not being retained or used is one thing....saying they suck or crappy is something else. its just rude. do you know amy webber? i doubt she would agree. dont know your profession Dlucks, but what if we put up a board with a thread on it posting Dlucks crappiest performances. or worst dates, or generally just posted for the purpose of shredding you. thats fine if you call me PC police, but go ask AD jeremy Jarvis what he thinks of this thread-he is the one who reatins and hires artists for pieces. there are some artists he doesnt use anymore, but would he approve of saying that their art is crappy or sucks in a forum thread? i doubt that and yes i do know jeremy. its just rude and ****ty behavior. but maybe being nice wasnt stressed in ytour house-just my opinon
That's a perfect analogy. I know that my bosses give me performance reviews. No, I don't like it, but I certainly understand why they are done.
If artists are afraid of their worked being critiqued, they shouldn't make their work public. The pieces of art are for the people who play this game, and the more they enjoy the artwork the more likely they are to buy cards. The artwork is for us, and if we want it to be better, we should critique it. I'm pretty sure that Jarvins has some market research helping him decide which artists are good and which aren't. He sees comments like this all the time.
Anyway, I don't think that saying that one particular piece of artwork is so bad. Amy Weber surely has a few awful pieces of art on Magic cards, but I've always liked her Ornithopter, Time Walk, Jeweled Bird, and Dragon Whelp.
You cannot even guess at what is happening in relation to what the card does. It's not making mana. It's making terribly painted waves.
Oops, I thought Ms.Weber did the modern Ornithopter. I read too quickly. I take it back her progress wasn't that far along to be honest...though in comparison with Blue Mana Battery her Ornithopter and Dragon Whelp are masterpieces.
not being retained or used is one thing....saying they suck or crappy is something else. its just rude. do you know amy webber? i doubt she would agree. dont know your profession Dlucks, but what if we put up a board with a thread on it posting Dlucks crappiest performances. or worst dates, or generally just posted for the purpose of shredding you. thats fine if you call me PC police, but go ask AD jeremy Jarvis what he thinks of this thread-he is the one who reatins and hires artists for pieces. there are some artists he doesnt use anymore, but would he approve of saying that their art is crappy or sucks in a forum thread? i doubt that and yes i do know jeremy. its just rude and ****ty behavior. but maybe being nice wasnt stressed in ytour house-just my opinon
Please do not evade the forum censors. Warning issued.
-Galspanic
Been there done that with my own clients and art director. I have finished pieces that will never see the light of day if I had my way. I came from a house and school that valued honesty and respect. My approach would be tweaked to fit the personality of the person I'm working with, but the point of those pieces being unacceptable would be made.
Also, I don't see a lot of post degrading any artist's complete lines of work. In fact I think Amy's Armageddon Clock is brilliant and wished that style would pop up some more. I know her line of work and Celestial Prism and Blue Mana Battery are awful pieces of art compared to her body of work. Sure, there is a chance that the pieces were commissioned under a ridiculous time line or some other circumstance beyond her control. We don't know that and we work with what we have.
If you truly do know Mr. Jarvis ask him how many cold calls and submissions of peoples' portfolios he receives in a week's time. I would bet money that their current rate of submissions in a couple months beats what they had in the first couple sets. Quality of work is part of an artist being retained and used, but you are correct in that it isn't the only one. On the other hand to say that MTG art hasn't improved over the course of the product's life is a joke.
funny how you mention that you come from a house of respect, when the very culture of this thread is anything but. i for one am all for honesty and constructive criticism, but surely you cant be naive enough to think that this exsists in this thread "crappiest magic artwork". Mr Jarvis is a professional and has way more class than to shred an artists work and say that its garbage. perhaps if this thread is not locked which i doubt it will be, eople could show a lot more restraint and you can teach them the meaning of respect since you say you know a lot about it. thanks.
funny how you mention that you come from a house of respect, when the very culture of this thread is anything but. i for one am all for honesty and constructive criticism, but surely you cant be naive enough to think that this exsists in this thread "crappiest magic artwork". Mr Jarvis is a professional and has way more class than to shred an artists work and say that its garbage. perhaps if this thread is not locked which i doubt it will be, eople could show a lot more restraint and you can teach them the meaning of respect since you say you know a lot about it. thanks.
