of the
remaining 60-or-so "distinct" card arts, I could not pick out a
particular piece of art that really looked different from the rest.
I am really going to miss Rebecca Guay's art. And I don't think it was
axed for being too feminine so much as because it's distinctive - when
they are clearly going for "uniform look" - and because it doesn't lend
itself to their storylines.
--
Morgan Lewis
m...@efn.org
mle...@cs.uoregon.edu
Xis
"Morgan Lewis" <m...@efn.org> wrote:
> It has become far too standardized. Rosewater made a comment regarding
> the 8th Edition changes (specifically, on the type face for the name)
> that most older players identify the card by the art. But this requires
> that the player has memorized the artwork. Well, I can't anymore. It
> all looks too much alike; it's not memorable.
I Agree With This Post.
kuranes
> I am really going to miss Rebecca Guay's art. And I don't think it was
> axed for being too feminine so much as because it's distinctive - when
> they are clearly going for "uniform look" - and because it doesn't lend
> itself to their storylines.
> --
> Morgan Lewis
> m...@efn.org
> mle...@cs.uoregon.edu
If you don't believe what I posted about R. Guay, why don't you email her yourself
and ask her like I did? :)
Cari
ps. And if you miss her artwork, send a letter to WOTC about it.
--
There is no way to peace, peace is the way.
Tim Lammarsch
> ps. And if you miss her artwork, send a letter to WOTC about it.
>
They should really publish an email adress for this. What was the name of
this art director again? Jeremy Cranford? Hey, isn't that the guy who is
responsible for Kamahl's plastic armor and the ridiculous sword? Hm...
Google says he really works hard to keep his adress secret.
--
Tim
Morgan Lewis
I believe what you posted is what Guay told you and is what she was
told. I do not believe that what she was told was the whole reason.
This thing smells of weasel. "Her art was too feminine." It's the sort
of statement somebody makes when they're trying to justify their action
without giving the real reason. This statement is controversial, but
can be backed up; the art director can state that he wants M:TG to not
have cards with a distinctly feminine feel. The protests will mostly
take the form of "We think it's ok for some of them to have that feel",
which isn't a particularly compelling argument, although one I agree
with. (The less-common remark, but stronger, would be "Please point out
to me how Coral Merfolk - for example - is too feminine. And the
subject of the art is determined by the art description, and you can
assign her to images that aren't feminine." She's done un-feminine
artwork in her style, and it works well.)
If he said "Her style is too distinct" instead, he'd get some real hard
questions about why, exactly, this is a bad thing... and probably
wouldn't be able to provide any answers that didn't result in more of
the same sorts of question. "It's too feminine", however, provides a
quick, one-sided out. He can point to examples like Dwell on the Past
and Gaea's Blessing (some of her best work, incidentally), and say "I
don't want Magic to look like that."
If he said "It doesn't work with the storyline", the reply would be that
there are dozens of cards in each set which have only tangential or even
non-existent ties to the storyline - can you picture Guay's take on one
of Legions's Muses? But it wouldn't make sense to put Guay on Kamahl,
or Phage, or other major story-elements because they get repeated too
often in other artwork. The art director would have to remember not to
assign major story-art to her. But when everybody has the same ten-
penny-fantasy style, Kamahl can be assigned to *anybody*... no thought
necessary.
I'm not a mind-reader, and I can't claim my thoughts as absolute fact.
Maybe Jeremy Cranford really meant exactly what he said and nothing
more. But, as I said before, this smells of weasel. It feels like
somebody giving a harsh, but quantifiable (if highly disputed) reason,
in order to act on the opinions that they don't want to have to justify.
In any case, though, Guay's getting a raw deal, and so is everybody who
enjoyed the diversity in the card art.
Morgan Lewis
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:11:08 -0500, kuranes wrote:
> > Morgan Lewis wrote:
> >
> > > I am really going to miss Rebecca Guay's art.
> >
I know, bad form to reply to one's own message, but I think this is
warranted.
Friday's (Feb. 7th) Ask Wizards column addresses the question of Rebecca
Guay. Jeremy Cranford answers that the creative team felt that her art
(and, apparently some others') did not fit the feel they wanted for
Onslaught block. He states that this is only applicable to this block,
and that Guay's artwork will be back in the future.
So you can disregard any grumbling on my part, as well as the slight
aspersions on Cranford's character. Although he earns a mild new
aspersion for using a term like "Mage-punk." :)
Tim Lammarsch
> If he said "It doesn't work with the storyline", the reply would be that
> there are dozens of cards in each set which have only tangential or even
> non-existent ties to the storyline - can you picture Guay's take on one
> of Legions's Muses? But it wouldn't make sense to put Guay on Kamahl,
> or Phage, or other major story-elements because they get repeated too
> often in other artwork. The art director would have to remember not to
> assign major story-art to her. But when everybody has the same ten-
> penny-fantasy style, Kamahl can be assigned to *anybody*... no thought
> necessary.
I recently got a Planeswalker's Favor from an old Planeshift booster, and I
think you can even give plot elements to Rebecca Guay. Perhaps you can't
anymore today now that the whole plot is about bashing...
--
Tim
David Chapman
> Friday's (Feb. 7th) Ask Wizards column addresses the question of
> Rebecca Guay. Jeremy Cranford answers that the creative team felt
> that her art (and, apparently some others') did not fit the feel they
> wanted for Onslaught block. He states that this is only applicable
> to this block, and that Guay's artwork will be back in the future.
AKA "Oh shit, did I fuck up this time. Quickly, Rosewater, to the
Retconmobile!"
There were several threads on the WotC boards about this. 100% of all
respondents wanted Guay's art in Magic, and many of them explained why.
Orgg99
>Guay. Jeremy Cranford answers that the creative team felt that her art
>(and, apparently some others') did not fit the feel they wanted for
>Onslaught block. He states that this is only applicable to this block,
>and that Guay's artwork will be back in the future.
>
"Did not fit the feel they wanted for Onslaught block." HAHA !!! I don't know
how these people keep a straight face.
Funny that Rebecca thought she had been fired.
Morgan Lewis
Yeah, it was a beautiful bit of spin-doctoring. Nobody buys it mind
you, especially since Guay isn't repeating it, but at any rate, at least
she'll be back in the near future. That's all that really matters,
anyhow.