Stephanie Pui-Mun Law Temporal Distortion, Scouting Trek, Sunscape Apprentice
She was a artist in the older sets not sure which one now, but as a aspiring artists in high school she took the time to chat with me on ICQ/AOLIM for hours on end giving me help and friendship.
Thanks Stephanie!
Let's face it, the art has to change, and if it didn't we'd all likely be bored by the old styles by now. The changing art, card template, etc. is part of how the cards have to change to keep the game fresh and interesting. Sure, there's been a shift towards a more realistic art style (that being said, using the term "hyper-realism" in this case is just hyperbole), but that does not mean that there is less to appreciate in it.
I don't mind digital art in and of itself, but one of the things I feel that's been making Magic so goddamn insufferable lately, is the glossy, hyper-realistic look to most of the art nowadays. Most of the card arts just look so ☺☺☺☺ing sterile and soulless.
Where are artists like Rob Alexander, Drew Tucker, Scott M. Fischer anymore? Instead we have dunces like Zoltan Boros/Gabor Szikzai, Raymond Swanland, Mike Bierek, Michael Komarck, Adi Granov ...
Artists like that, need to ☺☺☺☺ off and stop ruining the game I love. Like, I mean, all those pieces look more like movie scenes than actual, organic works. I understand the need for some detail but these are just ridiculous.
To me, these are illustrations, not art. Art is supposed to be expressive, and the only thing these express to me is hyper-realism.
Your stance on the "hyper-realistic" turn Magic's art has taken confuses me. It confuses me because Rob Alexander in particular draws the most realistic lands this side of a photograph. Have you seen the shock lands? I mean, you could almost peel those things off the card and take a stroll through them. In fact, his art is far more realistic than any other artist you've listed in this quote or in the entire thread, so I'm wondering where you draw the line between good realistic and bad realistic. Rob Alexander's work, particularly in his lands, has far, far more of that "glossy, hyper-realistic look," is far more detailed, and is also looks more like a movie scene (or a photograph or however else you'd like to compare it to reality) than any of the artists you listed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on your opinion, you're more than welcome to it, I'm just curious as to the reasons for it.
Anyway...
In terms of my favorite artists, that varies by time period you're talking about. I happen to like almost all the art that graces my cardboard cards, but there are a few artists I look forward to more than most. I love the aforementioned Pete Venters and I've always been a fan of Ron Spencer's hyper-detailed art style. Mark Tedin has done some interesting things as well. Matthew Wilson's Exalted Dragon is, to this day, one of my favorite dragon cards in terms of art.
More recently, I love the art of Chippy, who is probably at the top of my list at the moment, Raymond Swanland (I have an EDH deck for each legend he's drawn), Aleksi Briclot (who is an amazing person irl), and D. Alexander Gregory for his ridiculously sweet work on the new Nicol Bolas cards.
In any era of Magic, Rob Alexander is the master of lands. Avon is cool, but Alexander's use of color and light is much more captivating, IMO.
Let's face it, the art has to change, and if it didn't we'd all likely be bored by the old styles by now. The changing art, card template, etc. is part of how the cards have to change to keep the game fresh and interesting. Sure, there's been a shift towards a more realistic art style (that being said, using the term "hyper-realism" in this case is just hyperbole), but that does not mean that there is less to appreciate in it.
A) I don't feel the art change has to change at all. I don't even feel the frame changes were necessary, but that's just me. I'm fine with them messing with game mechanics to keep the game fresh... but the visual aspect? At the very least, it can be handled a lot more tastefully than it is now.
B) It's not hyperbole. There is a sense of hyper-realism on newer cards, artists have used it as the basis for their entire illustrative style.
This kind of art, is the stuff I hate:
I dislike these because they look more like movie scenes than actual, organic paintings. I understand the need for some detail but these are just ridiculous.
Your stance on the "hyper-realistic" turn Magic's art has taken confuses me. It confuses me because Rob Alexander in particular draws the most realistic lands this side of a photograph. Have you seen the shock lands? I mean, you could almost peel those things off the card and take a stroll through them. In fact, his art is far more realistic than any other artist you've listed in this quote or in the entire thread, so I'm wondering where you draw the line between good realistic and bad realistic. Rob Alexander's work, particularly in his lands, has far, far more of that "glossy, hyper-realistic look," is far more detailed, and is also looks more like a movie scene (or a photograph or however else you'd like to compare it to reality) than any of the artists you listed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on your opinion, you're more than welcome to it, I'm just curious as to the reasons for it.