Crappiest might not be the "classiest" term to use, but there is some really bad artwork brought up. Sometimes bad is just bad. There isn't a way around it. To be honest, I'm surprised in a good way that the overall tone is reasonable. There is some people that are making attacking comments, but I see lot of people that realize it's a personal choice they don't like a certain style and some actual critiques going on.
Are you that naive to think that he hasn't "shredded" an artist before? Maybe he didn't call it garbage, but there is a plethora of synonyms for that term. He has the job he does because a set worth of artwork isn't submitting it once and it's done. He is working with multiple artist with different talents to create a cohesive visual identity and probably butt heads more then he likes.
I meant respect in the term of a working relationship that involves both parties putting forth an acceptable effort. A sloppy effort can and will be viewed as a sign of disrespect for many, and a kiss of death for any future work/contracts.
thats what professionalism is-in a artist job, if you want to get the most out of your employee you give them constructive feedback-otherwise the 2 parties wont be able to work together again. it must be a generational thing, as i am older and havew life experience that i would never tell an , say amy webber that her art sucks or is "crappy" but rather what i am looking for as an AD and how she can get there. ther4e is a lot of diversity in magic artwork from guay to avon, webber to tucker and IMO there is room for it all. what i feel there is no room for is a bunch of teens who play magic starting a thread with no real value, other than to make fun of a persons passion and what they do for a living. they have the right to do so, but its process vs content debate, ie....not what you say but how you say it-this is a very hard concept for most people to learn but one i use all the time in my profession. i cant expect a 17 yr old magic player who net decks and thinks he is the best at everything who would post in this thread to have any compassion when posting what he thinks is the "crappiest" good luck ever getting a MTG artist to give feedback on one of these threads for an open honest discussion-so ive said my peace here and there is no point going back and forth anymore-good luck to ya all.
Amy Webber is an awesome artist, and a ton of her pieces are iconic for Magic. I wish they printed more cards with that classic art style, and less of this computer created crappy art they've been using as of late.
thats what professionalism is-in a artist job, if you want to get the most out of your employee you give them constructive feedback-otherwise the 2 parties wont be able to work together again. it must be a generational thing, as i am older and havew life experience that i would never tell an , say amy webber that her art sucks or is "crappy" but rather what i am looking for as an AD and how she can get there. ther4e is a lot of diversity in magic artwork from guay to avon, webber to tucker and IMO there is room for it all. what i feel there is no room for is a bunch of teens who play magic starting a thread with no real value, other than to make fun of a persons passion and what they do for a living. they have the right to do so, but its process vs content debate, ie....not what you say but how you say it-this is a very hard concept for most people to learn but one i use all the time in my profession. i cant expect a 17 yr old magic player who net decks and thinks he is the best at everything who would post in this thread to have any compassion when posting what he thinks is the "crappiest" good luck ever getting a MTG artist to give feedback on one of these threads for an open honest discussion-so ive said my peace here and there is no point going back and forth anymore-good luck to ya all.
Awesome! You complain about this thread, but yet go on to generalize and degrade the users and certain age groups. I am done. (Learn what the shift key is!)
Given the casual format of this website, I think opinionated comments like 'this is crappy' are fine.
That said: Everyone, please endeavor to show some respect for your fellow forum-goers. No one is asking you to agree, but it well within our means to disagree politely.
Well, I must say this thread compelled me to shake my head at some of the accusations leveled against artists who dared to think outside the canvas, but deriding Ebon Praetor? I came dangerously close to swallowing my scotch wrong at the idea that Ebon Praetor is nothing short of brilliant.
