Why is 80s fantasy art so completely superior to modern fantasy art?

>>54191711
Effort.
And because photoshop and digital programs had not reached their current level of sophistication.
And because Tumblr and deviant art wasn't a thing yet.

something about the shapes they use imo, nowadays art students are taught to exaggerate poses to extremes, and in some cases make it look worse than if they did something realistically. Only trouble with 80's art is it was fairly bland, which is fine, but nowadays expression has to be a part of armor...

File: 1474411009841.png (2MB, 818x1076px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 818x1076px

>>54191711
I'm going out a limb here but I don't think Diablo 2 was released in the 80s.

>>54191711
They knew what "subtlety" meant instead of just overdesigning everything.

>>54191711

Because you have a subjective preference for it

>>54191775
He's using it as an example of why modern fantasy art is shit. Just look at any of the Character Art threads.
>>54191804
Wrong.

File: fantasy_wallpaper.jpg (993KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 2560x1600px

>>54191711
hand drawn vs digital. hand drawn has subtle flaws that make it look more interesting whereas digital art has perfect brush strokes that make everything look too smooth. Honestly I like the current batch of fantasy art regardless.

>>54191844
That was probably a good picture to start with, but somebody turned the cartoonify filter on for all those black spots

File: deshamon.jpg (381KB, 1024x641px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1024x641px

>>54191892
You're right, didn't notice that.

It isn't, you just like to cherry pick images to set your assertions and because you have nostalgic love for older things and franchises, such as diablo 2 up there.

File: aom0056-57.jpg (300KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1024x684px

>>54191868
Completely boring and generic to be honest desu.
If I can sum up what I dislike about modern fantasy art in one sentence:
All of it looks like a loading screen for a Korean MMO.

>>54191961
this is gold

>>54191982

So the actual quality of the artwork is irrelevant, you're just biased against the context in which it's been used, leading you to tar it all with the same brush?

>>54192002
Welcome to /tg/

File: tyranny.jpg (267KB, 1357x813px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1357x813px

>>54191982
then you don't hate modern fantasy art. you just hate the predominant style. There are other artstyles used in modern fantasy art you know.

>>54191868
New Wallpaper...

I like both, but grit from older pieces adds to them in a pleasing way.

File: fungiworld.jpg (181KB, 2280x500px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 2280x500px

>>54191988
Look up Moebius. Great artist.
>>54192002
No. The quality is related to where it is used, hence that statement. If the art became popular in mediums/genres I love, I would still dislike it.
When you say some clothes someone is wearing look like something their grandmother would wear, is that because the actual quality and make of the style is tacky and inferior, or simply because of the context which it's been used?
Also if you actually think that is high quality art then you are incorrect.
>>54192030
Duh. When you say you hate 'Modern ___' you're saying you hate the popular style of the current time period, not every single piece of art made in the current time period.

>>54192138

So professional artwork isn't high quality purely because it doesn't fit your subjective tastes?

>>54192193
see
>>54192026

File: mexicantown.jpg (766KB, 1600x1075px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 1600x1075px

>>54192193
>implying professional artwork is good
lmao'ing at your life t b h

>>54192279

Are you applying any standards or principles beyond 'I like it' to your assessment?

Because, I hate to break it to you, but it's possible for something to be good despite it not being to your personal tastes. I know that can be a bit of a shock, so please take some time to absorb the information.

File: 1329754647516.jpg (157KB, 650x614px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 650x614px

>>54191711
Better backgrounds, better composition, better layering of brush strokes.

That's not to say that modern artists can't do it as well, but the predominant style seems to be a lazy Photoshop brushing once over with a blurry background and little detail on the main characters.

File: drow rogue.jpg (40KB, 736x556px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 736x556px

>>54191711
Eh, it's a taste thing. The 80s has a very washed out look to its colors...or else a Hell of a lot of clashing colors.

Modern art I like also tends to have a somewhat "unfinished" look that I really like.

>>54192361
See, considering this particular style, what I dislike is the sheer focus on the horse, warrior, and dragon, but the comparative - and notable - lack of detail on the background. Plus something just doesn't seem "real" about the shading.

It looks like someone did a background, then stuck in the dragon, then stuck in the knight and horse.

While there are excellent and awful examples of every artstyle, old school art always just seems kinda messy to me. It's a lot harder to read what's actually happening and the focus is often ambiguous. Modern art is cleaner, easier to understand at a glance.

File: spellfire.jpg (2MB, 943x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 943x1200px

>>54192396
It's a very classical stylistic composition in the form of a triangle that focuses the viewer's gaze on the central conflict. The geometry is superb.

DESU I don't think there's less quality art being made now then before, it's just the barrier to make art has got lower so thus the market for making it has been swamped with a bunch of lower quality artists thus you're naturally going to see a lot more of that easily made art.

Hell, you'll probably see more of that higher quality art just because it's easier to find art in general with the internet then before.

>>54191711
It isn't you just need to take your faux-nostalgia glasses off

File: a2.jpg (165KB, 630x824px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 630x824px

>>54192311
Yes. The inspiration behind it, the creativity of it, the uniqueness.
>>54191868
This picture is well-made, there's no actual anatomic or other mistakes that I see, the coloring is fine and so on, but it's completely and totally boring. It could be made by any one of a thousand different artists, in just about any fantasy world. There is no soul. You take one look at it and I can be pretty damn sure whoever made it only did so because he was being paid to.

Most professional art is empty trash, even if it is made well. Good work does not mean good art.

>>54192480

So basically pure subjectivity. Got it.

File: 6525-hr.jpg (264KB, 745x1040px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 745x1040px

>>54192420
Sure, but the coloring and shading is both jarring and clashing, in the case of the dragon pic I was talking about.

Your dracolich piece is better, but...I dunno, just something is "off" about it. I think that there's just a little too much effort on making things look as photo-realistic as possible despite it being hand-drawn.

Mind, I have a similar problem with some modern art. I dislike, say, the modern artistic styles of Magic: the Gathering's recent sets, like Amonkhet. Conversely I love the earlier magic stuff, particularly, say, Portal: Second Age.

>>54191711
You spout the same nonsense as the grognards who proclaim "Why was 60s music so much better than today's?" Most of it wasn't. Most of it was crap. Most art from the 80s was crap too. You're just remembering a few pieces that have stood the test of time.

>>54192480

>generic high fantasy sword & sorcery type cover art that could be used for any oldschool fantasy novel or modern fantasy video game with a generic protagonist muscle-warrior and his sexy bimbo princess
>obviously has more soul and is less boring than an extremely focused piece about a dragon and little girl, framed to show the immensity of this gentle giant by the small girl, riddled with tiny details like the dragon's scars and the little girls kite (how she found the dragon? does she want to fly like a dragon?), etc.

Yeah, nah, fuck off cunt.

>>54192480
>its content of subjective value such as dragons is booooring so its bad
lol

>>54192516
The coloring looks good in everything except the wings, which admittedly seem out of place with their black-purple shadows. The green of the dragon complements and balances the green of the ground.

I think some people may find it jarring because the artist intentionally allows some elements to break the frame of the painting.

>>54192489
Is a painting of a brick lying on a flat surface, drawn with perfect detail and anatomical accuracy, good art?

If you answer yes, please shoot yourself.

