Regarding ART in DS thread

[Ermanaric]

Every once in a while, I want big happy clouds.

[Mythmere]

Axe. You have GOT to learn how to use the "quote" button or it will drive me insane.

[Flambeaux]

Axe. You have GOT to learn how to use the "quote" button or it will drive me insane.

ROFLOL!

[TRP]

Axe. You have GOT to learn how to use the "quote" button or it will drive me insane.

Really, Axe, if Mythmere can do it ...

[MojoBob]

I think the variation you see in art within the three core books was by design (not the result of misshap or amature hour), and that it was a professional decision to emphasise creativity and individualism (hallmarks of the game) and the point in playing.

I'm curious to know if you have any actual evidence for this, or if it's just your own gut feeling -- because my own gut feeling is exactly the opposite; that the variety of art styles in the 1e core books was purely a matter of neccessity, TSR not (then) having the financial resources to maintain a single corporate style.

My own preference is for the mish-mash of various artists, even though some of them I thought were amateurish at best -- they were made up for by those I loved, like DAT and Nicholls.

[James Maliszewski]

I'm curious to know if you have any actual evidence for this, or if it's just your own gut feeling -- because my own gut feeling is exactly the opposite; that the variety of art styles in the 1e core books was purely a matter of neccessity, TSR not (then) having the financial resources to maintain a single corporate style.

I don't think anyone knows. It's a commonplace among those of us who like old school games to attribute a deliberate plan to much of what TSR did in the early days because we happen to like the results. That's not to say that there weren't, on occasion, deliberate plans and even well conceived ones, but my reading of the early history of the hobby -- and of TSR in particular -- was that things were happening so fast that there simply wasn't time to do anything except react and react quickly with whatever resources were at hand.

That TSR nevertheless managed to produce so many superb products between 1977 and 1983 (with the first few years being the cream of the crop by far) is hard to question. I do think it's open to some debate as to how much of what happened was the result of artifice and how much of it was sheer luck. My money's on luck playing a far bigger role than is generally believed in old school circles.

[Chgowiz]

I do think it's open to some debate as to how much of what happened was the result of artifice and how much of it was sheer luck. My money's on luck playing a far bigger role than is generally believed in old school circles.

I've wondered about this about a lot of things. I think there is a lot of history that is full of the first ideas going really well, and the follow-up is not so successful - novelists, one hit wonder musicians, etc.

I wonder if that initial burst of creativity that shone during the early years was a reflection of how cool things were, how much fun everyone had, where everything seems to *click* because everyone is in the groove; when the reality and the drudgery set it, the magic was gone. We've seen that in music bands far too often - would the creative energy and synergy needed for something like early TSR be any different?

[AxeMental]

I think the variation you see in art within the three core books was by design (not the result of misshap or amature hour), and that it was a professional decision to emphasise creativity and individualism (hallmarks of the game) and the point in playing.

I'm curious to know if you have any actual evidence for this, or if it's just your own gut feeling -- because my own gut feeling is exactly the opposite; that the variety of art styles in the 1e core books was purely a matter of neccessity, TSR not (then) having the financial resources to maintain a single corporate style.

My own preference is for the mish-mash of various artists, even though some of them I thought were amateurish at best -- they were made up for by those I loved, like DAT and Nicholls.

My only evidence would be that TSR had money enough to change the cover art (and interior) if they needed to (ie. if people complained and it was hurting sales). Espl. after the games popularity exploded (and profits roled in). And it wasn't like there was alot of pressure on the company to put out new products (they didn't put out that much in the beginning, but was released was gold). The idea that Gygax couldn't have used other artists capable of creating realism seems highly unrealistic. I think thats logical.

Anyhow, back in the early 80s everyone loved the DMG cover and the interior art (it wasn't until late 1E and 2E that you'd hear complaints of "lack of detail" etc.

As for "why did early TSR do it that way and no one else did?" I suspect Gary Gygax was at the helm, he was'nt a trained"professonal" in the editing business, so he wasn't trapped by any preconcieved notions of "this is the way it has to be done" (so in that since a game by a gamer for gamers, but also a smart business decision). I suspect he told the Blooms, "I get to pick the way the books are presented, you supply the money". At first glance I remember thinking some of the artwork in the interior was too cartoony or commical. But, it did make me laugh. And it did set the mood (not to take the game too seriously, and to have fun). Art was a critical part of teaching the game (almost as much as the writing) and kept the gamer on the right track.

Q: "That TSR nevertheless managed to produce so many superb products between 1977 and 1983 (with the first few years being the cream of the crop by far) is hard to question. I do think it's open to some debate as to how much of what happened was the result of artifice and how much of it was sheer luck. My money's on luck playing a far bigger role than is generally believed in old school circles.