The Ebon Hand's rabbit-agent is not holding the woman's hand. It and the thrull on the right are dragging this woman, in all likelihood a merfolk, before the Praetor to be sacrificed. It fits seamlessly with what the card actually does, which in the halcyon infancy of Magic was no everyday occurence.
It is precisely this sort of uninformed opinion that makes a man pine for the time when Magic's art was abundant with different styles. Before the corporate takeover that so desperately sought to "brand" the art came about. I enjoy the direction Magic's art has taken because it is at the forefront of fantasy illustration, but not at the expense of what once thrilled the imagination. If Magic's artwork did nothing but coddle the imagination, it would be meaningless.
Im sorry, this card Ebon Praetor looks like the bunny,thrull,and avatar chick is getting married by an ant eater. The art is cool but just what the hell is going on here?
There are very few Wayne Reynolds pieces I like, though. Anything in the Facevaulter pose is especially awful.
I like Reynolds for two reasons. First are his "Facevaulter" pics. I love them as I love the Foglios, because they're goofy (and more detailed), I think that's their purpose. If you dislike them because you want to look at them as serious illustrations, you're doing it wrong. If you think Reynolds doesn't know he repeats the same pose and funny expressions over and over again and makes silly illustrations without knowing or wanting to, you're wrong.
Second, there's his "serious" illustrations. There aren't many in MTG, I think his best stuff is in Pathfinder RPG. Again, what's special about them is that they're still not completely serious. They're cartoony, with lots of detail and action going on, but I think that's also their purpose, to be dramatic and goofy at the same time, not to lean too much to any of either extremes (call it hipster if you like, I think it's creative).
I think I've learned to treat Magic cards like baseball cards: keep 'em in a binder in numerical order, don't play with 'em, try to finish the set and just keep my head down.
Im sorry, this card Ebon Praetor looks like the bunny,thrull,and avatar chick is getting married by an ant eater. The art is cool but just what the hell is going on here?
I'm pretty sure they're dragging the young lady to her death. Maybe they marry her first, I don't know. It's probably where baby Moonfolk come from.
In thinking of crappy artwork, and not just art I might not necessarily like, I'm going to take a debatable stance and say that Terese Nielsen has gotten rather tepid over the years. It surprised me how people gushed over Silverskin Armor and Swords to Plowshares when all she's done is ape the composition of interpretive artists like Scott Fischer and Anthony Waters. Her new work is pretty and it stands out, but things like Basandra, Battle Seraph are remarkably stiff.
I like the concept behind the art, but I can't quite make out what a Tarmogoyf looks like from that. I have to squint at it under a bright light and magnified glass. If it were only a little less dark around the torso of the creature, I probably wouldn't have such an issue with it.
I like the concept behind the art, but I can't quite make out what a Tarmogoyf looks like from that. I have to squint at it under a bright light and magnified glass. If it were only a little less dark around the torso of the creature, I probably wouldn't have such an issue with it.
Taking a look at Justin Murray's non-Magic work will help you appreciate the low visibility of Tarmogoyf.
Although, if Magic ever pulls the trigger on that oft-whispered "adult's only" expansion, Murray's on the short list.
I think most people here have been putting up art that is ok crappy, or just weird. Really, like a few people have posted, the crappiest art HAS to be Word of Command. The second I saw this thread that was the first card that came to mind, it's easy. Color in the black background and draw two eyes- easiest crappiest artwork by far. Only card I think comes close to it is Light of Day. Throw away the eyes and make white smears.
Now when it comes to funniest crappiest, I think good competitors for that are: Holy Light with the naked guy masterbating, Ekundu Cyclops- a huge fat green blob about to get castrated by a fat chick riding a large green dong, and above all ---------- Uktabi Orangutan with the monkeys doing it in the back, then Uktabi Kong with the monkeys rubbing the pregnant belly after doing it in the Uktabi Orangutan card LOL,
I think most people here have been putting up art that is ok crappy, or just weird. Really, like a few people have posted, the crappiest art HAS to be Word of Command. The second I saw this thread that was the first card that came to mind, it's easy. Color in the black background and draw two eyes- easiest crappiest artwork by far. Only card I think comes close to it is Light of Day. Throw away the eyes and make white smears.