>>54192480

Well not quite. Good art sparks something in the viewer, in your image one person (you) might think it's boring and uninspired, but another sees the creatures and asks, why are they dead?, what kind of creatures are they?, whats with the moons?, and so on. Another person would think this image is totally sexist and disgusting. In art eveyone has an opinion.

>>54191868
The composition, coloring and theme are great but the finish is poor, with many parts of the piece looking smudged and blurry.

>>54192550
>with a generic protagonist muscle-warrior and his sexy bimbo princess

Hey, now. Different Anon here. This anon, actually, >>54192516. Now I may not care much for '80s art, but I fucking well know John Carter of Mars when I see him.

You're looking at the granddaddy of space opera, boy, and the codifier of a lot of what we now call fantasy and space opera. Show some damn respect.

>>54191711

Because censorship is the enemy of art.

The two women shown in that picture would be considered these days highly problematic; too sexy, too much skin shown, too passive in their role. Whether or not an artist agrees with that, it will always be in his or her mind. Fantasy art, indeed art in general, can be easily poisoned by politics intruding into it; it's why official propaganda art is rarely, if ever, actually inspiring.

File: 2ef01e0c593a5158942085168b6a5552.jpg (298KB, 1117x1497px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1117x1497px

>>54192480
Most of this is generic and trite, but for a different time. That isn't, because it's painted by a legendary master and based on subject matter that so far hasn't really been riffed on that much.

I won't argue that most modern art isn't unoriginal, because that's also not true. But in any given era, most art is gonna be derivative and bland. That's just the way it is.

>>54192555
No, the breaking the frame thing is fine. It's the coloring, specifically.

File: Door of Night.jpg (371KB, 1464x939px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1464x939px

>>54192583
Well said.

>>54192550
>He doesn't like Frank Frazetta or John Carter
You are literally not worthy of the gift of eyesight.

>>54192601
That was intentional bait, I'm sure of it. Don't respond.

You could argue that 80s stuff looked better than 90s and 00s stuff but all of it looks like shit compared to actual modern stuff.

>>54192561

It could be. It depends on the context and the execution.

File: adrian-smith-artbook-cover-colour-stage2.jpg (282KB, 1200x858px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1200x858px

>>54192583
I seriously fail to see how changing politics has anything to do with the degradation of style and technique.

>>54192583

...You realise art of sexy ladies is still ridiculously popular in basically all media, right? It hasn't gone away, not at all.

>>54192627
>>54192621
>>54192614
>>54192596
Post art that isn't from famous masters. Find me the average Joe artists who no one remembers, and then you can argue the prevailing artistic climate of the time.

One good thing about 80s art is all the girls in combat leotards.

File: 1496477885179.jpg (122KB, 457x459px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 457x459px

>>54191711
Because you're a retard who doesn't know the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact. kys

File: (siren blaring).jpg (74KB, 1200x673px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1200x673px

>>54192601

I never said I didn't like the art. I also think that it's >>54192480 a cool artstyle.

But anyone who claims it somehow has 'more soul' then that dragon picture is a huge faggot. It's as generic as it gets, even if generic isn't bad. Every artist from now to the time of the fucking egyptians 'drew things for money', the people of the 80s didn't draw things for high art and soul but modern artists are all soulless tumblerinas I'm sure you'd like to argue. You're no different then any kiddie on facebook who talks about how he was born in the "wrong generation" and how modern music "just isn't as good as that older stuff" whilst comparing the classics that have stood the test of time to modern day pop shit. Fuck off.

File: ninja1.png (1MB, 810x1076px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 810x1076px

nothing says 80s like ninjas

File: 1492898617140.jpg (2MB, 1181x1671px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1181x1671px

>>54192676
This is not good. There is a lot of good classic fantasy art in this thread. This is not one of them.

>>54191711
because now it's a viable career option. When you're a weird loser painting dragons in your mom's basement you have choice but to do that as damn well as you possibly can. If you've got an actual career options then suddenly your flexibility not your dedication becomes paramount. It's the same reason athletes all come from poor bumblefuck towns subpar schools and zero other career options, because having nothing else to distract them is how they afford all the time to give to one thing and one thing only. It's not willpower so much as it is circumstance.

>>54192662
Art isn't subjective.

File: ninja2.png (1MB, 830x1076px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 830x1076px

>>54192676
ninja giants were particularly fearsome enemies

File: ninja3.png (1MB, 837x1076px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 837x1076px

>>54192710

>>54192709

Then provide an objective definition for artistic quality which has no relationship with your subjective preferences.

File: ninja4.png (2MB, 813x1075px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 813x1075px

>>54192723
believe it or not, this also came from "the complete ninja handbook", though i have no idea what it has to do with ninjas.

>>54192734
Anatomic Accuracy, High Detail, and Stylistic Uniqueness.

File: aHaZx3f.png (20KB, 537x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 537x200px

>>54192709
Wow, and I thought Pic was the most wrong post ever on 4chan.

>>54192757

The latter is entirely subjective, the former two only have subjective value and exclude a vast amount of art that has value to a significant number of people. That does not work as a definition at all.

Old artists had backgrounds in fine art instead of game art. Most of them didn't stay cooped up in their homes or offices but knew what hiking was, or just spent time outside.

They had more things to ground them

File: T05010_10.jpg (375KB, 1262x1536px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1262x1536px

>>54192757
>Anatomic Accuracy

So this isn't art, then?

>>54192786
Nope.

File: pablo-picasso-9440021-1-402.jpg (249KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1200x1200px

>>54192801

>>54191711
>barb charged in and got wrecked
>necro helpless without corpses
>Sorc and Amazon helpless in the back w/o mana
>paladin swag striding in to save the fucking day and get no credit because lol Aura class

Yep checks out

File: 1498857931619.jpg (188KB, 782x1021px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 782x1021px

There is good modern art.

>>54192781
Unique: being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else. That is quite literally an objective measurement of something.
The popularity of something doesn't determine it's quality.
>>54192819
Yeah I know. He was a hack.

>>54192709
This might be /tg/s 'fun is a buzzword' moment.

>>54192786

I wouldn't call it art. It looks grotesque and resembles nothing. It invokes nothing but a sense of bewilderment as to what the fuck I am looking at.

This isn't art.

>>54192847
Oh I get it. You're too dumb to understand so you rule it out.

>>54192840

Nope. It's still subjective, because what you consider unique might be considered banal and samey by someone else. The only way that definition could work, aside from all the other ways it doesn't, was if there was a universal consensus on uniqueness, which there very much is not.

File: Starry-Night.jpg (104KB, 750x598px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 750x598px

>>54192847 >>54192840
Huh. Well, better call all those museums and art collectors and tell them they've wasted millions of dollars that could have been spent on, I dunno, Van Gogh instead.

>>54192879
Not enough anatomical correctness or high enough detail.

>>54192830
Don't forget how no one bothered to bring an assassin or druid

>>54192864
There's nothing to understand. It's just a very badly drawn woman.
>>54192865
>because multiple people have differing opinions, no opinion is correct
Transformers Movies are good and 1+1=3 then?
>>54192879
Yeah, that's trash too.

>>54192936

Then please, provide an objective basis for uniqueness which cannot be argued with. It'd be a start to justifying your bizarre-

>Shitting on Van Gogh

Ohh, you're a troll. Well, kudos for keeping me replying.

