Jake Rants about Art

[Jake Norwood]

From this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=85607#85607):

Though some artwork is very amateurish and reminds me more about 80s RPG books. That's not a big deal and I can understand little amateurish look.

Now, I've got to rant. Sorry to anyone who doesn't like my rant, yada yada yada. And I'm not picking on Janne (who wrote the above), but rather just using his quote as a sprinboard.

We spent a lot of money on OBAM art. We hired 4 well-established well-known industry artists that have worked for Steve Jackson, AEG, Pinnacle, Ars Magica, a GOO cover artist, and WoTC contributors. None of the artists in OBAM were unpublished prior to OBAM. And our cover artist has since gone on to work on some of the big companies, perhaps in part due to his OBAM work (which I think is excellent).

I figured that, learning from the criticism of TROS core rulebook art, that this was the right thing to do and worth the money. Was I wrong? Or is it "some people are never happy?"

I don't think that the fan base in the industry has any idea at all how much art costs, and how difficult it is to procure. Likewise, I really don't understand where the comparison is coming from, as none of the game books I own (and I've got something from just about everybody in the last 20 years) is consistently better.

It's like Nobilis, which has perhaps the most beautiful cover art of any game book, ever, but horrible dissapointing (and rare) interior art. Yet everybody raved about it. Huh?

So why the heat? Whence the expectation?

[xiombarg]

Honestly, "some people are never happy" is the right answer, if you asked me.

But my opinion might not matter much -- art is pretty much meaningless to me. Sure, it's good for establishing tone, but I put a lot more faith in text than art -- I get more bang for my buck per square inch with text than art.

The only time I notice art is when it's painfully bad, or reused -- but even then, the latter isn't a big deal and the former is a matter of taste.

However, a lot of industry people -- particularly White Wolf -- seem to put a lot of stock in art...

[Janne Halmetoja]

Maybe I just said it badly. As I said some artwork is very amateurish (like OBAM p. 31), I didn't say the whole book is full of bad art. Example, cover art is great. Text is the most important thing for me.

Of course WoTC makes great looking books, but they have also some very bad art in their books.

If I made you feel bad Jake, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that. Just said my first impressions about OBAM and I think still it's great book.

[jeffd]

I'm not too big on game book art myself... if it's there and it looks nice - that's awesome.  If not, no loss.  Occasionally a piece of art will do a great job of conveying what a setting or something is like.  In the Fading Suns core book there's a picture of a vorox - think a wookie with extra arms - drawing a massive bow with two arms, knocking an arrow with a third while pulling another arrow from his quiver with a fourth the whole time smiling with almost chidlish glee at his combat proficiency.  That particular bit of art was perfect for me to give me an idea of what Vorox were like.

That said, maybe it's best to minimize art altogether?  I realize that for a monster book this is impractical, but for other supplements maybe getting rid of the generic placeholder art and instead only having a smaller amount of higher-quality (read: more expensive) art?  

JD

[Brian Leybourne]

For the record, I thought most of the art in OBAM was fantastic (although admittedly, I'm biased).

There was this amazing sense of glee when I saw some of the art proofs and the artist had obviously read what I had written, then drawn the picture from the vision the story gave him/her, and it nicely matched the vision I had had in my head when I wrote it. There's nothing cooler than that, let me tell you (although I'm still bemused by the "Mere" thing).

Brian.

[kenjib]

Here are a few pics I thought were a bit rough:  pg. 31, 37, 43, 83, the hit location charts (which are repeats of the first three anyway)

Stuff I thought was great:  pg. 4, 53, 70, 73, 80, 90, 109

On the whole I thought the art was really good, and I wonder if Janne would have even had a complaint if the hit location charts (and reprints earlier in the book) had been better.  If there's one black mark on an otherwise white wall, all you see is the black mark...

[Ashren Va'Hale]

Personally I loved the art quality, although some of th art choices were not what I would have done...
for example the picture of the dog was kind of goofy, I think every reader has a good mental image of what a dog is, dragons gol and hef are another story and thats where OBAM shined brightly. those pieces were fantastic.