Rob Alexander has a very traditional, painterly method in his illustrative style. His lands are realistic, but definitely NOT glossy, or hyper-realistic.
Compare:
to
Have I clarified enough, the kind of art I dislike now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS: Where criticism of staff is a bannable offense.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Quote from TheButt »
My sig is not trolling. And it's not opinion, it's fact.
And I'm not changing it. I'm not gonna be browbeated by a moderator, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm bringing to light that the staff suspends half-decent posters, while allowing trolls to run rampant.
Well, you've still got about fourteen hours before you're infracted for noncompliance. Talk to whomever you want.
Well, I'm not, I'm more picky when it comes to which art I liked. Why is this a problem?
A) I don't feel the art change has to change at all. I don't even feel the frame changes were necessary, but that's just me. I'm fine with them messing with game mechanics to keep the game fresh... but the visual aspect? At the very least, it can be handled a lot more tastefully than it is now.
B) It's not hyperbole. There is a sense of hyper-realism on newer cards, artists have used it as the basis for their entire illustrative style.
This kind of art, is the stuff I hate:
I dislike these because they look more like movie scenes than actual, organic paintings. I understand the need for some detail but these are just ridiculous.
Rob Alexander has a very traditional, painterly method in his illustrative style. His lands are realistic, but definitely NOT glossy, or hyper-realistic.
Compare:
to
Have I clarified enough, the kind of art I dislike now?
Back in the beginning of the impressionist era, the only art that was recognized truly as art was that which depicted the utmost realism. Your argument now is that realism lacks what exactly? Redirect, while having very realistic lighting effects, is also full of satire and emotion. The stylization of Regress, however, is far from that of realism. Of those you mentioned, the only two I don't like are Blazing Archon and Steadfast Guard, and that has nothing to do with realism. Steadfast guard just looks like a bad photoshop job and Blazing Archon (which was done mostly traditionally btw) just looks poorly proportioned.
And yes, I see the kind of artwork you like now. Flat, dull, and desaturated. All three of those lands could have benefited from greater contrast, although Graven Cairns isn't terrible despite the fact that everything in the picture looks like it's made out of plush. The majority of arts you say you hate actually show a far better understanding of composition than all three of those lands, although Hidden Path is probably the best of the three, technically speaking.
Detail is a poor reason to judge a piece poorly. Without any attention to detail, art would have no soul at all. The details that need to be paid attention to are composition, color, contrast, color schemes, lightning, shading...these things are part of what influence all forms of artwork. Most of them are used to force the viewer to focus on specific aspects of a piece, and to force the eye to move around the piece. I've had to study this crap for two years. If your personal aesthetic preference is dull, flat, and desaturated work, that says more about your psyche than your ability to judge art.
Back in the beginning of the impressionist era, the only art that was recognized truly as art was that which depicted the utmost realism. Your argument now is that realism lacks what exactly? Redirect, while having very realistic lighting effects, is also full of satire and emotion. The stylization of Regress, however, is far from that of realism.
Wrong.
Redirect may not be the best example as without that horrid "HURR COLOR BURN" Photoshop abuse, wouldn't be that bad of a piece.
Regress, on the other hand... realism is all over the place. Just because a piece depicts something that wouldn't exist in real life doesn't mean it lacks realism... look at that water. Look at the glossy, sleek design of everything. Look at the water spray. The tentacles in the water. You can't honestly sit there and tell me the artist didn't have realism in mind.
Of those you mentioned, the only two I don't like are Blazing Archon and Steadfast Guard, and that has nothing to do with realism. Steadfast guard just looks like a bad photoshop job and Blazing Archon (which was done mostly traditionally btw) just looks poorly proportioned.
And yes, I see the kind of artwork you like now. Flat, dull, and desaturated.
Wrong. I'm sorry I don't like my art to have utterly tacky, super in-your-face detail, and utterly tasteless use of color and shading. Sorry I like my art to look a little... organic?