File: d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net.jpg (469KB, 1250x906px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1250x906px

>>54192936 >>54192895
Christ, van Gogh too? We're talking, like, billions of wasted dollars now.

File: vangoghfuckyourself.png (586KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 600x386px

>>54192957
I actually already did.
Unique: being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.
It's actually very simple.

Also Van Gogh is good sometimes. This picture actually totally passes the test. The style is unique, a good degree of detail, and the face actually looks like a human face.
But Starry Night is garbage.

>>54192311
But he's the one saying it's not good.

File: 1477820779682.jpg (181KB, 797x1177px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 797x1177px

>>54192840
> itt A rampant ape spews subjective thoughts on a subject he is passionate about but has no understanding of the significance it's practice rests in.
Learning how to draw atomically correct figures is not a difficult task, you can learn how to make the art you enjoy by simply reading the book drawing from the left side of the brain. Marvel when nobody gives a shit about your work because you have no depth beyond the basic aesthetic, lacking the creativity and patience to truly study and critique the thing you playfully pretend to care so much for.

>>54192641
>>54192650

Because some artists are unwilling to draw it. And the more talented, and therefore high profile, the artist is, the less likely they are to draw it. Both for fear of backlash and/or because they feel it's politically incorrect.

It's entirely correct that many artists still draw sexy fantasy ladies. But they're the less talented, lower profile ones. Fantasy as an entire genre, along with video games, has increasingly been seen as a "problematic" genre. That's why you see more and more CG and lower quality art for those genres; high end talented artists on average don't want to associate themselves with media seen as problematic. It's far less controversial and therefore safe to churn out the sort of modern art that chokes today's galleries; ironic, given that art is supposed to challenge orthodoxy.

>>54193007
>But Starry Night is garbage

In fact it's so garbage that it's his most well-known piece.

Quality is just popularity over time. Moby-Dick had lackluster sales when it was published and considered a disappointment after the author's previous two novels, Omoo and Typee. These days no one has ever even heard of the last two, while Moby-Dick is one of the most famous novels of all time.

>>54193001
That one's pretty good, actually. The clock looks like a melting clock, the landscape is fairly realistic for what it is, etc. It's a little bit smudgy, at worst.
>>54193043
Did you miss the Stylistic Uniqueness and Detail parts? I agree, there's plenty of anatomically correct art that's bad. These, for instance. >>54192737 >>54192723
>>54192710

>>54193072
>popularity=quality fallacy
Have fun watching the Avengers and playing Farmville.

>>54193043
Is that the Dragon and the Dark Lens?

>>54193110
>clocks have to look like clocks

Are you five? Does everything need to be spelled out to you for you to understand what it is?

>>54191711
Mostly selection bias, the 80s produced a lot of trash that we simply don't bring up because it was trash.

>>54193110

The Avengers is fucking great. One of the best action blockbusters of all time.

>>54193139
Are you suggesting a clock should be drawn as a red cube you fucking mongoloid? Literally yes, a clock has to be drawn like a clock.
>>54193156
It's a good flick, yeah.

So now that the dust has settled, what is the opinion on John Blanche, and why was he the greatest?

>>54193110
Not just popularity, popularity over time. The top-grossing movie in the US in 1979 was Kramer vs. Kramer, something unknown today.

>>54193139
So you know those people that believe every piece of art and media requires a message, even if the artist didn't intend it to have it, even if the message that they drag out of it is so convoluted and nonsensical that it barely references the original work anymore?

Ever heard of the Horseshoe theory? Welcome to the other side of that Horseshoe.

>>54193165
Tell me, do you think the artist just drew a painting of melting clocks in a wasteland? Or do you think the painting might have a different, less direct meaning?

File: imperial-boy-16.jpg (1MB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x768px

I need more good modern fantasy artists.

Preferably, stuff with a unique aesthetic instead of "generic photoshop concept art" like >>54191868.

Pic related is Imperial Boy

>>54192138
Moebius is patrician tier.

File: tumblr_oc38hvTvnu1unlm3do1_500.png (638KB, 500x710px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 500x710px

Too many people wanting to get hired on at Blizzard or to do Magic cards. We also seem to be possessed of the notion that a skeleton with a sword can't just be a skeleton with a sword anymore, it needs something else to make it "interesting." We're so overexposed to this shit that the lack of mystique and awe for whats being represented is apparent in the art.

>>54193199
Donato is good.

>>54192404
Uh...guys? Look at the skeleton. It's like, super spooky. It must be in the big guys peripherals but nah, he's just gazing off into the middle distance.

>>54193184
>>54193184
Yes, there's a meaning. If I draw a stickman sticking a dildo up a horses ass, there very well may be a meaning. It's a piece of art, not a fucking novel.

File: Elf Orphans.jpg (4MB, 3000x2299px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3000x2299px

>>54191711
It's because art from that time was imperfect, so its visual quality came largely from its stylistic aspects more than its sheer aesthetics.

This is why the best modern fantasy art you see today is the art with its own stylistic uniqueness, even though the technological constraints don't require it.

File: imperial boy elf city.jpg (579KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 1920x1080px

>>54193199
more imperial boy

>>54193181
>the Horseshoe theory
You mean the "I'm the center of my own intellectual universe so everything significantly different from me kinda blend in" bias?

>>54193260
looks like watercolor. my sister makes art in that medium. really colorful.

>>54192709
(you)

>>54193272

No? It's a pretty know factor that the extreme ends of various spectra begin to resemble one another, despite theoretically being the most opposed.

>>54193243
>>54193243
It's obviously about time and old age. A dilapidated, ruined, melting and saggy clock, amber with ancient bugs in it, a dead tree, what looks like something resembling a dead animal's skin, an egg in the far distance, lit by the sun, whereas the clocks amber tree and animal skin are in the shadows- and an empty wasteland all around. The meaning only has impact on the quality if it's good to begin with. If the artist had scribbled the same objects and landscape, but with the same meaning, it would be bad.

old fantasy art has plenty of shit but there's mainly two things that make them stand out, firstly they're rendered in a far more "solid" manner than modern art is, and secondly the designs are usually more simple and down-to-earth than the retarded wow gook anime garbage that's so common these days

>>54191711
Because it was about the artist and their inspiration and vision.


Not "Oh look, that's popular. I'll make mone look just like that to sell more."

>>54192757
>anatomic accuracy
what if you aren't drawing people
>high detail
what if it is detailed but not aescetically pleasing?
>stylistic Uniqueness
then why do genres exist at all?
objective quality of art died when photography was invented to replace it as a trade skill.

>>54192373
So, is this the swipe, or is the Paizo catgirl the swipe?

File: beksinski.jpg (161KB, 1000x1253px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1000x1253px

>>54192757
so by your definition this isn't art?

File: BerenandLuthienintheCourtofThingolandMelian-donato-1400.jpg (459KB, 1400x771px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 1400x771px

>>54193226
Neat. I like the swirly textures and very non-realistic lighting. Gives it that magical feel.

File: lifeseeker.jpg (229KB, 906x1200px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 906x1200px

>>54193359
More swirls and glowy shit

>>54193354
not him but beksinski checks off the last two very well

File: psychohistorical2b.jpg (157KB, 484x700px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 484x700px

>>54193370
This one kinda makes me wish that he painted Star Wars stuff instead of LOTR.