Now when it comes to funniest crappiest, I think good competitors for that are: Holy Light with the naked guy masterbating, Ekundu Cyclops- a huge fat green blob about to get castrated by a fat chick riding a large green dong, and above all ---------- Uktabi Orangutan with the monkeys doing it in the back, then Uktabi Kong with the monkeys rubbing the pregnant belly after doing it in the Uktabi Orangutan card LOL,
I'm afraid I must step in here and defend the virtue of perpetually-besieged Word of Command. Just a pair of eyes? Do you fail to see the texture that mere 'black background' possesses? You're not meant to stare blankly at the card, but wonder precisely what is lurking in that blackness. How can so many be bereft of imagination, that artwork must constantly be spelled out for them in broad strokes?
Speaking of broad strokes, Holy Light is nothing short of brilliant. While some may see a man, ahem... with his back turned, look towards the left at the shaft of light. It is the light of angels, calling this lost soul to emancipation. Light of Day is equally stunning, as the sun desperately tries to break through the shadows of Rath's landscape.
Of course the ultimate in middle school cafeteria giggles is poor Ekundu Cyclops and Uktabi Orangutan. Innocent illustrations by talented artists made out to be perverse. Mushrooms that appear phallic! Surely that has never before been explored in art. And, why these monkeys appear to be doing it! Uproarious to some, but I must merely shake my head and wonder if people are really reading the 13 and up disclaimer on booster packs.
It amazes me, to no end in sight that classic, interpretive works are spat upon, while something like Commander's Authority sets hearts aflutter.
It amazes me, to no end in sight that classic, interpretive works are spat upon, while something like Commander's Authority sets hearts aflutter.
I've been thinking about how Magic's more abstract artwork has been nonexistent for quite some time. There aren't too many pieces that require someone to interpret it for themselves. This is probably done on purpose by WotC's art department, but I, for one, would love to see a few more less rendered, highly detailed works of art. Bring on the abstract to force me to interpret it myself. I like an aesthetic challenge.
Also, I appreciate Johannes Voss's work for the majority of the time, but there is something about the art on Commander's Authority that irks me. It is just too much. It forces itself on people a bit and is almost overbearing.
I will say, I never understood the what was going on in the George Pratt Hecatomb. It does look awesome though. Does anyone know if there was a period when Wizards decided against capitalizing the name of cards?
(BTW, I have no idea how t go about linking to pages ot images. Any advice would be appreciated.)
New to the game, newer to the forum. Casual player and rent-paying inhabitant of Magical Christmas Land. Because every card looks great! Current Colours:
Big Red Vampires or Sac Aggro Venser Control Control Humans Pod Dredge Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's a perfect analogy. I know that my bosses give me performance reviews. No, I don't like it, but I certainly understand why they are done.
If artists are afraid of their worked being critiqued, they shouldn't make their work public. The pieces of art are for the people who play this game, and the more they enjoy the artwork the more likely they are to buy cards. The artwork is for us, and if we want it to be better, we should critique it. I'm pretty sure that Jarvins has some market research helping him decide which artists are good and which aren't. He sees comments like this all the time.
Anyway, I don't think that saying that one particular piece of artwork is so bad. Amy Weber surely has a few awful pieces of art on Magic cards, but I've always liked her Ornithopter, Time Walk, Jeweled Bird, and Dragon Whelp.
You can find me on MTGO. My username is gereffi.
You cannot even guess at what is happening in relation to what the card does. It's not making mana. It's making terribly painted waves.