All three of those lands could have benefited from greater contrast, although Graven Cairns isn't terrible despite the fact that everything in the picture looks like it's made out of plush.
That's where we disagree then, because I feel those arts display a little something that you seem to be looking down on me for appreciating: That being, tastefulness.
The majority of arts you say you hate actually show a far better understanding of composition than all three of those lands, although Hidden Path is probably the best of the three, technically speaking.
From a technical standpoint, yes they may be superior, but from a practical standpoint, the complete opposite. Cramming all these details into a super-small space on the card is just... ugly. Horrendously ugly. The cards look more like movie scenes than actual illustrations, and it's utterly tacky.
Detail is a poor reason to judge a piece poorly. Without any attention to detail, art would have no soul at all. The details that need to be paid attention to are composition, color, contrast, color schemes, lightning, shading...these things are part of what influence all forms of artwork. Most of them are used to force the viewer to focus on specific aspects of a piece, and to force the eye to move around the piece. I've had to study this crap for two years.
Why don't you actually read for once?
Quote from The Butt »
I understand the need for some detail but these are just ridiculous.
And yes, I know about the elements of composition, the elements and principles of art, color management, etc. I have studied (and am currently continuing my study of) graphic design. I know you probably think you know more than I, but you're not dealing with a noob here, buddy. Art is something that is a part of me, that I feel very passionately about, and that I like to think I have a grasp of.
If your personal aesthetic preference is dull, flat, and desaturated work, that says more about your psyche than your ability to judge art.
Again; sorry for preferring tastefully executed work, as opposed to being wowed at overly contrasted, flashy, in-your-face-detail, like a 7-year-old child with ADD on a sugar high.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS: Where criticism of staff is a bannable offense.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Quote from TheButt »
My sig is not trolling. And it's not opinion, it's fact.
And I'm not changing it. I'm not gonna be browbeated by a moderator, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm bringing to light that the staff suspends half-decent posters, while allowing trolls to run rampant.
Well, you've still got about fourteen hours before you're infracted for noncompliance. Talk to whomever you want.
1. Rebecca Guay - unique style, auramancer is one of my favourite cards
2. John Avon - his lands are amazing, and arrogant wurm looks good too.
3. Raymond Swanland - Magma Pheonix.
Regress, on the other hand... realism is all over the place. Just because a piece depicts something that wouldn't exist in real life doesn't mean it lacks realism... look at that water. Look at the glossy, sleek design of everything. Look at the water spray. The tentacles in the water. You can't honestly sit there and tell me the artist didn't have realism in mind.
It's utterly revolting.
No, Regress is not realistic. It's actually very stylized. It's not as detailed as any of the other pieces you said you had a problem with. The fact that it depicts something unrealistic was not a factor in my saying it wasn't a realistic painting. From every one of your responses, it can be gathered that you are simply trolling. Good day to you. /walks away
The fact that it depicts something unrealistic was not a factor in my saying it wasn't a realistic painting. From every one of your responses, it can be gathered that you are simply trolling. Good day to you. /walks away
I'm the troll? I'm not the one that resorts to "ur just a troll" or "nah ur wrong, i am ze arteest" and tries to present those as logical points.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS: Where criticism of staff is a bannable offense.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Quote from TheButt »
My sig is not trolling. And it's not opinion, it's fact.
And I'm not changing it. I'm not gonna be browbeated by a moderator, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm bringing to light that the staff suspends half-decent posters, while allowing trolls to run rampant.
Well, you've still got about fourteen hours before you're infracted for noncompliance. Talk to whomever you want.
I'm the troll? I'm not the one that resorts to "ur just a troll" or "nah ur wrong, i am ze arteest" and tries to present those as logical points.
No, I actually made valid arguments toward what makes artwork good according to art theory, and then pointed out which pieces actually used said theory in the ones you stated as "bad". Not all of them were good pieces (mainly Blazing Archon, which isn't even realistically lighted). Hell, I even gave a small art history lesson in one of my posts, and all you can do is say "these are bad because they're too detailed". If that's what reality looks like to you, you should stop trollin' and get a CAT scan.
And you think the artwork uses realism techniques because of "water spray"? You fail on so many levels.
