The thing I always liked about old D&D art is that the party always seemed to be in peril. They had shocked expressions, knobbly knees, the situations depicted were usually "Oh shit-" moments. Newer art always seems to have them in control and confidently facing the challenges as if they're no big deal, which does tie in to the steadily decreasing lethality of the game over the editions.
I know you don't actually care, 😜 but here is some engagement for you. Artistic analysis, as you call it, is never ever bullshit. Once a work of art (or cultural product) has left the studio or the workshop or the loving arms of its maker, it takes on a life of its own, it become an autonomous thing that can be interrogated, analyzed, vivisected, read, interpreted and/or just plain talked about ad infinitum as that is how a work of art or a cultural product continues to survive, or stays a part of the discourse in general. The artist's intentions are only ever relevant while the work is in his or her or their hands. Once freed, the artist has no more say. That's the wager we make as artists, we gamble that we have said our piece and out there somewhere someone will get it. This video is, honestly, a great one, both in keeping with your reviews and a way of broadening the discourse you engage in. So, not bullshit at all. Some of complaints you have about the 5E art (and beyond, and which I share) have a lot to do with the medium. These are digital works and digital can have an airiness and a muddiness to it - it also lends itself to being overly art directed (add this, add that, make that more yellow, etc.). I can't read most comics anymore because the digital colouring just fucks it all the way up. Some people are very good with digital art, but most people are not some people. You know. Personal memory of D&D art: My first set was the Holmes box with the dragon facing a party from atop a pile of treasure. The painting was a little cack-handed and looked like it had been executed in preschool tempra, but it was fantastic for juicing the minds of a handful of middle school boys who read a lot of books. It gave a good idea of what the game was going to deliver, and, although we used to speculate about how amazing it would be if Frazetta or Corben or Barry Windsor Smith or Steranko did the D&D cover art, the fact that it looked like something we were capable of was really to some degree the unintentional point of the piece. It told us that this was a game in which we would make our own story, make our own characters, make our own world. It was, as you said, DIY. And that certainly appealed to us because we were also young punks, drinking in the music and aesthetic (and politics) of that subculture every bit as much as we were drinking in Tolkein or Howard, or Lieber or Brackett. As box art for a game of this type, it was clunky, but perfect. Finally, sorry, man, you are dead wrong about that portrait of Charles. It is a monstrosity of sycophantic mediocrity. It is the sound of lip-smacks on a flabby ass. It is pure painted bullshit, but just exactly what you might expect from the official portrait of a preening twat like old Chuckie. It ain't no portrait of Elizabeth by Lucien Freud, but Jonathan Yeo ain't no painter like Lucien Freud.
I'm so stoked to not only never buy anything wotc ever again, but not even bother pirating these new editions. It's clear to me now that the soul of D&D died long ago, even before TSR died.
Engagement mode activate: Hey, wow, what an engaging video. Boy, I sure hope the algorithm notices how engaged I am and lets all my friends know that this is a great place to engage with other engagers. All Hail Grim "The Engager" Jim!
if what you say is even half correct - and WotC are purposely blending the ordinary with the mundane with a dash of safe and boring / Non- controversial art and bland color pallet... they will no longer be the LEADER in the RPG sphere for Gaming and Game ART anymore??!! The company reminds me of an ex- hard rock / punk rocker who got older and just started churning out safe but viable Pop hits . but their soul..... lost forever....