Oops, I thought Ms.Weber did the modern Ornithopter. I read too quickly. I take it back her progress wasn't that far along to be honest...though in comparison with Blue Mana Battery her Ornithopter and Dragon Whelp are masterpieces.
Been there done that with my own clients and art director. I have finished pieces that will never see the light of day if I had my way. I came from a house and school that valued honesty and respect. My approach would be tweaked to fit the personality of the person I'm working with, but the point of those pieces being unacceptable would be made.
Also, I don't see a lot of post degrading any artist's complete lines of work. In fact I think Amy's Armageddon Clock is brilliant and wished that style would pop up some more. I know her line of work and Celestial Prism and Blue Mana Battery are awful pieces of art compared to her body of work. Sure, there is a chance that the pieces were commissioned under a ridiculous time line or some other circumstance beyond her control. We don't know that and we work with what we have.
If you truly do know Mr. Jarvis ask him how many cold calls and submissions of peoples' portfolios he receives in a week's time. I would bet money that their current rate of submissions in a couple months beats what they had in the first couple sets. Quality of work is part of an artist being retained and used, but you are correct in that it isn't the only one. On the other hand to say that MTG art hasn't improved over the course of the product's life is a joke.
Standard
W.I.P.
EDH
WNorn Tokens
Crappiest might not be the "classiest" term to use, but there is some really bad artwork brought up. Sometimes bad is just bad. There isn't a way around it. To be honest, I'm surprised in a good way that the overall tone is reasonable. There is some people that are making attacking comments, but I see lot of people that realize it's a personal choice they don't like a certain style and some actual critiques going on.
Are you that naive to think that he hasn't "shredded" an artist before? Maybe he didn't call it garbage, but there is a plethora of synonyms for that term. He has the job he does because a set worth of artwork isn't submitting it once and it's done. He is working with multiple artist with different talents to create a cohesive visual identity and probably butt heads more then he likes.
I meant respect in the term of a working relationship that involves both parties putting forth an acceptable effort. A sloppy effort can and will be viewed as a sign of disrespect for many, and a kiss of death for any future work/contracts.
Standard
W.I.P.
EDH
WNorn Tokens
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Awesome! You complain about this thread, but yet go on to generalize and degrade the users and certain age groups. I am done. (Learn what the shift key is!)
Standard
W.I.P.
EDH
WNorn Tokens
That said: Everyone, please endeavor to show some respect for your fellow forum-goers. No one is asking you to agree, but it well within our means to disagree politely.
Cheers.
Without providing some context or explanation this is just Spam. Warning Issued.
-Galspanic
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=398877
Im sorry, this card Ebon Praetor looks like the bunny,thrull,and avatar chick is getting married by an ant eater. The art is cool but just what the hell is going on here?
On a related note (forewarning; a **** or two in this article) – The -2/-2 Counters Are Caused By The Rabbit
There are very few Wayne Reynolds pieces I like, though. Anything in the Facevaulter pose is especially awful.
I like Reynolds for two reasons. First are his "Facevaulter" pics. I love them as I love the Foglios, because they're goofy (and more detailed), I think that's their purpose. If you dislike them because you want to look at them as serious illustrations, you're doing it wrong. If you think Reynolds doesn't know he repeats the same pose and funny expressions over and over again and makes silly illustrations without knowing or wanting to, you're wrong.
Second, there's his "serious" illustrations. There aren't many in MTG, I think his best stuff is in Pathfinder RPG. Again, what's special about them is that they're still not completely serious. They're cartoony, with lots of detail and action going on, but I think that's also their purpose, to be dramatic and goofy at the same time, not to lean too much to any of either extremes (call it hipster if you like, I think it's creative).
I'm pretty sure they're dragging the young lady to her death. Maybe they marry her first, I don't know. It's probably where baby Moonfolk come from.