No, I actually made valid arguments toward what makes artwork good according to art theory, and then pointed out which pieces actually used said theory in the ones you stated as "bad". Not all of them were good pieces (mainly Blazing Archon, which isn't even realistically lighted).
And I gave (valid) reasonings as to why I believe these pieces are bad.
**** your art theory, son. Art comes from the soul, technical detail should never be a factor in determining "good" art.
and all you can do is say "these are bad because they're too detailed". If that's what reality looks like to you, you should stop trollin' and get a CAT scan.
Continuously implying somebody is trolling, merely because they disagree with you, is a form of trolling in and of itself. Stop making bad posts.
And you think the artwork uses realism techniques because of "water spray"? You fail on so many levels.
No, I think it uses realism techniques because it's not stylized at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS: Where criticism of staff is a bannable offense.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Quote from TheButt »
My sig is not trolling. And it's not opinion, it's fact.
And I'm not changing it. I'm not gonna be browbeated by a moderator, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm bringing to light that the staff suspends half-decent posters, while allowing trolls to run rampant.
Well, you've still got about fourteen hours before you're infracted for noncompliance. Talk to whomever you want.
Also, I already know, I have studied it also. Your art history, doesn't make you right however.
Continuously implying somebody is trolling, merely because they disagree with you, is a form of trolling in and of itself. Stop making bad posts.
No, I think it uses realism techniques because it's not stylized at all.
I'm not implying you're trolling because you disagree with me. Now who's not reading the posts?
You put "valid" in parentheses? Did you do that on purpose? Seriously, if you think "it's got detail" is a "valid" reason to dislike a piece, then your opinion on art is completely irrelevant. You can still state it, but it's useless tripe. And you think I have an illusory sense of superiority because I've taken art classes? I used that knowledge to point out the flaws in your critique. I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm saying you appear to know nothing about art. If you truly have taken art classes, then you should realize why your arguments hold very little position.
And it is stylized. The artwork looks rather like he used a drybush-like technique, and diffused the light to create a rather placid effect. Most of the stylization is visible in the creature being "regressed".
You really want to know why I keep saying you're trolling? See all those points I just made? Just like I keep making points solidly based in art theory? I'm not doing it to flaunt my art knowledge, I'm doing it to back up my argument. You however resort to posting links to an unreliable encyclopedia to insult me, and simply saying "you're not right" without providing anything to back up your own stance. This is probably the fifth time in a row you've done so, and it's getting old. If your goal is to "win" the argument by saying something to which I don't reply, then go ahead and take your hollow victory. Unless you have something meaningful to say that can back up your argument, and not simply resort to personal attacks such as that little linkage bit you did, then this argument is finished.
This is some real intense art conversation going on.
And it is stylized. The artwork looks rather like he used a drybush-like technique, and diffused the light to create a rather placid effect. Most of the stylization is visible in the creature being "regressed".
I actually do have to agree with this, for the most part. You'll notice that the three examples you listed aren't creatures - they're just lands and an enchantment.
Also, it has no action. You can't compare stagnant art with active art. Ancient Hellkite is obviously doing something. Look at Graven Cairns. Its not doing anything.
Each art supports what it depicts. Rob Alexander's art fits the atmosphere of what he draws (although, he needs more focal). You're pretty much comparing an apple to a pear, so to speak.
John Avon for lands, Scott Fischer for bringing a unique flavor to the game, always beautiful, always creative, and never straying too far from the essence of what the block was about. Would have loved to see him work on Eldrazi...
I actually do have to agree with this, for the most part. You'll notice that the three examples you listed aren't creatures - they're just lands and an enchantment.
Also, it has no action. You can't compare stagnant art with active art. Ancient Hellkite is obviously doing something. Look at Graven Cairns. Its not doing anything.
Each art supports what it depicts. Rob Alexander's art fits the atmosphere of what he draws (although, he needs more focal). You're pretty much comparing an apple to a pear, so to speak.
I'm not comparing apples to pears. Even when it comes to other "active" pieces of art, I could find tons more "active" pieces that make Ancient Hellkite look like a Photoshop-color-burn-abuse piece of ****.
