JRT wrote:
Like I said, I certainly didn't wish to step on anybody's toes, nor wish for established people to leave because of anything I said, but it's really hard for me to figure out how making an honest opinion about an artist equals that.
I am not 100% sure about where exactly the offence lies, but I do know that some things at
Knights & Knaves just are not really up for debate, rather they are assumed as a given and this forum is not the place to discuss their validity. That is partly because
Knights & Knaves was founded as a haven to discuss things free from having to rehash old debates that resulted in factionalism on other more inclusive websites.
One of these unwritten agreements is that the art of the original
Dungeons & Dragons manuals, as amateurish as some may feel them to be, have a weird and cool vibe that makes them better than the more professional artwork that followed, but there is also a strong sense that this raw art, apparently somewhat lacking in technical accomplishment, is in fact intentional in its style.
I am not a huge fan of the art of 70s D&D, though I have come to appreciate it more as I read opinions here, so I generally refrain from commenting about it in this context. I am just not really "tuned in" to the way others appreciate it, and would end up creating "noise" that would obscure the desired "signal".
That is not to say I never comment on art here, but I am aware that there are strong preferences in the community that individuals do not want to have to constantly explain, justify, or defend.
[i]It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one’s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.[/i]
– Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), [i]Tsurezure-Gusa[/i] (1340)