tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post1101961156260538892..comments2024-03-16T06:00:04.833-04:00Comments on Sham's Grog 'n Blog: Sham on ArtSham aka Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14329116400656617173noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-77737054546398479012008-06-28T00:59:00.000-04:002008-06-28T00:59:00.000-04:00Curses! Foiled Again by that Trollsmyth character!...Curses! Foiled Again by that Trollsmyth character!<BR/><BR/>Nice link - Thanks!Sham aka Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329116400656617173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-70803672207828356002008-06-28T00:29:00.000-04:002008-06-28T00:29:00.000-04:00I don't think we were ever too far off from one an...I don't think we were ever too far off from one another, honestly.<BR/><BR/>But I will disagree about only gamers discussing D&D art. I suggest you get your hands on a copy of <A HREF="http://www.spectrumfantasticart.com/" REL="nofollow">Spectrum</A>. I just got the latest for the Trollwife for her birthday. It's gorgeous, though, as always, many of the pics are just too small to a get the full effect.<BR/><BR/>- Briantrollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-37798230884173721462008-06-27T23:30:00.000-04:002008-06-27T23:30:00.000-04:00As for spilling digital ink on the subject, well, ...<I>As for spilling digital ink on the subject, well, you could also say that Bernini's "The Ecstasy of St. Teresa" is just window-dressing for Roman Catholicism, but that doesn't in any way devalue its artistic merit.</I><BR/><BR/>You know, I was going to go there (well, not to that particular piece), but decided against it. <BR/>It's not a fair analogy, BUT I do understand what you are getting at. If we're going to talk about the art, it's clearly more than window dressing. Once we do so, we can agree we have left the realm of D&D (or Religion). That's what I'm getting at. Not simply dismissing the art, just seperating it from the hobby itself. I think it's safe to say that only D&D fans discuss D&D art, unlike some of the masterpieces associated with Religion.<BR/><BR/><I>this entire conversation was sparked by questioning the style of art that would best serve simulacra products, which is another matter entirely, though certainly wrapped up in questions of art.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, a topic which I didn't want to address, but got me started on the topic of art. <BR/><BR/>Seems we might be agreeing here now! I think.Sham aka Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329116400656617173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-2167970412515859672008-06-27T22:42:00.000-04:002008-06-27T22:42:00.000-04:00I'll keep my inner art-critic locked up and instea...<I>I'll keep my inner art-critic locked up and instead praise the pieces I enjoy in the future. I wasn't so much trying to compare D&D art versions, in my opinion, we should be looking at the artists themselves, rather than the material to which these pieces are attached.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think you need to go that far. Heck, I've been brutal at times myself, especially on that orc piece and even to Wayne Reynolds, whose work I typically enjoy. I prefer to have a framework from which to critique an individual piece, but I've also never had any formal training in that area. So I wouldn't let my hangups or the general nerd rage dissuade you if you enjoy doing that sort of thing.<BR/><BR/>As for spilling digital ink on the subject, well, you could also say that Bernini's "The Ecstasy of St. Teresa" is just window-dressing for Roman Catholicism, but that doesn't in any way devalue its artistic merit. Neither Elmore nor Reynolds are Bernini, but what they produce is still art, and thus worthy of contemplation, I think, whether we choose to discuss it in terms of the rules they package or on raw artistic merits.<BR/><BR/><I>That said</I>, this entire conversation was sparked by questioning the style of art that would best serve simulacra products, which is another matter entirely, though certainly wrapped up in questions of art. Again, I have no formal training to fall back on when considering such questions, so when somebody who does speaks on the matter, I'm always curious to hear what they have to say.<BR/><BR/>- Briantrollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-35722662521465982962008-06-27T21:56:00.000-04:002008-06-27T21:56:00.000-04:00Yeah, which is why I far prefer to talk about what...<I>Yeah, which is why I far prefer to talk about what the art is attempting to achieve, and what the publisher is attempting to communicate with their choices in art.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a fair comment. I'll keep my inner art-critic locked up and instead praise the pieces I enjoy in the future. I wasn't so much trying to compare D&D art versions, in my opinion, we should be looking at the artists themselves, rather than the material to which these pieces are attached. I think so many of us get caught up in the nostalgic value of a piece simply because it has been linked forever with a version or module we loved back in the day. I have my preferences in style and feel...but I'm also aware that others might have a different preference.<BR/><BR/>The funny thing about this article, I figured I'd stay away from the genre thing, as it's akin to edition wars, and just try to play art critic. Again, I can't believe I am debating D&D illustrations. It's window dressing and doesn't change the rules. The 1e DMG by Gygax could've been drawn with stick-figure illustration, and it would still be a classic.Sham aka Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329116400656617173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-86242789734223646432008-06-27T18:01:00.000-04:002008-06-27T18:01:00.000-04:00Thanks for the comments, Brian. As someone who's a...<I>Thanks for the comments, Brian. As someone who's atudied art, I knew going in, and tried to point it out in this article, that it's all about personal taste. I KNOW my tastes in art and music aren't shared by everyone.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, which is why I far prefer to talk about what the art is attempting to achieve, and what the publisher is attempting to communicate with their choices in art. As an example, I think Mr. Maliszewski would be better off using the art that inspired Gygax, Arneson, etc, rather than knock-offs of, or even reproductions of, the art in the original books, because that's what he's trying to get back to. The art of the pulps and comics and fantasy movies that helped shape D&D should be his inspiration, since what he's trying to do is recreate D&D in a fashion that better reflects those sensibilities. Whether or not I, or anyone else, really likes it is beside the point.