I'm not implying you're trolling because you disagree with me. Now who's not reading the posts?
I read your posts, sir. What other reasoning do you have for calling me a troll? I give my opinions and your the one who shoots them down, as if yours are somehow more valid than mine.
You put "valid" in parentheses? Did you do that on purpose? Seriously, if you think "it's got detail" is a "valid" reason to dislike a piece, then your opinion on art is completely irrelevant. You can still state it, but it's useless tripe.
And you think I have an illusory sense of superiority because I've taken art classes? I used that knowledge to point out the flaws in your critique. I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm saying you appear to know nothing about art. If you truly have taken art classes, then you should realize why your arguments hold very little position.
No, I think you have an illusory sense of superiority, because you use your supposed "knowledge" to shoot down anybody else's tastes that differ from yours.
Also, I don't give a **** about your supposed "knowledge", because being stylized and showing realism are not mutually exclusive. A piece can show both traits.
And it is stylized. The artwork looks rather like he used a drybush-like technique, and diffused the light to create a rather placid effect. Most of the stylization is visible in the creature being "regressed".
You really want to know why I keep saying you're trolling? See all those points I just made? Just like I keep making points solidly based in art theory? I'm not doing it to flaunt my art knowledge, I'm doing it to back up my argument. You however resort to posting links to an unreliable encyclopedia to insult me, and simply saying "you're not right" without providing anything to back up your own stance.
I have provided things to back up my stance. I was discussing my tastes in art, which is a very subjective thing. As I said before, true art comes from the soul... **** people who think that technical detail is a factor that makes a piece "good", they are the kind of utterly pretentious people that completely kill art for me.
This is probably the fifth time in a row you've done so, and it's getting old. If your goal is to "win" the argument by saying something to which I don't reply, then go ahead and take your hollow victory. Unless you have something meaningful to say that can back up your argument, and not simply resort to personal attacks such as that little linkage bit you did, then this argument is finished.
And you haven't attacked me? You're the one sitting here being The Boy Who Called Troll at every opportunity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS: Where criticism of staff is a bannable offense.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Quote from TheButt »
My sig is not trolling. And it's not opinion, it's fact.
And I'm not changing it. I'm not gonna be browbeated by a moderator, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm bringing to light that the staff suspends half-decent posters, while allowing trolls to run rampant.
Well, you've still got about fourteen hours before you're infracted for noncompliance. Talk to whomever you want.
Did I ever state that Ancient Hellkite was good? Where? I must be utterly blind.
In fact, I don't like it myself. But for the sake of debate, I used your example.
people who think that technical detail is a factor that makes a piece "good"
The problem with your argument is technical detail is a factor. You're proving yourself wrong.
It might not be a very influential factor, but nevertheless it is one. There's a difference between touching art, and good art. Rob Alexander is a professional - you can't expect him to pour his soul into every commission. That's how it works. You expect him to do that with something like a funeral.
Regardless of what you think, Trancebam obviously has a different opinion. You're proving nothing by trying to say he is wrong. You state yourself:
I was discussing my tastes in art, which is a very subjective thing.
So you have nothing to gain by attacking another's taste in art.
On a side note, Trancebam, you're guilty of that too.
So you have nothing to gain by attacking another's taste in art.
On a side note, Trancebam, you're guilty of that too.
This.
You may not like well defined, realistic art, but that doesn't mean you have to bash it. I can see artistic qualities in older magic art and in surreal pieces, but it's not necessarily as aesthetically appealing or fun to look at (especially at card size) as some of the more realistic (and very well done) pieces of modern magic art.
To each his own, not to mine and mine alone. Calm the eff down.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tournament Victories:
Indianapolis Regionals 2009 (Standard)
Worldwake Gameday (Limited)
Jason Chan is the best artist ever because he made Jace, the mind sculptor and Jace, the mind sculptor is the best card ever!
i wasnt taking myself seriously when i said that. but in all seriousness i think FAy Jones take on stasis was pretty clever and pretty volkan Baga because of elspeth, knight-errant and whoever did Primal Beyond .
That's quite enough de-railment of this thread, and taking it over with anymore back and forth, line by line quotes about whether realism sucks or not.
If you've got a problem, move it somewhere else.