File: b3.png (1MB, 727x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 727x768px

>>54193323
Anatomic accuracy to whatever you're drawing then. Cats, dogs, buildings.
Uniqueness can exist within a greater genre. Not all fantasy is the same, nor all sci-fi, or their accompanying art.
>>54193354
It's anatomically correct, has great detail, and is very unique. Beskinski is great.

File: starwarsb.jpg (118KB, 800x603px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x603px

>>54193381
Oh wait, he has actually done some Star Wars art, lol. Although not with the same quantity or detail, it seems.

>>54193333
I don't know what "the swipe" means.

File: Beksinski Zdzislaw Okres Fantast21.jpg (211KB, 580x480px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 580x480px

>>54193400
>>54193354
Alright you fucks, stat me

File: beksinski.jpg (470KB, 1793x1760px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1793x1760px

>>54193400
I'm glad that you two anons can argue about art bullshit while mutually appreciating how awesome Beksinski is.

>>54193445
level 20 death cleric.

>>54193455
I kinda want to make a setting based on his artwork.

File: John blanche.jpg (348KB, 842x1200px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 842x1200px

For realises tho, what is the reigning opinion on John Blanche, the guy that did most of the old 40k art?

File: house2.jpg (92KB, 500x597px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x597px

>>54193445
Pretty good basis for an actual finished piece, but doesn't really look done yet.
>>54193465
this tbqh

>>54193490
>Pretty good basis for an actual finished piece, but doesn't really look done yet.
I think it's supposed to be in color but for some reason the photographer decided to take the picture in black and white

File: file.png (3MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1600x1200px

>>54193488
Okay but not that good. The style of costume and shit is good but it looks kinda...Smudgy? Might just be the resolution.
>>54193476
That would be interesting.

>>54193488
Legend and defined the aesthetic of the game very few artists have.

I like all his pieces with Mona Lisa in them.

File: image.jpg (100KB, 484x750px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 484x750px

>>54193509
A lot of Blanche's work is intentionally hazy and sketchy, to give it a rough and archaic look. Like it could come from a manuscript or illuminated text.

File: SOT32-33-1.jpg (5MB, 2500x1932px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2500x1932px

/tg/ likes k6bd, right?

File: wasteland.jpg (115KB, 915x960px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 915x960px

>>54193541
He's got the imagination and style of subject down, but I can't really call it good.

is this the autism thread

>>54193572
that's every thread, welcome to 4chan

File: mynigger.jpg (168KB, 1033x679px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1033x679px

>>54193566

>>54193488
Very very very good.
There's a sense of scale, an ugliness and oppression to it that defines 40k for me.

File: image.jpg (693KB, 1182x1600px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1182x1600px

>>54193568
Then you're a big silly willy.

>>54192583
I think >>54191743
is also somewhat right.
Sure those women are in a passive situation, but the whole picture tells a story, it's not just a snap shot.

The Amazon is already armend and looking at the enemy, while the sorcress is communicating with her team mate.

Also it looks like the party was seperated and the necromancer and the babarian were running ahead, only to get what's to be expected.

And the paladin just looks like he is fucking tired of his teammates, but he has a job to do.

>>54193638
Maybe good as concept art. It's not bad. It just feels unfinished. Missed potential.

Not bad though, not bad at all.

ITT: marks getting worked

>>54193225
its a desire to make fantasy "evolve" to ascend beyond what's been done

File: thomas-cole-the-course-of-empire-the-consummation.jpg (5MB, 3885x2640px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3885x2640px

>>54191711
Fuck the 80s. Fantasy art reached its peak during the Romantic Period.

File: thomas-cole-titans-goblet.jpg (645KB, 1273x1500px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 1273x1500px

>>54193729

File: 1497451805761.jpg (3MB, 4298x3165px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4298x3165px

>>54191711
>the 20th century
>"artists"

Ha

>>54193655
I was talking about OP's picture of course.

A good image tells a story or a mystery, otherwise it's just a illustration

File: God Wills It.jpg (156KB, 1024x490px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x490px

>>54193488
It looks like a surreal nightmare. It's "good" in a sense, and I appreciate it for what it is, but I don't like it.

In regards to the topic of the thread, it's subjective. Personally, something about '80s art makes my eyes hurt. No, I don't know why, but something about the colors and lighting makes me want to look away. It's... can art be "dissonant?" Because that's the word that springs to mind, but I'm not sure if it applies.

Really, though, it ultimately depends on the individual piece. Personally, I'm very fond of beautiful landscapes, but a lot of 80s art seems to favor rocky, empty backgrounds that are almost painful to look at. Likewise, I tend to prefer seeing the human form portrayed beautifully, so the 80s love of ludicrously muscled barbarians and near-naked seductive women mostly just annoys me. If you're going to depict a barbarian, I'd prefer an image of one in motion, plausibly proportioned and equipped, ideally in a forest, perhaps blurred to show motion. A barbarian with Space Marine proportions standing half naked on a barren rock just leaves me annoyed.

Pic related is the kind of thing I like, though admittedly it's not fantasy. Even the desert in the image is less barren than the 80s preference.

There are certainly still artists out there doing amazing fantasy work.

When it comes to artists actually being employed by companies that make fantasy (and scifi) games though often those companies want all their artists to work to a certain style, a style often worked out by the marketing team.

File: BFG blanche.jpg (640KB, 1250x938px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1250x938px

I can't fucking stand Blanche's sketch style, at least not when he's drawing figures.

Huge fan of his spaceships and city scapes though.

>>54193779
99% of the time, Warhammer trash makes me hate this board. But today, anon was the 1%.

File: Return of the Crusader.jpg (461KB, 1750x1724px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1750x1724px

>>54193761
I'm a retard, wrong pic, though that one's also good.

The quality itself is excellent, it tells a story, and for me, at least, it really stirs up a lot of emotions. Things that evoke that "end of an era" feeling almost always get me.

File: John_Martin_-_The_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (3MB, 3136x2023px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3136x2023px

>>54193729
true

File: 1498957928316.pdf (2MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1x1px

>>54193566
ABADDON posts here and one of it's primary inspirations is Kirkbride. Of course we like it.

Also here's the WIP RPG.

Because 80's art was made with paints and modern art is digital attempting to mimic paint. The industry is also an entirely different beast now, things move much faster and digital is the norm. Not only is digital the norm, but a lot of conceptual art isn't even technically a painting anymore, but a series of images photoshoped together.

File: EdmunbBlairLeighton.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>54193729
this t b h

>>54193243
Oh hey Innocent. I didn't know you frequented /tg/

>>54193656
You're probably the biggest faggot on this board right now.

File: DR.jpg (169KB, 1005x1200px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1005x1200px

>>54192361
That looks really odd compared to this version.

File: Ali-Baba.jpg (254KB, 778x1000px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 778x1000px

>>54194020
who
>>54194031
no u

>>54193899
aww sad Jesus needs a hug : (

>>54194086
Come on bud, I know it's you shitposting about muh art.

Just relax

File: Karl_Friedrich_Schinkel_-_Stage_set_for_Mozart's_Magic_Flute_-_WGA21001.jpg (201KB, 1204x900px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1204x900px

>>54193936
>You will never get to see the 1815 production of Mozart's The Magic Flute with Schinkel's set design.