I think its probable a bit of both. It just so happened the "most" appropriate style and look was what Gary selected from the get go (If the art or layout was found to be weak (from feedback with the customers) it would have been changed on later printings (espl. if it hurt sales). Thats SOP in the publishing world, right (even back then). The fact is that Gygax really understood his market and his game, and used art most suited. High realism (even when done properly) can end up hogging the attention, and define things too much. In an RPG you have to leave some room for the players and DMs imagination, or whats the point. Any more realism then the covers of the PH and DMG, IMO, would take away from the games appeal. The same is true for how much attention you pay to the characters depicted (focus needs to be on action and interaction with the setting, not facial expressions and individual personality). The art in 1E was instructive, the art in late 1E and 2E was not.

In any event I can't imagine: "Hey we have to print 50,000 copies of this new DMG book, and shell out a shit load of mmoney for the first offset printing run. If it looks like crap we could all loose our shirts (and homes) but hey, lets cheap out and use some lame ass artist and his childlike drawing because we can save 5K. No...freg'n way. Common sense, and logic should tell you otherwise. The art and books were popular "as is" so they let them ride.

One more thing to consider. AD&D was a different sort of game and thus needed a different sort of artwork. A combination of illustration and fine art was probably most appropriate (all straight lines, technical perfection, high realism just doesn't stimulate the imagination or create interest). For instance, would Frezzetta's artwork been better if he'd worked it up to the level of realism and technical completeness that we see in other fantasy artwork? No way.

[ThirstyStirge]

My main impression of Clyde Caldwell is that he's never seen a woman's breasts outside of a glossy magazine that comes in a brown paper wrapper. That's an impressive collection of gravity-defying ta-tas!

Technically CC is very good, but I'm not a fan of the "posey" school of fantasy/scifi stuff. And, BTW, CC is nowhere near as bad as Cleavenger: all he does is take Playboy or Penthouse centerfolds and adds cheesy metallic wings, horns, claws, tail, etc. It's the same problem with Vallejo's later work, IMHO. To each his own.

[JRT]

T. Foster--There was a bit of rapid changes during the 80-82/3 period and 83-2nd Edition that happened. I personally would just think one of two things happened. Either they could pay for a new "middle tier" before they could afford guys like Elmore, or something changed in the art department. Remember, this was also the time the Basic D&D line was rebooted a third time, and the Logo changed and the new trade dress started being used.

I don't think anyone knows. It's a commonplace among those of us who like old school games to attribute a deliberate plan to much of what TSR did in the early days because we happen to like the results. That's not to say that there weren't, on occasion, deliberate plans and even well conceived ones, but my reading of the early history of the hobby -- and of TSR in particular -- was that things were happening so fast that there simply wasn't time to do anything except react and react quickly with whatever resources were at hand.

I agree James. Personally, I think all the talk about connecting the art to the game, like they are linked, would be like trying to say a band was good because of the fashion they wore. I simply think trying to connect the art to the game is a little overthinking.

My only evidence would be that TSR had money enough to change the cover art (and interior) if they needed to (ie. if people complained and it was hurting sales). Espl. after the games popularity exploded (and profits roled in). And it wasn't like there was alot of pressure on the company to put out new products (they didn't put out that much in the beginning, but was released was gold). The idea that Gygax couldn't have used other artists capable of creating realism seems highly unrealistic. I think thats logical.

Keep in mind that you're making a lot of assumptions about the money. Maybe they wanted to spend more on artwork but they needed to allocate for other expenses. And don't assume the art market was the same today as it was in the late 70s. It could also be in the beginning they needed on staff artwork to get things done even if it wasn't the best. Maybe freelancers would have taken too much time.

Anyway, one thing people haven't discussed is that--why not ask around by people who were there? Gary's dead but people like Jim Ward, Frank Mentzer, Tim Kask, David Cook, etc., were there and saw the art transition. I'm sure they knew a lot better than any of us, right, and can answer why these decisions were made, correct?

[Ragnorakk]

I think I remember in Kask's thread @ Dragonfoot that he said early on they couldn't get as much art as they wanted, but also got a lot of unsolicited submissions and such (this primarily for the Dragon I would guess)

[AxeMental]

JRT: "I agree James. Personally, I think all the talk about connecting the art to the game, like they are linked, would be like trying to say a band was good because of the fashion they wore. I simply think trying to connect the art to the game is a little overthinking".