Any further posts on the matter will be infracted (not warned) and deleted. This is your warning.
My favorites are Matt Cavotta, Greg Staples, Todd Lockwood, Zoltan Boros & Gabor Szikszai and Kev Walker. There are more but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I prefer the look of hand painted art to the digital kind. I really can't stand Raymond Swanland and Aleksi Briclot and the like. I'm not saying they aren't artists though so no one needs to get mad. I just personally hate the digital look in general.
I'm overall dissapointed in the direciton magic art has been going in. I think there is too much digital stuff creeping in and it seems like most sets are at least 3/4 digital. I'd rather it be 1/2 so it would be more balanced. Then everyone could be happy.
Temporal Distortion, Scouting Trek, Sunscape Apprentice
She was a artist in the older sets not sure which one now, but as a aspiring artists in high school she took the time to chat with me on ICQ/AOLIM for hours on end giving me help and friendship.
Thanks Stephanie!
Let's face it, the art has to change, and if it didn't we'd all likely be bored by the old styles by now. The changing art, card template, etc. is part of how the cards have to change to keep the game fresh and interesting. Sure, there's been a shift towards a more realistic art style (that being said, using the term "hyper-realism" in this case is just hyperbole), but that does not mean that there is less to appreciate in it.
Your stance on the "hyper-realistic" turn Magic's art has taken confuses me. It confuses me because Rob Alexander in particular draws the most realistic lands this side of a photograph. Have you seen the shock lands? I mean, you could almost peel those things off the card and take a stroll through them. In fact, his art is far more realistic than any other artist you've listed in this quote or in the entire thread, so I'm wondering where you draw the line between good realistic and bad realistic. Rob Alexander's work, particularly in his lands, has far, far more of that "glossy, hyper-realistic look," is far more detailed, and is also looks more like a movie scene (or a photograph or however else you'd like to compare it to reality) than any of the artists you listed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on your opinion, you're more than welcome to it, I'm just curious as to the reasons for it.
Anyway...
In terms of my favorite artists, that varies by time period you're talking about. I happen to like almost all the art that graces my cardboard cards, but there are a few artists I look forward to more than most. I love the aforementioned Pete Venters and I've always been a fan of Ron Spencer's hyper-detailed art style. Mark Tedin has done some interesting things as well. Matthew Wilson's Exalted Dragon is, to this day, one of my favorite dragon cards in terms of art.
More recently, I love the art of Chippy, who is probably at the top of my list at the moment, Raymond Swanland (I have an EDH deck for each legend he's drawn), Aleksi Briclot (who is an amazing person irl), and D. Alexander Gregory for his ridiculously sweet work on the new Nicol Bolas cards.
In any era of Magic, Rob Alexander is the master of lands. Avon is cool, but Alexander's use of color and light is much more captivating, IMO.
Well, I'm not, I'm more picky when it comes to which art I liked. Why is this a problem?
A) I don't feel the art change has to change at all. I don't even feel the frame changes were necessary, but that's just me. I'm fine with them messing with game mechanics to keep the game fresh... but the visual aspect? At the very least, it can be handled a lot more tastefully than it is now.
B) It's not hyperbole. There is a sense of hyper-realism on newer cards, artists have used it as the basis for their entire illustrative style.
This kind of art, is the stuff I hate:
I dislike these because they look more like movie scenes than actual, organic paintings. I understand the need for some detail but these are just ridiculous.
Rob Alexander has a very traditional, painterly method in his illustrative style. His lands are realistic, but definitely NOT glossy, or hyper-realistic.
Compare:
to
Have I clarified enough, the kind of art I dislike now?
Back in the beginning of the impressionist era, the only art that was recognized truly as art was that which depicted the utmost realism. Your argument now is that realism lacks what exactly? Redirect, while having very realistic lighting effects, is also full of satire and emotion. The stylization of Regress, however, is far from that of realism. Of those you mentioned, the only two I don't like are Blazing Archon and Steadfast Guard, and that has nothing to do with realism. Steadfast guard just looks like a bad photoshop job and Blazing Archon (which was done mostly traditionally btw) just looks poorly proportioned.