Same reason why 80's fantasy is better than modern day fantasy.

80s
>Fantasy was still wild and unruly.
>Magic was more or less a metaphor
>People still valued traditional role models that conformed to gender roles. Men and Women looked /fit/ and physically strong, or lithe, limber, and seductive
>Artist often times had nothing to conform to, so would plunder history or fantasy novels for imagery, creating an unusual sense of realism even though the subject matter is inherently fiction
>The look of things often had weight to them. Something that looked powerful, WAS powerful

Today:
>Fantasy is pretty much worked out to a T, with very certain expectations for what is and isn't fantasy
>Magic is a pew pew laser beam, ineffectual, and/or very direct
>People are busy trying to shove traditional norms out the door, creating things that are visually unappealing or nonsensical, like fat people out on adventure
>Because fantasy is worked out, most fantasy art becomes very derivative of itself, and artists will be called out for breaking fantasy rules incredibly fast (try posting a 2 or No legged dragon and just watch the shit storm).
>Sense of weight and realism is now gone; Replaced with Pew pew lasers and Halfling/Gnome Barbarians taking out entire armies on their own for the cheap gimmick of "small thing is big strong!"

File: 1494264943670.jpg (2MB, 3224x2127px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3224x2127px

>>54194117
honestly not him desu, is it an /ic/ poster?

File: Michelangelo's_Pieta_5450_cut_out_black.jpg (932KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 1500x1500px

>>54194112
Maybe his mom will give him a hug.

>>54194157
Buddy of mine. Real traditionalist orthodox christian.

File: Valdemar_Atterdag_brandskattar_Visby_(1882).jpg (4MB, 3731x2309px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3731x2309px

>>54194180
Sounds like my kind of guy desu.

>>54194194
You into cyberpunk? We play every Tuesday and could use a fourth player.

File: Princess_Parizade_Bringing_Home_the_Singing_Tree.jpg (125KB, 459x600px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 459x600px

>>54194211
If you mean the actual game, I haven't played it, but I'd be interested for sure.

File: 1498875242364.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

People like the 80s more mostly because the shit has fallen away and all anyone has saved is the good stuff. The art now is much better, both technically and aesthetically, but since now is right now you have to wade through all the crap to get to the good stuff.

File: 1483979897741.jpg (414KB, 847x1200px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 847x1200px

>>54193488
I've always enjoyed Blanche's work.

If Adrian Smith portrayed things the way they "are", Blanche portrayed the soul of it. The style and abstraction gave weight to the concept rather than the subject itself.

He has a timeless style the likes of which one might find in the margins of an old tome in some long forgotten monastery. He does much of his work using very old techniques almost exclusively using dies common during the middle ages and only does his work by candle light.

It adds a warmth and spirit to each creation.

File: 1498808285821.jpg (401KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1920x1080px

ok thats the end of my new art dump stolen from the wallpaper board

File: Edmund_Blair_Leighton_-_In_Time_of_Peril_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (4MB, 4855x3551px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4855x3551px

>>54194462
are those supposed to be tibetans? either way it's pretty cool

>>54194454
Blanche has always just been too outsider art to me. Like, his style fit the old aesthetic very well but the scribbling, awful anatomy, and the fact that he seems incapable of drawing people at anything but head on and profile (and he cant draw feet) just kills it.

File: 0559f9a1d208845bfdf892e50bb91606--warhammer-fantasy-warhammer-k.jpg (144KB, 736x997px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 736x997px

>>54194454
I feel the same way you do. Adrian Smith and John Blanche together define all of Warhammer.

File: diterlizzi.jpg (173KB, 637x800px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 637x800px

I've always been a pretty big fan of Diterlizzi's style especially in the Planescape and M:TG stuff

>>54192583

>It's dated for 2009, indicating that it was cleaned up and released by blizzard around that time.

>There are characters in LoL, one of the most widely played games in the world, that look skimpier than any of the women in that pic.

I know SJWs are insufferable but blaming them for changes in art style is pretty silly. The 80's looked like the 80's because they were the 80's, and in 30 years a bunch of idiots are going to proclaim that art made in the 2000's was the best we've ever seen.

>>54192847
>It looks grotesque
You try looking stunning, beautiful and smiling when your home's been bombed to shit and all your friends are dead.

Because that is a portrait of a woman who lost her home in the Spanish Civil War. It is painted by a Spanish artist. When the context of the piece's creation is taken into account, does it become art?

Oh wait, it apparently doesn't. Because apparently, the intention of a piece's creator means nothing regarding any message a work might have and is irrelevant. Better get rid of moralistic stories then, they're worthless!

In conclusion, fuck off and go back to sucking Roland Barthes's author-killing cock.

>fit the old aesthetic
There you have it. That's the point.

If you add accurate anatomy and more complex poses you entirely lose it. Illuminated manuscripts had none of those things and of you add them they immediately stop looking like illuminated manuscripts.

You are entitled to your opinion but demanding accurate anatomy in stylized works is just asinine. If you are the "objectively good" art anon and you believe you can have accurate anatomy while always being entirely unique in style you are a fool. You effectively limit art to photo realism with filters.

File: file.png (3MB, 1011x1320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1011x1320px

>>54194619
Illuminated Manuscripts looked nothing like that. At all.

Ugly isn't a style.

File: file.png (1MB, 768x775px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 768x775px

>>54194656
If a monk didn't properly finish something held to a proper standard he'd get his ass whooped. They weren't a 13 year old's doodles.

>>54194602
The plebs think illustration is always art and art that cant pass as an illustration is trash

It's why they are plebs. Leave them to their minions and their transformers.

>>54194619
His style isn't a style he choses. It's a style he USES to make up for his artistic deficiencies. He's the equivalent of a dude who always draws every character like weird western anime because he literally can't do anything else even if he wanted too.

He's not CHOOSING monoposes, feet that are just blobs of scribbles, and disastrously bad foreshortening. He's just what they could afford and he worked there during an era where ugly was in vogue (seriously, grotesque was all the rage in the UK art scene in the late 80s early 90s).

>>54191711
One word, drugs.

File: Raising of the Cross.jpg (654KB, 600x802px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 600x802px

>>54194602
Not that guy, but the simple fact is that having a powerful message does not make the art itself good. It certainly adds to it - good art is made better with a good message - but it does not change the quality or lack thereof.

Consider Rembrandt's "The Raising of the Cross." It is good in and of itself. While morbid, it is artistically beautiful despite its terrible subject. Its impact is heightened by Rembrandt's depiction of -himself- overseeing the Crucifixion. In doing this, Rembrandt achieved both artistic beauty and managed to capture the spirit of the scene depicted far more than he would have by simply illustrating it.

Picasso, on the other hand, certainly captured the spirit very well, but there is little artistic beauty and it has no impact unless one knows already what he's trying to portray. Without that knowledge, Picasso's painting looks like pure nonsense, whereas Rembrandt's subject is clear even without the more subtle knowledge, which only serves to enhance and sharpen what it was already conveying.

>>54192737
You know that witch is looking at that dick and is just pissed she cant get any of it.

>>54192480
I think you just summarily articulated what I dislike about everything to do with Disney. Well done and thank you.