And I loved the art in the core rule book and disagree with the criticisms it recieved which makes me conclude somewhat that the complaints might also be based somewhat on the print quality in that book but I cant see that translating to OBAM which had a much better print quality.

Maybe in the future you could include more chicks in impractical chain mail armor like all the DND 2 ed books... no one complains about those....

And last of all, the comparisons towards other companies is likely the gamer bias manifesting itself once more, you know the bias I am talking about, "if it aint steve jackson or WOTC then it is obviously an inferior basement production " and thus, whether it is or isn't the gamer is expecting it to not be high quality and thus that is what they see.

[toli]

For the record, I like the art in both books.  There are some pictures that have a sort of  "unfinished" look and feel to them, but this gives a kind of gritty or dark feel.  

For TFoB, I guess I'd like some more realistic pictures of people in armor.  For example, a knight in full late 15th C plate instead of something like the picture of the guy from Stahl in the main book (with all the spikes etc).  I do like that picture, but I'd like more realistic armor pictures as well.  Some fantasy, some reality.  Not a big deal really.  


Anyway, I like the art.  I think it goes along with feel of the text pretty well.

NT

[greyorm]

Calling art "good" or "bad" is about as useful as declaring blue to be the "best" color, or calling all abstract art "unartistic crap" -- it's all a matter of taste.

Frex, there are some pieces of my art that I don't like at all, I think they're unfinished, yet others rave about them.

Even polished and finished pieces by successful artists can be pegged as "amateur work" by the right (or is that "wrong"?) art editor, especially if they don't know who the artist is, or don't like the artist's style.

There's a reason art is art and not science, and when discussing it, explaining why you think a certain piece is a certain way (such as "amateurish") goes further towards communicating than simply saying you like or dislike it.

That said, art can be good and bad, amateur and professional, but there's a whole lot of gray area in there.

As to TRoS's art, I can't say, I unfortunately don't have the book yet.

[6inTruder]

Calling art "good" or "bad" is about as useful as declaring blue to be the "best" color

Well duh! Cause as we ALL know, PINK is the "best" colour.

^_^

[Dan Sellars]

I personally liked the artwork in both books, especially OBAM.  

I feel that that art is pretty important in a book like this, as it is a very powerful media for bringing a world to life.  So I see it as money well spent.  Having seaid that, you've got to have good content in the first place and TROS does (which is why we are all here ;-)

The only real caveat on that is that the general concencus in my group was that the dog in the hit-location chart looked too cute to want to hit!

Dan.

[Jake Norwood]

OKay, I'll fess up on the horse and the dog. They were some old sketches of mine that I spruced up when the animal art I had "ordered" fell through at the last minute (something always does). I agree that the dog is too cute to hit, but sometimes your players have to deal with that. Heh.

Jake

[Kaare_Berg]

Time for a lurkers two cents, and mind you that i haven't gotten OBAM yet.

For me, and that is Greyworm's point, for me art is make or break. The reason I didn't buy TROS the first time I saw it was the art, I admit that, and had to wait two months to get it because of this. It is the same reason why I hate Ars magica 4th edition, compared to 3rd edtion.

Now the text i Tros was brilliant at times, I whole heartedly agree with this part and it can spark a lot of ideas. But it is the feel of the game that is conveyed through the art, and I do belive that the money spent on art is well spent.

Then again this is my opinion.

[Thierry Michel]

This might be a dumb question, but why not rely more on period illustration ? I've been reading a lot about XVIth century recently (blame TROS) and between Dürer, Holbein, Urs Graf, Caravaggio, Bruegel, Cranach, Uccello and the martial arts manuals you have enough knights, landsknechts and men-at-arms to fill a volume. And of course there's always XIXth century illustrations like the Pictorial History of costume and the like...

And it's free.

[Dan Sellars]

OKay, I'll fess up on the horse and the dog. They were some old sketches of mine that I spruced up when the animal art I had "ordered" fell through at the last minute (something always does). I agree that the dog is too cute to hit, but sometimes your players have to deal with that. Heh.

I'll pass the message on ;-)
Dan.