Huh? The stage dress of performers is part of the planned coriography and it does have an influence on consumers perception of quality, and most importantly sales (like it or not, image counts). I'm not saying that Gygax wouldn't have included better artwork if he could, what I am saying is that what you consider better probably would have resulted in 2E looking art, while what Gygax considered better would have been something more like the original covers, just more worked up ( I doubt we would have seen less moodyness or shadows, cheeky poses, idiotic snarling faces etc....the things some of you guys equate with quality.

Any offset print book thats going to be released nationally is picked over with a fine tooth comb (espl back then when quality still mattered). I can see the arguement that in the beginning they had to go with the artwork they had, but once sales figures skyrocketed, they could have replaced interior artwork if needed. The simple fact was that it was considered fine by the vast majority.

[Abacus Ape]

Hey Axe, I don't know how to use the quote button either. We should get a tutor or something.

Does anyone know if TSR eventually had a position called "art director" or something similar on the books?

I think it's cool that they had to pretty much take what they could get early on and lucked out with folks like Tramp and Otus. Both very different styles that might not have been used together if the art direction was strict. It's like going junkyard hunting and finding two all aluminum race blocks stuck in beat farm trucks.

Now I swear I am going to try and get Piotr Mullenski to put out some stuff loaded with giant smooth rubies. The smooth rubies must make a cameo somewhere....

[JRT]

Does anyone know if TSR eventually had a position called "art director" or something similar on the books?

Yes, actually. His name was David Sutherland! So Dave Sutherland himself is responsible for the change in the artwork. So basically I believe David is responsible for his own replacements.

Huh? The stage dress of performers is part of the planned coriography and it does have an influence on consumers perception of quality, and most importantly sales (like it or not, image counts). I'm not saying that Gygax wouldn't have included better artwork if he could, what I am saying is that what you consider better probably would have resulted in 2E looking art, while what Gygax considered better would have been something more like the original covers, just more worked up ( I doubt we would have seen less moodyness or shadows, cheeky poses, idiotic snarling faces etc....the things some of you guys equate with quality.

Yes, but you most bands aren't wearing fashion as costume, with the exception of bands like KISS. When oldies (or acts that continue recording today), they don't dress up in Bellbottoms, wear the 70s afros, or 80s fashion. I think the point I was trying to make is that judging the game and tying it to the art in my mind was like judging the music by what the singers/performers were wearing.

And Axe, I really wish you wouldn't keep bringing Gygax into this. I've already established direct quotes where he liked the later artists better, and he makes several comments about Sutherland on ENWorld. He obviously loved the guy, considering him a friend, and it also looks like Sutherland was a cartoonist as well. (Can't show you them because the links to the hosted site are dead). But from what you can also find out, Gary was critical of pieces of art, such as Sutherland's own pig-faced view of the orcs (as well as canine-dog Kobolds.) I've got no problem with you giving your personal opinion, but you seem to be trying to make Gary fit your own view of the game--the art you liked, Gary liked--the art you hated Gary was "forced to do". And from what I can see, that's clearly not the case. (In other words, I doubt he was very hands on with the art at the beginning, but I believe he approved of the results, especially if he says his favorite artists were the latter crew).

And just so people are clear, I never said "David Sutherland" sucks, all I said was I didn't think Dave's art would be suitable for what the marketplace expects for cover art today, that's all. I have respect for the man for everything he did. So please guys, don't think I was ever personally attacking the man.

[AxeMental]

JRT, Gygax told alot of people alot of different and often conflicting things over the years. We have multiple threads here with direct statements by EGG that completely contradict one another (hell there are threads at Enworld and DF where EGG contradicts himself on the same page) so what he said doesn't nec. hold alot of water (though we are always happy to read his qoutes, but they are rarely to never the final say).

As for my mentioning Gygax. You have to remember, Gygax was the head of 1E back then. He gave his final say on things, so he's the only person to refer to (I can't say 1E chose Sutherlands cover, I suppose I could say "team Gygax" but that sounds pretty idiotic). My impressions are based on logic and reason rather then direct knowledge, but, given EGGs history of changing positions thats all any of us can hope for.

As for my sentiments on how appropriate the artwork was in the original 1E publications, I refer to the broader history of publications (games, books, etc.). If you take a look around, you'll see not all artwork that cover these various products is highly realistic (even when those companies have huge budgets and can afford any art they desire). What is chosen is what will sell the game and result in a good experiance...period. Obviously TSR hit a home run with the PH and DMG. They did not hit a home run with the new covers because they turned off EVERYONE I know (and helped shift the direction of the game that ultimately sunk the company into oblivion).

Oh, and BTW, many bands from the 70s and 80s are still wearing their "stage dress" on stage (and its not always pretty). That dress is part of their image, and why people go see them perform and yes, even partly why they buy their music.