>>54194602
It's not grotesque because of the subject's expression or appearance, it is grotesque because of the fucking horrible drawing. What makes that art good?

If it didn't have Picasso's name on it it would be in a trashbin.

>>54194674
You mean medieval folks were actually capable of creating genuine beauty? And that the Middle Ages weren't brown and dull? Say it ain't so!

>>54193566
What is that from?

>>54194835

Grief isn't beautiful either anon. Life isn't always going to be beautiful and I don't think art is under any obligation to be beautiful either.

If all art about grief was just representational pictures of people looking sad it would be boring as fuck.

>>54194895
It can be stylized and non photo-realistic. Having a basic fucking grip on what the real world looks like is not boring, it's just the most fundamental framework from which you can do your wacky stylization.

>>54194804
>Not that guy, but the simple fact is that having a powerful message does not make the art itself good. It certainly adds to it - good art is made better with a good message - but it does not change the quality or lack thereof.

Illustrative quality and artistic quality have nothing the fuck to do with eachother. I can go outside and use my phone to make an illustration that will beat the best artist in the history of mankind. It will also probably be totally devoid of emotion, prose, or impact.

>Consider Rembrandt's "The Raising of the Cross." It is good in and of itself. While morbid, it is artistically beautiful despite its terrible subject. Its impact is heightened by Rembrandt's depiction of -himself- overseeing the Crucifixion. In doing this, Rembrandt achieved both artistic beauty and managed to capture the spirit of the scene depicted far more than he would have by simply illustrating it.

And yet it depicts something that is, by now, so ludicrously rote and boring (the crucifixion) that it has virtually no emotional or intellectual impact on the observer. "Oh, look, it's the ten thousandth image of the crucifixion I've seen in my lifetime, snore."

>Picasso, on the other hand, certainly captured the spirit very well, but there is little artistic beauty and it has no impact unless one knows already what he's trying to portray. Without that knowledge, Picasso's painting looks like pure nonsense, whereas Rembrandt's subject is clear even without the more subtle knowledge, which only serves to enhance and sharpen what it was already conveying.

Rembrandts work is great, but this is the problem with ranking artistic merit based on photorealism. It's just absolute bullshit. Where does starry nite sit on that spectrum? Or Guernica, which I think is a much better piece of art than The Raising of the Cross because it isn't an attempted photograph with TV set lighting of what literally every other artist for hundreds of years had been depicting already.

>>54194602
The message of "war sucks" doesn't make that piece of shit paint doodle any better. Too many art critics are fascinated by writing ("the deep message") when they should be fascinated with imagery. That's what turned modernist art into garbage.

File: 1017_2.jpg (1MB, 1015x1415px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1015x1415px

>>54194674
>>54194656
Entirely dependant on the monk. Many were excellent. Others had goofy proportions and/or poses.

>>54194932
And what artistic movements do you like Anon? Or is it just the ones that are photorealistic (except the giant muscle men and the huge tits) with dragons and space ships?

>>54194941
Yeah, but they were giving it their best.
Even if they kind of sucked.
They didn't half-ass it, or suck as an excuse.

>>54194941
And all the snails.

>>54194941
Thats mostly because those monks were bad and/or untrained artists. Much like a certain early GW artist.

>>54194964
Gotta kill those snails representing the germanic peoples and/or sin and/or the franks? We don't know what the snails is.

>>54194954
This is like saying a movie using intentionally shitty special effects or being made on old film/with a filter is a film maker not putting 100% effort in.

Trying to capture an ethos, and doing it successfully, is not an excuse or something one does out of laziness.

>>54192582
but outside of that context it's still generic muscly warrior.

>>54194997
If you were making a 1950s-esque movie today, would you try to emulate a shitty director or a good one from the era?

He emulates a shitty one.

>>54195009
Not really.
He has an alien-lizard pet, a gun on his side, some sort of dead lizard/orc/alien with four arms, and he's on an alien planet with two moons.

File: 51GPM1GTTWL._SY445_.jpg (49KB, 304x445px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 304x445px

>>54195016
What is grindhouse? Or, hell, something like the Lost Skeleton of Cadavra which deliberately pantomimes shitty 50s B-Movies for both humor and nostalgia. Shit man, you could even argue found footage fits under this umbrella of "shitty in an intentional and worked for way".

>>54195031
The artist didn't come up with any of that though. All of that comes from the author of the book the piece of depicting.

The artist, who I will admit is a legend and very good, chose to depict that all in probably the blandest way possible with the least definition of accentuation of the fantastical aspects.

>>54194919

When you're trying to represent something as abstract as an emotion I don't think that matters though.

>>54195056
Plebs try and argue that something has less artistic merit because of a lack of material quality based on modern conventions without understanding that the quality of art is entirely ephemeral and based on a personal interaction with the object.

I think MST3K is fucking art and it was originally made in a dudes garage and one of the puppets is a fucking gumball machine. They spend most of the running time taking over ancient shitty movies.

Art isn't 'quality' if you want a quality illustration look at a photo and if you want a quality film they do wonders with CG in Transformers flicks these days.

>>54195031
Cool.
Outside of context it's still just a muscly guy with a few adornments.

I didn't even notice anything you mentioned at first.

>>54195016
You would emulate the prevailing style and try to mimic the medium available as best as you could.

If you were specificly emulating a director it's another thing entirely but you wouldn't just pick Hitchcock or Wells and use that solely for your 50's movie.

File: 1498096335627.png (125KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 640x640px

>>54191711
>Barbarian in absolute JUST mode
>Necromancer about to be
>meanwhile, Sorceress and Amazon about to get BLACKED, after the demon
Really got my neurons firing.

>>54194922
>Illustrative quality and artistic quality have nothing the fuck to do with eachother. I can go outside and use my phone to make an illustration that will beat the best artist in the history of mankind. It will also probably be totally devoid of emotion, prose, or impact.

Neither does the Picasso painting in question. There is zero artistic quality to it - just looking at it without specifically knowing beforehand what he was attempting to depict, one's immediate reaction is, "What is this insanity?" It conveys nothing.

>And yet it depicts something that is, by now, so ludicrously rote and boring (the crucifixion) that it has virtually no emotional or intellectual impact on the observer. "Oh, look, it's the ten thousandth image of the crucifixion I've seen in my lifetime, snore."

No, that's just you being a fedora-tipper - not liking the subject matter does not affect its quality. Your arguments are weird.

>Rembrandts work is great, but this is the problem with ranking artistic merit based on photorealism. It's just absolute bullshit. Where does starry nite sit on that spectrum? Or Guernica, which I think is a much better piece of art than The Raising of the Cross because it isn't an attempted photograph with TV set lighting of what literally every other artist for hundreds of years had been depicting already.

Beauty =/= photorealism. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Rembrandt's work is beautiful because it conveys its subject matter beautifully. More stylized works can also be beautiful. Guernica, which you cite as "better art," is a nonsensical work that portrays nothing and is in no way beautiful. Greek art is highly stylized yet beautiful. Guernica is a mishmash of geometric shapes that conveys nothing except a general sense of agony. At no point in looking at it could one deduce that it's about a bombing campaign. It's nonsense.