A thought provoking video, very well presented but a little disappointed that you didn't mention the 1978 Jeff Easly PHB cover depicting Ringlerun the Wizard as it was the first AD&D book I owned
Oh goodness, NOT Elmore on the 2nd edition PHB, but Jeff Easley, already sliding from his high of the interior piece illustrating Igglwyv's daughter in Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, but not fully into his Evil Clown phase of the black-bordered versions of the 2e books. For some reason, starting in the Orange Spine era of 1e and running pretty much entirely through 2e, Easley got the job of illustrating the covers of of the core books and a lot of the other hardbacks. Here's a crazy thing about the new cover: there *are* nods to the company's past, just not executed well. Those are supposed to be iconic characters from D&D's history on the cover, like the paladin Strongheart from the action-figure era of D&D. Only he's unrecognizable, in spite of being the front-and-center character, carrying over only (kinda-sorta) the colors of the original. They tried, but the only way you'd know they tried is if you watched in interview on UA-cam about it. :p On the one hand, it's a very bland, generic fantasy cover. On the other hand, it's selling the bland, generic fantasy RPG, the very unshocking game with tons of name recognition, bereft of the frisson of danger the Satanic Panic shaded it with. This is a completely inoffensive cover intended to not shock, not intrigue, and not dissuade, and leans entirely on name recognition to get you to pick the book up. Since name recognition is the most valuable element of the IP, that's not surprising.
@trollsmyth Good comments, was on my way here to say the same thing about Elmore v. Easley at 6:30 . No idea why they seem to have purposely made Strongheart unrecognizable. Speculation: it's either a ham-fisted attempt to Easter-eggify it to give cheap thrills to the Memberberry crowd; or they think Strongheart is too masculine and Lawful Good of a character to go front-and-center on their PHB.
Is it the "same company" though? Really? odeargods that's right, I keep forgetting we don't have a queen. It's a king now. ... I wonder if the colour choice is anything to do with his last health scare. Alright, just got as far as the beginning of the BX cover analysis. This is beautiful. Now WE'RE getting use out of YOUR communications degree.
By sheer coincidence, I was just dragging my players into this debate since last week. We play 3.5 and I was baffled by how they never did that kind of book cover again. It was so good looking, simple and immersive. The new full colorful art is distracting. There's too much going on. The picture is beautiful, but you can already fill the book with beautiful pictures. The cover should be a space to do something different. That AD&D cover with the classic fat statue and the rogue removing the ruby sort of frames the book, which works very well. But the new covers don't leave any room for edges, frames or anything. The book title almost disappears in the mess. And it seems to be a common trend. The Pathfinder 2e books are just like that as well. Funny enough, there's always a dragon on the cover, while the Dungeons & *Dragons* covers often don't.
And to add a little something: your point about corps going for "tame, safe and friendly" is all too true. It has been true for a while now for a lot of media, like movie soundtracks (think Marvel). It's trying to not be its own thing, but fall into the background of the product. It is doing its best to not be daring or extreme, so that it's no longer for just a niche audience. Well, I'll stick to my Death Metal, thank you very much.
That new cover, it's weirdly static and overblown. Is it supposed to be a composite of various themes in the game? Did the artist just get handed a checklist of things for the cover to have with directions to "do whatever"? I feel less like I'm looking at heros and monsters interacting and more like people posing for a statue or moving figureines into place.
As more and more (lazy) people yern for the ease and convenience of Eh-Aye , you're more likely to get more underwhelming and muddled pieces. This is why art made by *actual people* is important. I say this, not just as an artist but as an art lover. Jerry Seinfeld's speech at Duke University, said it so much better than I could.
You forgot the Rules Cyclopedia! I rather liked it. I am reminded of the decline of GW's art presentation. Compare the era of 3rd edition WFB, Rogue Trader and the original Realm of Chaos with modern presentation. Sure, the modern presentation is technically well executed, but its very homogenised and overproduced and its style.
It could have been made by AI, it could have been made by Digital Fantasy Artist #5667 going by the book. Doesn’t matter. As forgettable as the material inside.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The thing I always liked about old D&D art is that the party always seemed to be in peril. They had shocked expressions, knobbly knees, the situations depicted were usually "Oh shit-" moments. Newer art always seems to have them in control and confidently facing the challenges as if they're no big deal, which does tie in to the steadily decreasing lethality of the game over the editions.
Let me go back in and face the peril
@@Mr_Welch You'll go blind!