In thinking of crappy artwork, and not just art I might not necessarily like, I'm going to take a debatable stance and say that Terese Nielsen has gotten rather tepid over the years. It surprised me how people gushed over Silverskin Armor and Swords to Plowshares when all she's done is ape the composition of interpretive artists like Scott Fischer and Anthony Waters. Her new work is pretty and it stands out, but things like Basandra, Battle Seraph are remarkably stiff.
I like the concept behind the art, but I can't quite make out what a Tarmogoyf looks like from that. I have to squint at it under a bright light and magnified glass. If it were only a little less dark around the torso of the creature, I probably wouldn't have such an issue with it.
Taking a look at Justin Murray's non-Magic work will help you appreciate the low visibility of Tarmogoyf.
Although, if Magic ever pulls the trigger on that oft-whispered "adult's only" expansion, Murray's on the short list.
And a tarmogoyf looks like a lhurgoyf though with a different jaw.
On Modern Masters 2:
Will be kept until 12/31/2013 to prove if Right or Wrong.Proven right 1/27/2013B Lover Since '09 ~
Standard:
meh.
Modern:
Urzatron GR
Vintage:
Contol-Slaver UBR
EDH:
Drana B
Jhoira UR
Savra BG
Turned into:
Adun Oakenshield BGR
Sharuum BUW
Turned into:
Memnarch U
KiKi-Jiki R
Turned into:
Godo R
Turned into:
Aurelia RW
The Mimeoplasm UBG
Rasputin Dreamweaver UW
Turned into:
Geist of Saint Traft -French 1v1 UW
Nekusar UBR
Now when it comes to funniest crappiest, I think good competitors for that are: Holy Light with the naked guy masterbating, Ekundu Cyclops- a huge fat green blob about to get castrated by a fat chick riding a large green dong, and above all ---------- Uktabi Orangutan with the monkeys doing it in the back, then Uktabi Kong with the monkeys rubbing the pregnant belly after doing it in the Uktabi Orangutan card LOL,
RoblinTheGoblin's Pro M15 Template:
RoblinTheGoblin's Pro M15 Template v1.3
Also includes M15+ real god stars, promo template, super art template, planeswalker template
I'm afraid I must step in here and defend the virtue of perpetually-besieged Word of Command. Just a pair of eyes? Do you fail to see the texture that mere 'black background' possesses? You're not meant to stare blankly at the card, but wonder precisely what is lurking in that blackness. How can so many be bereft of imagination, that artwork must constantly be spelled out for them in broad strokes?
Speaking of broad strokes, Holy Light is nothing short of brilliant. While some may see a man, ahem... with his back turned, look towards the left at the shaft of light. It is the light of angels, calling this lost soul to emancipation. Light of Day is equally stunning, as the sun desperately tries to break through the shadows of Rath's landscape.
Of course the ultimate in middle school cafeteria giggles is poor Ekundu Cyclops and Uktabi Orangutan. Innocent illustrations by talented artists made out to be perverse. Mushrooms that appear phallic! Surely that has never before been explored in art. And, why these monkeys appear to be doing it! Uproarious to some, but I must merely shake my head and wonder if people are really reading the 13 and up disclaimer on booster packs.
It amazes me, to no end in sight that classic, interpretive works are spat upon, while something like Commander's Authority sets hearts aflutter.
I've been thinking about how Magic's more abstract artwork has been nonexistent for quite some time. There aren't too many pieces that require someone to interpret it for themselves. This is probably done on purpose by WotC's art department, but I, for one, would love to see a few more less rendered, highly detailed works of art. Bring on the abstract to force me to interpret it myself. I like an aesthetic challenge.
Also, I appreciate Johannes Voss's work for the majority of the time, but there is something about the art on Commander's Authority that irks me. It is just too much. It forces itself on people a bit and is almost overbearing.
(BTW, I have no idea how t go about linking to pages ot images. Any advice would be appreciated.)
Current Colours:
Vampires or Sac Aggro
Venser Control
Control
Humans
Pod
Dredge
Spirits