Why is 2e's art so superior?

it had spirit

>>52149949
Scenes over character studies.

File: i need to axe you a question.png (1MB, 804x529px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 804x529px

>>52149949
A lot of it frankly seems boring to me. I prefer something a bit more stylistic.

>>52149949
Use of color.

>>52149949
The marketing dept. did not have its hands in it,So Character stuff can be used in books, comics, and shows. Also and this well get snowflakes going ,,, No BS PC rules

File: 1423638882229.jpg (442KB, 713x875px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 713x875px

Some of the newer stuff is not bad

>>52149949
Deeply rooted into Sword & Sorcery, with the kind of cheesiness one can come to expect from it.

D&D lost its root, D&D's art lost its direction.

>>52151266
So post some of this non-bad stuff instead.

>>52151459
>>52151266
>Badass wizard wizarding shit up
>Good comp, appropriate use of color, nothing inherently off about the scene or anatomy
>"It's shit"
>>52149949
>Mr. Skellington's sword hung to the wrong side, no easy way for him to draw it
>Anachronistic use of helmet wings
>Skellington's tunic doesn't fill out the tunic, but it does appear he's been keeping to thigh day during his workout regiment
>"That's great!"

>>52152067
One is painted with actual skill. The other is just an American comic cover with paint instead of ink.

>>52152067
>nothing inherently off about the scene or anatomy
That's not true. The wizard's eyes look awful, and the flying guy is more twisted than a Rob Liefeld drawing. Worst of all, look at the flying guy's right arm.

>>52152087
Sorry, what? You do realize the Easley was a Dragon/Dungeon cover, right? They're all working on the same timeline (@ 3 months). The probably took the same amount of time to make. Easley's just took longer to dry.

>>52152124
Flyingdude gets a pass from me; the spell's snapping him in half. Don't see what you're talking about with the eyes? He's leaned a bit forward and still looking at the target.

>>52152132
Do you not understand how drawing/painting works?

The shit you talked about is completely irrelevant here.
You can see the clumps of paint in Easley's painting. He's no J. M. W. Turner, but you can see his control over the paint. This creates a pleasant and rich vibrantly coloured image.

The other image just looks like someone did a painting-by-the-numbers trick on an decent if a bit awkwardly drawn cartoony fantasy drawing.

>>52149949
>>52149986
>>52151266
>>52151252
>>52151282
>>52151459
>>52152067
>>52152087
>>52152124
>getting angry over which art style is the best
>not appreciating them all because it's d&d

>>52152169
Also, the lighting is all fucked. It's like the room is lit with standard tube light off screen.

Nothing in the painting shows that the scene is lit by magical fire coming from the wizard's spell.

If you look at Easley's painting, you'll see that all the light comes from either the torch or the moon hanging in the sky.

Light and shadow are so very important in drawing and painting.
You can have mediocre painting skills, but if you can put down some decent shadow and lighting, you are AUTOMATICALLY better than someone with some better basic painting skills, or a better grasp of anatomy. Because lighting is the basis of a good painting, next to composition and actual application of paint on the medium of course.

>>52152194
>Muh lighting
>Lighting is the basis of a good SCENE, foo. They're both good; if you pallete swapped the wizard scene to nothing but reds, 1) it would look muddy, and 2) it would look BORING. "Correct" lighting does not automatically make something good to look at!

>>52152067
A little note though, the skellington's scabbard is fine, you can draw a sword just fine from the same hip.

Matt Easton (I think) did a video on it, drawing actual swords from the hip and comparing them.

>>52152235
You're retarded. The only way the scene you described would look muddy is if you'd mix your paints wrong.

File: 1454110374614.jpg (631KB, 1880x2480px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 1880x2480px

Wizard painting is shit. OP's is better. End of discussion.

>>52149949
Better question: Why don't you faggots TAGE THESE IMAGE ACCORDINGLY ON BOORUS?

FOR FUCKS SAKES, HOW IS IT KOBOLDS GENERATED AN ENTIRE SUBSECTION OF THEIR OWN PORNOGRAPHY, BUT YOU USELESS TWITS HAVN'T ENFORCED D&d DRAGON ISSUED TAGS?

HOW?

>>52149949
>Why is 2e's art so superior?
They were making money hand over fist, so they could afford to hire the best artists.

>>52152170
>I don't need taste, I have brand loyalty!

marketing plz go

File: 1436978030730.png (73KB, 242x364px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 242x364px

>>52153541

>Someone disagrees with me
>Must be a shill

>>52153485
Also this was the 70's and 80's, at the height of the fantasy art boom, so the best artists were actually willing to paint not!barrow-wights scaring not!hobbits.

Not so today.

>>52153616
>literally says that content doesn't matter, only the name on the cover
>not a shill or at best blind fanboy

Pick one

>>52152124
those little tootsies too lol

>>52149949
Not superior to 1E, but certainly better than later editions.

Better use of colour, light/shadows and a more classical painterly composition style.