I know you don't actually care, 😜 but here is some engagement for you. Artistic analysis, as you call it, is never ever bullshit. Once a work of art (or cultural product) has left the studio or the workshop or the loving arms of its maker, it takes on a life of its own, it become an autonomous thing that can be interrogated, analyzed, vivisected, read, interpreted and/or just plain talked about ad infinitum as that is how a work of art or a cultural product continues to survive, or stays a part of the discourse in general. The artist's intentions are only ever relevant while the work is in his or her or their hands. Once freed, the artist has no more say. That's the wager we make as artists, we gamble that we have said our piece and out there somewhere someone will get it. This video is, honestly, a great one, both in keeping with your reviews and a way of broadening the discourse you engage in. So, not bullshit at all.
Some of complaints you have about the 5E art (and beyond, and which I share) have a lot to do with the medium. These are digital works and digital can have an airiness and a muddiness to it - it also lends itself to being overly art directed (add this, add that, make that more yellow, etc.). I can't read most comics anymore because the digital colouring just fucks it all the way up. Some people are very good with digital art, but most people are not some people. You know.
Personal memory of D&D art: My first set was the Holmes box with the dragon facing a party from atop a pile of treasure. The painting was a little cack-handed and looked like it had been executed in preschool tempra, but it was fantastic for juicing the minds of a handful of middle school boys who read a lot of books. It gave a good idea of what the game was going to deliver, and, although we used to speculate about how amazing it would be if Frazetta or Corben or Barry Windsor Smith or Steranko did the D&D cover art, the fact that it looked like something we were capable of was really to some degree the unintentional point of the piece. It told us that this was a game in which we would make our own story, make our own characters, make our own world. It was, as you said, DIY. And that certainly appealed to us because we were also young punks, drinking in the music and aesthetic (and politics) of that subculture every bit as much as we were drinking in Tolkein or Howard, or Lieber or Brackett. As box art for a game of this type, it was clunky, but perfect.
Finally, sorry, man, you are dead wrong about that portrait of Charles. It is a monstrosity of sycophantic mediocrity. It is the sound of lip-smacks on a flabby ass. It is pure painted bullshit, but just exactly what you might expect from the official portrait of a preening twat like old Chuckie. It ain't no portrait of Elizabeth by Lucien Freud, but Jonathan Yeo ain't no painter like Lucien Freud.
0:35 King Charles is Vigo the Carpathian.
I'm so stoked to not only never buy anything wotc ever again, but not even bother pirating these new editions. It's clear to me now that the soul of D&D died long ago, even before TSR died.
Engagement mode activate: Hey, wow, what an engaging video. Boy, I sure hope the algorithm notices how engaged I am and lets all my friends know that this is a great place to engage with other engagers. All Hail Grim "The Engager" Jim!
'Pastel and mush'. It doesn't just describe the art, but the writing and the attitude of 5e.
Oh a new Grim Jim video, yay!! Keep'em coming
A very thoughtful discussion of the various covers. Thank you!
My pleasure!
if what you say is even half correct - and WotC are purposely blending the ordinary with the mundane with a dash of safe and boring / Non- controversial art and bland color pallet... they will no longer be the LEADER in the RPG sphere for Gaming and Game ART anymore??!! The company reminds me of an ex- hard rock / punk rocker who got older and just started churning out safe but viable Pop hits . but their soul..... lost forever....
A thought provoking video, very well presented but a little disappointed that you didn't mention the 1978 Jeff Easly PHB cover depicting Ringlerun the Wizard as it was the first AD&D book I owned
You can easily explain the sight lines in the art. Off screen blink dog
Oh goodness, NOT Elmore on the 2nd edition PHB, but Jeff Easley, already sliding from his high of the interior piece illustrating Igglwyv's daughter in Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, but not fully into his Evil Clown phase of the black-bordered versions of the 2e books. For some reason, starting in the Orange Spine era of 1e and running pretty much entirely through 2e, Easley got the job of illustrating the covers of of the core books and a lot of the other hardbacks.