There are plenty of great modern fantasy artists, the thing is though now it's so much easier to disseminate work, so mediocre art gets spread quite a bit, and there is also much more demand for generic art to be made these days as art direction becomes more and more restraining. 40k is a good example, artists in general are mediocre and expected to produce homogenous work without very much creative freedom at all instead of the old model of allowing artists to kind of do as they wilt.
>>54192957
Van Gogh and Picasso are meme artists, who's appeal was being bad in an unprecedented way and the idea of them being good entered the zeitgeist so people take for granted they are good. Really neither actually has anything worth considering as exceptional these days.The historical artists worth holding up as benchmarks for enduring quality rather than transitory cultural events are people like Rembrandt and Repin.
>>54193488
He isn't a great artist fundamentally but he's good enough to communicate his ideas and aesthetic which are both very strong. A diamond in the rough is a way to put it.
Not as good as Adrian Smith or Karl Kopinski in my opinion, but worth thinking about positively.
>>54195098
Art is about two things: Design and Structure. Without Design you produce generic slop. Without structure you produce incomprehensible scribbles.Both are skills and are only subjective in the same way all experience is subjective. There are laws to what perspective is correct and what anatomy is correct. There are fundamentally better designs than others and it's possible for someone to simply be wrong about what is good in the same way it's possible for someone to be wrong about what car has the best performance or what design for a machine would be be

>>54195331
What about Monet?

>>54195344
Eh, must be the Monet!

File: Ilja_Jefimowitsch_Repin_009__1_.jpg (295KB, 1280x757px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1280x757px

>>54194922
Realism isn't trying to be photoreal AT ALL which is what plebs don't understand. Take a look a piece like this.
All the faces are exaggerated, the composition is specifically engineered, the colors are warped to be more appealing. You could not recreate this with a camera without it looking like a parody.

>>54192913
this is vanilla

probably a hammerdin who can solo the whole thing even with a full party, or if he's really crazy a zealadin

>>54195344
Monet is very good, one of the better impressionists.

Van gogh is just a bad impressionist, Impressionism isn't bad.

These are good pieces of artwork:
>>54192138
>>54192361
>>54192404
>>54192420
>>54192472
>>54192480
>>54192588
>>54193354
>>54193370
>>54193400
>>54193445
>>54193455
>>54193743
>>54193835
>>54193856
>>54193878
>>54193880
>>54193899
>>54193908
>>54193936
>>54194003
>>54194086
>>54194138
>>54194157
>>54194215
>>54194226
>>54194233
>>54194486
>>54194804

the rest aren't
t. art major

>>54195414
But it isn't entirely unique therefore it isn't good art! :^)

>>54195545
It's exceptionally unique my dude, you just need a better eye.
>>54195534
Majoring in art makes your judgement on anything suspect

>>54191711
>Why is 80s art so superior?
>at least every third picture is from the 1990s at the earliest
Probably because you assume that it's from the 1980s because it's good, which is obviously going to skew those comparisons.

File: 4005-pure-gold-1.jpg (30KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 390x470px

>>54195534
>t. Art major
Well clearly you are learned individual who will be a valued member of his community and not just a do nothing parasite.

>>54195588
one step ahead of the game, i'm on welfare

>>54195567
>style is common among other contemporaries
>medium is also common
>not the only portrayal of cossaks
>unique
Sorry friend it's shit. Hack artist you have there.

>>54191711

Honestly, because tumblr wasn't a thing yet...and not in the way you're thinking. See, back then, you could show a male character who looked assertive and heroic and like a protagonist without having to make him "unconventionally attractive" or a minority or getting saved by a Stronk Female Character. Also, they showed sexy women without shame, and monsters could be more detailed because there wasn't the sense of taboo about killing an orc that infests the hobby now. Also shit's overdesigned these days.

>>54191711
Nostalgia.

>>54195653
>No time period in the past could possibly be better in any aspect than this one!

>>54191711
Because whenever you look at it heavy metal music starts playing in your head.

>>54192480

Everyone disagreeing with you is one of the humorless redditor cunts ruining /tg/. They're triggered by Dejah Thoris dressing in that picture like she does in the books (although her skin should be more reddish).

>>54195686
>there's no middle ground, everything is at the extreme ende of one scale!
>"reductio ad absurdum" is my middle name!

>>54195856
You literally said that any belief that 1980s fantasy art was superior is only due to Nostalgia, shut the fuck up.

>>54195633
>taboo about killing an orc
Either this is bait or you're fucking autismo

>>54195882
>"reductio ad absurdum" is still my middle name!
>I read too much into single-word posts and assume what the poster didn't even tried to say!
>I'm way too invested in this!

>>54195918
>reduces arguments about art quality to nostalgia
>says others are fallacious

really gets the noggin joggin

>>54195653
>implying anyone on 4chan is 28 or older

Who was the guy that did a lot of the wispy art in the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual? I think he ended up doing a bunch of Pathfinder art, and art for some gods for Forgotten Realms. I think it was also in like, water colors/gouache?

Oh boy, so many (You)s!
>>54194706
That is exactly my opinion (minus the dismissal of those who disagree with me as plebs, I think that a proper discussion is viable in this context. Art is not art without discussion, no matter how volatile or asinine such discussion may be).
>>54194804
>>54194932
>having a powerful message does not make the art itself good
Also true, but in a more indirect manner, imho. A powerful message alone is not enough to improve an image's subjective quality (and make no mistake, the beauty of a picture is subjective in every case. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" exists for a reason. And in addition, that is no reason to discount the existence of a consensus of whether an image has beauty.)
However, there is a worrying problem here -
>Picasso's painting looks like pure nonsense
>the fucking horrible drawing
These are very vague points of contention. I cannot glean any more than the most basic information from these appraisals of the quality of Picasso's crying woman. I need more specific details on WHY the painting looks horrible, nonsensical, or otherwise brings out a negative reaction in order to respond to it with any real accuracy.
>>54194932
Same argument as before, including the vague appraisal of quality. However, there is one point I completely disagree with you on:
I am fascinated with the imagery of that painting. I think the style of Cubism works well for the portrayal of an emotion written all over a human being's face - after all, Cubism is all about showing things from every angle.
And I agree that the face in the picture is indeed ugly. But I believe that adds to the meaning of the picture. When people are sad, they do, in fact, become ugly - their face scrunches up, their eyes turn red and puffy, their mouths cramp downwards like a reverse of a rictus grin - and Picasso captures all of that rather well, I feel.
FYI, I don't actually like Cubism. I just think this is a good example of it.

>>54194893
Kill 6 billion demons.

It's all the best parts of Tibetan Buddhist cosmology.

>>54195886
Orcs are simply misunderstood Noble Savages who didn't do anything wrong these days, anon, didn't you know? Your response to a brutal rape-and-pillage raid by orcs is supposed to be forbearance, tolerance, and an attempt to uplift and empower them. Why are you killing them? They didn't do anything wrong - they're just reacting to your expansionism and exploitation!

A lot of (You) farming going on in this thread.

>>54196515
Not really. This is just a very divisive issue.

>>54193260
>Imperial boy elf city
>boy

That's a girl anon

>how dare modern art look modern instead of imitating flaws of old techniques: the thread

>>54195534
>t. art major
I'll take a double cheeseburger and a large fries.

>>54197213
Bob Ross forgot to sign this one.