<BR/><BR/>What might be most useful is an analysis of the art that actually appears in the books. What does that earliest art attempt, what does it achieve, and what does it say about the folks who created these games? Once you've wrestled that monster to the ground, you can then step back and find other art, in other styles and media, that shares those goals.<BR/><BR/>- Briantrollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-63753753539523413102008-06-27T17:36:00.000-04:002008-06-27T17:36:00.000-04:00Thanks for the comments, Brian. As someone who's a...Thanks for the comments, Brian. As someone who's atudied art, I knew going in, and tried to point it out in this article, that it's all about personal taste. I KNOW my tastes in art and music aren't shared by everyone.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that when I was comparing D&D art periods, as I mentioned in the post, I was speaking in 1e AD&D terms. There's no denying that much of that old stuff was lacking in professionalism, whether you are comparing it to 2e AD&D, or later.<BR/><BR/>And yes, as you can tell from my own Punk, Proto-Punk, Post-Punk, and Ska/Reggae/Dub preferences, as well as OD&D for crying out loud, I like things a little less 'produced', raw, visceral and rough around the edges. My art preferences are no different, really. This even extends to my preference in pulp fiction, as opposed to overwrought high fantasy epic novels.<BR/><BR/>As always, YMMV!Sham aka Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329116400656617173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-84469288855425052612008-06-27T16:45:00.000-04:002008-06-27T16:45:00.000-04:00It always does.Ok, yeah, if your definition of "pr...It always does.<BR/><BR/>Ok, yeah, if your definition of "professional" means "fairly boring and safe", then yeah, you're probably right. I'd always defined it as being clean with a high degree of exactitude in the details, especially the anatomical ones, such that, if characters are disproportioned, they are so in a way that is commercially appealing. Thus, when I say "professional", I include Elmore, Alan Davis, Frank Miller, Frazetta, John Picacio, and most of the folks doing art for Warhammer 40k. Not always safe, but exhibiting a high degree of technical competence, even if I don't much like the style or whatever.<BR/><BR/>Thanks as always for daring the slings and arrows of outraged nerds! ;D<BR/><BR/>- Briantrollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-32340448659689520122008-06-27T08:45:00.000-04:002008-06-27T08:45:00.000-04:00Dwayanu: That's why I devoted an entire paragraph ...Dwayanu: That's why I devoted an entire paragraph to defending the use of the term "art" in this context. You might notice it finishes with a bit about snobbery, Cab Sav and room-temp Brie? The clunkers? Those are rushed illustrations (and I think the artists who handed in their assignments like this would probably agree).<BR/><BR/>Brian: I don't prefer modern D&D art, but from what I've seen it certainly appears to be more professional. As I mentioned in the post, 'more professional' doesn't equate to better. For ME, more professional normally means bland, generic, and boring. It's a personal thing, though.<BR/><BR/>Eli: I haven't seen much of it yet, but I assume it's similar to 3.5, which I have. Not my cup of tea, but there are those who like that style/look more than the classic stuff.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments, guys. I assumed spouting off with opinions about art might ruffle some feathers.Sham aka Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329116400656617173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-75198539358504306422008-06-27T02:49:00.000-04:002008-06-27T02:49:00.000-04:00I leafed through the 4th edition books and I thoug...I leafed through the 4th edition books and I thought the art was mostly pretty terrible. Lots of chainmail bikinis (even on the bugbears - apparentley the female of every female species needed to be illustrated) but the bikinis couldn't be too small. The whole thing looked like art designed by a commitee and didn't really work. <BR/><BR/>-EliAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-88287946623967079732008-06-26T20:02:00.000-04:002008-06-26T20:02:00.000-04:00There's a lot of clunk, yeah, scattered throughout...There's a lot of clunk, yeah, scattered throughout the history of D&D. In fact, I'd propose that one of the enduring mysteries of D&D is why there's so much clunk when clearly top-notch artists are out there, ready to sling ink and paint and pixels for cold, hard cash.<BR/><BR/>Which is why I'll take exception to your comment about the more recent stuff looking more "professional". There is a more professional vibe all across the board compared to the 1e core books, certainly. But even 4e has some <A HREF="http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2008/05/orcs-in-4rt.html" REL="nofollow">shocking clunkers</A> in it that really look like they were dashed out by someone who lacked the skill or the desire to create something evocative. In fact, I'll even go out on a limb to say that the apex of professionalism in the core books of D&D probably peaked with 2e. <BR/><BR/>That aside, I'm curious as to your opinions on the direction the simulacra creators should take with their art. Should they strive for pieces that mimic the art of the original editions? Use art that evokes those older pieces without necessarily adhering to the style and principles of those works? Or go for something completely new?<BR/><BR/>I realize for you it's primarily an academic exercise, since you're less interested in old vs. new than you are in fun, but that just makes me more curious, honestly. When you pick up an "old school" product, how important is that old school look and feel for you?<BR/><BR/>- Briantrollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621016516937695074.post-26056982473418499592008-06-26T19:47:00.000-04:002008-06-26T19:47:00.000-04:00The snobbery against illustration -- repeated refe...The snobbery against illustration -- repeated references to it as non-art -- yanked my chain a bit.<BR/><BR/>A friend of mine ran up against that when she chose to illustrate Dunsany's "The King of Elfland's Daughter" for her art-degree thesis.<BR/><BR/>I really don't see how that makes sense. It certainly is not applied to the great masters of former eras!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com