Here's a crazy thing about the new cover: there *are* nods to the company's past, just not executed well. Those are supposed to be iconic characters from D&D's history on the cover, like the paladin Strongheart from the action-figure era of D&D. Only he's unrecognizable, in spite of being the front-and-center character, carrying over only (kinda-sorta) the colors of the original. They tried, but the only way you'd know they tried is if you watched in interview on UA-cam about it. :p
On the one hand, it's a very bland, generic fantasy cover. On the other hand, it's selling the bland, generic fantasy RPG, the very unshocking game with tons of name recognition, bereft of the frisson of danger the Satanic Panic shaded it with. This is a completely inoffensive cover intended to not shock, not intrigue, and not dissuade, and leans entirely on name recognition to get you to pick the book up. Since name recognition is the most valuable element of the IP, that's not surprising.
@trollsmyth Good comments, was on my way here to say the same thing about Elmore v. Easley at 6:30 . No idea why they seem to have purposely made Strongheart unrecognizable. Speculation: it's either a ham-fisted attempt to Easter-eggify it to give cheap thrills to the Memberberry crowd; or they think Strongheart is too masculine and Lawful Good of a character to go front-and-center on their PHB.
Is it the "same company" though? Really?
odeargods that's right, I keep forgetting we don't have a queen. It's a king now.
... I wonder if the colour choice is anything to do with his last health scare.
Alright, just got as far as the beginning of the BX cover analysis. This is beautiful. Now WE'RE getting use out of YOUR communications degree.
My biggest problem with this cover is the weird anatomy of the golden dragon...
By sheer coincidence, I was just dragging my players into this debate since last week. We play 3.5 and I was baffled by how they never did that kind of book cover again. It was so good looking, simple and immersive. The new full colorful art is distracting. There's too much going on. The picture is beautiful, but you can already fill the book with beautiful pictures. The cover should be a space to do something different. That AD&D cover with the classic fat statue and the rogue removing the ruby sort of frames the book, which works very well. But the new covers don't leave any room for edges, frames or anything. The book title almost disappears in the mess. And it seems to be a common trend. The Pathfinder 2e books are just like that as well. Funny enough, there's always a dragon on the cover, while the Dungeons & *Dragons* covers often don't.
And to add a little something: your point about corps going for "tame, safe and friendly" is all too true. It has been true for a while now for a lot of media, like movie soundtracks (think Marvel). It's trying to not be its own thing, but fall into the background of the product. It is doing its best to not be daring or extreme, so that it's no longer for just a niche audience. Well, I'll stick to my Death Metal, thank you very much.
3:27 It was Iron Maiden, but yea.
There are 2 dragons in that picture
On the subject of covers, I did get a laugh out of the cover for Advanced Lovers and Lesbians. I won't buy it, but it did make me chuckle.
Engagement comment achieved.
That new cover, it's weirdly static and overblown. Is it supposed to be a composite of various themes in the game? Did the artist just get handed a checklist of things for the cover to have with directions to "do whatever"?
I feel less like I'm looking at heros and monsters interacting and more like people posing for a statue or moving figureines into place.
As more and more (lazy) people yern for the ease and convenience of Eh-Aye , you're more likely to get more underwhelming and muddled pieces.
This is why art made by *actual people* is important.
I say this, not just as an artist but as an art lover.
Jerry Seinfeld's speech at Duke University, said it so much better than I could.
AI is better than what they've chosen.
@@PostmortemVideo but not much better!
You forgot the Rules Cyclopedia! I rather liked it.
I am reminded of the decline of GW's art presentation. Compare the era of 3rd edition WFB, Rogue Trader and the original Realm of Chaos with modern presentation. Sure, the modern presentation is technically well executed, but its very homogenised and overproduced and its style.
It could have been made by AI, it could have been made by Digital Fantasy Artist #5667 going by the book. Doesn’t matter. As forgettable as the material inside.
It is a boring bunch mush, you aren't wrong.
Engaging 😂
It's so bland...