>>54197259
>Hi guys, just wanted to let you know how much of a pleb I am

>>54194148
this

File: BXraces.jpg (102KB, 500x612px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x612px

>>54193142
Another factor contributing to the selection bias is that the 80s predates widespread digital storage. Who knows how many terrible art pieces languish without ever having been uploaded to the net?

File: picasso-old-fisherman.jpg (161KB, 700x954px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 700x954px

>>54194919
But Picasso had quite a solid grasp on anatomy before he did Cubism.

>>54191711
Heroin and an unwillingness to coddle kids past age 12.

>>54197491
oh god, you're actually right...

>>54197491
>BXrace.jpg
Excuse me, that is not correct.

File: lemajor.jpg (146KB, 500x726px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 500x726px

I've seen moebius stuff in this thread, this thread is good

>>54191982
>>54191961
>>54192279
>>54192138

>>54192879
They've not wasted anything, because normalfags eat that shit up.
Also, I would call it art, just bad art.

File: from_Schieles_notebook.jpg (135KB, 550x393px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 550x393px

>>54194919
you can distort real life in a grotesque way to convey your message and still end up with great art.

What I feel makes modern art fail is that it doesn't commit.
Semi-realistic human bodies with anime faces, dynamic unrealistic compositions and photobashed backgrounds will never look good.
But stylized bodies with stylized backgrounds and realistic models in realistic 3d enviroments both look gorgeous.

People (most likely pushed by corporate mandates) are trying to throw Frozen, Call of Duty and Pokemon in a blender and come with something that makes more money than all three, but shit just doesn't work like that. Team Fortress and now Overwatch made much more money than their competitors because everything within the product was cohesive and looked like it belonged in the same universe.

In contrast contemporary fantasy art is a mish mash of flavors that invariably turns to shit by trying to appeal to everyone at the same time instead of adopting an aesthetic and sticking to it until that expected reliability becomes part of the product itself. Yu-Gi-Oh! may have some of the most horrid art ever but it's constant and iconic, same with Pathfinder and Wayne Reynolds art or Final Fantasy and Nomura's style. On the other hand you may mistake artwork from Magic, D&D and whatever upcoming WRPG video game is in the pipeline if it's not plastered with logos to tell you where it's meant to belong.

>>54197491
>>54197708
Ack, my bad - these are AD&D 1e, aren't they?

>>54195534
Well done, you wasted your life.

>>54197751
Yes. The half-orc and half-elf give it away.

File: AD&Dinteriorart.png (802KB, 925x1023px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 925x1023px

>>54197672
It's important to note that the vast majority of art that gets posted in these threads are the money shot pieces - usually a lavish colour cover or colour plate that would be relatively rare. These were the priciest pieces of art to commission and print.

The vast majority of art would look like this - some might say the amateurish look has a certain charm to it, but it's definitely less technically sophisticated than a lot of modern RPG book interior art.

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

1MB, 804x529px

No Erol Otus? The guy may not be the most technically proficient artist out there, but man does he have style!

>>54197802
>The vast majority of art would look like this
Unless you happen to be AD&D 2e, where pretty much every art piece is the expensive kind.

>>54191711
It really isn't. As other people have already pointed out in this thread, it is only your very subjective opinion that this art is good.

I like it, but I would not call it great.

>All these arm chair artists

Stick to rolling dice guys, you make art students look pretentious.

>>54191711
Because you were young then.

>>54192389
helmet looks like fallout power armour

>>54191743

I think less effort and more curation. The easy access to tools has just increased the amount out there and the ease of accessing it 1000x. In the 80's if you didn't sell to a magazine or a book your art just wasn't seen. Now it's literally everywhere. I probably see more fantasy art on the web in an hour than I saw in a month in the 80s.

>>54198225
This.

Personally I love all the art in the 5E D&D books.

>>54198391

You are not alone, friend.

>>54192454
yeah

>>54195534
ottizem

>>54192373
>>54192406
>>54192454
>>54192479
These.
>>54192709
Wew lad!

>>54191711
Composition is really important to figure out ahead of time with traditional media where you may spend a month to a year on one piece.

When you can put out a piece in a day to a week, all that matters is it being eyecatching.

If you look at the problems of a lot of modern fantasy art the issue is just composition. Poses, a story to tell, emotional impact, avoiding both extremes of noise and wasted space.

>>54198351
Filthy milennial here to tell you I much prefer the art of Larry Elmore to the Korean MMO loading screens that pretend to be fantasy art today.

>>54201362

I wouldn't say that poor composition is the problem. I see poor composition being a symptom rather than the problem itself.

I'd say the problem is the lower amount of work put into each higher end art piece due to modern tools making production far easier. Many artist slack off on various things. Composition happens to be one of the easier to notice.

File: Chaos shall not be denied.jpg (1003KB, 1518x2049px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 1518x2049px

Literally the picture that got me into 40k.

Its beautiful. Wish I could have a six food high mural of it.

On an unrelated note: How are my CSM in 8th? Specifically Nurglite ones.

>>54192480
>it's completely and totally boring. It could be made by any one of a thousand different artists, in just about any fantasy world. There is no soul. You take one look at it and I can be pretty damn sure whoever made it only did so because he was being paid to.
You need to be able to quantifiably point out what aspects of the art is prompting you to say these things or the entirety of your critique is useless, subjective distaste.

I could say the art in your post (which is awesome) is stiff and overly posed, adding a false quality to any emotion depicted within.
But rather than just say thst, I could cite the rigid adherence to classical geometry and composition that are clearly intentional and we'll done, but also add the stiffness I described.

In short, your critique is shit and your opinion is unsupported.

Git gud

>>54202322
breddy gud. I've been playing with dark imperium and my nurgle daemons and they've been performing well.

>>54192670
>But anyone who claims it somehow has 'more soul' then that dragon picture is a huge faggot.
Not that anon, but it could be argued.
I won't do it because my heart isn't in it, but it could be argued.
But just stating one piece has more soul than another without support, like it was as obvious a fact as an expired inspection sticker, makes one a huge faggot indeed.

>>54192480
I'm not saying I don't agree with you - I too like the older art better than the newer, as a general rule - but I'm still pretty sure it all comes down to matters of taste.

>>54192784
A lot of posts' answers are somewhat true.
Of all of them I like this one the best.
Otaku was a mistake.

>>54193048
Are you saying that cheesecake pinup titty monsters are in any way challenging?

If anything, I'm glad less art has Red Sonja kind of shit in it because it scares away actual women, which I greatly prefer to images of women.

>>54192936
>Yeah, that's trash too.
>>54193007
>Starry Night is garbage.
>>54193072
>Quality is just popularity over time. Moby-Dick had lackluster sales when it was published
You are idiots.

>>54192819
>>54192840
Picasso was a hack.

>>54202322
Quite good. It's brought me back to 40k and my chaos dudes, been having a blast

Isn't the big difference in classical training?

Like how anime/manga now is technically well drawn but lacking in artistic vision

>>54192641
Compare pre-soviet art to the stuff produced during the height of the Soviet Union.
A bit of a heavy handed example, but politics can have a heavy influence on art

>>54193466
Ha! I love that movie, and the MST3K of it
We had all three of the Ator movies on VHS at the video store I worked at twenty something years ago.

>>54203445
Soviet art is pretty great though. Have you watched The Snow Queen?