And yes, I see the kind of artwork you like now. Flat, dull, and desaturated. All three of those lands could have benefited from greater contrast, although Graven Cairns isn't terrible despite the fact that everything in the picture looks like it's made out of plush. The majority of arts you say you hate actually show a far better understanding of composition than all three of those lands, although Hidden Path is probably the best of the three, technically speaking.
Detail is a poor reason to judge a piece poorly. Without any attention to detail, art would have no soul at all. The details that need to be paid attention to are composition, color, contrast, color schemes, lightning, shading...these things are part of what influence all forms of artwork. Most of them are used to force the viewer to focus on specific aspects of a piece, and to force the eye to move around the piece. I've had to study this crap for two years. If your personal aesthetic preference is dull, flat, and desaturated work, that says more about your psyche than your ability to judge art.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
Wrong.
Redirect may not be the best example as without that horrid "HURR COLOR BURN" Photoshop abuse, wouldn't be that bad of a piece.
Regress, on the other hand... realism is all over the place. Just because a piece depicts something that wouldn't exist in real life doesn't mean it lacks realism... look at that water. Look at the glossy, sleek design of everything. Look at the water spray. The tentacles in the water. You can't honestly sit there and tell me the artist didn't have realism in mind.
It's utterly revolting.
Good for you?
Wrong. I'm sorry I don't like my art to have utterly tacky, super in-your-face detail, and utterly tasteless use of color and shading. Sorry I like my art to look a little... organic?
That's where we disagree then, because I feel those arts display a little something that you seem to be looking down on me for appreciating: That being, tastefulness.
From a technical standpoint, yes they may be superior, but from a practical standpoint, the complete opposite. Cramming all these details into a super-small space on the card is just... ugly. Horrendously ugly. The cards look more like movie scenes than actual illustrations, and it's utterly tacky.
Why don't you actually read for once?
And yes, I know about the elements of composition, the elements and principles of art, color management, etc. I have studied (and am currently continuing my study of) graphic design. I know you probably think you know more than I, but you're not dealing with a noob here, buddy. Art is something that is a part of me, that I feel very passionately about, and that I like to think I have a grasp of.
Don't treat me like I'm some sort of noob.
Again; sorry for preferring tastefully executed work, as opposed to being wowed at overly contrasted, flashy, in-your-face-detail, like a 7-year-old child with ADD on a sugar high.
I think Jesper Myfors did some great work also.
Selling domain "walkingtheplanes.com"- PM me with serious inquiries.
Thanks to Sioux for the Sig!
^v^ The Hooded Pumpkin's Trading Patch ^v^
Deck Tech:
UDagon's Fish N ChipsU
1. Rebecca Guay - unique style, auramancer is one of my favourite cards
2. John Avon - his lands are amazing, and arrogant wurm looks good too.
3. Raymond Swanland - Magma Pheonix.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
No, Regress is not realistic. It's actually very stylized. It's not as detailed as any of the other pieces you said you had a problem with. The fact that it depicts something unrealistic was not a factor in my saying it wasn't a realistic painting. From every one of your responses, it can be gathered that you are simply trolling. Good day to you. /walks away
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
Yes it is. Look at the water, as well as the spray. Look at the textures, look at the colors. Look at the piece! It's obvious as hell.
I'm the troll? I'm not the one that resorts to "ur just a troll" or "nah ur wrong, i am ze arteest" and tries to present those as logical points.
No, I actually made valid arguments toward what makes artwork good according to art theory, and then pointed out which pieces actually used said theory in the ones you stated as "bad". Not all of them were good pieces (mainly Blazing Archon, which isn't even realistically lighted). Hell, I even gave a small art history lesson in one of my posts, and all you can do is say "these are bad because they're too detailed". If that's what reality looks like to you, you should stop trollin' and get a CAT scan.
And you think the artwork uses realism techniques because of "water spray"? You fail on so many levels.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
And I gave (valid) reasonings as to why I believe these pieces are bad.
**** your art theory, son. Art comes from the soul, technical detail should never be a factor in determining "good" art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
Also, I already know, I have studied it also. Your art history, doesn't make you right however.
Continuously implying somebody is trolling, merely because they disagree with you, is a form of trolling in and of itself. Stop making bad posts.
No, I think it uses realism techniques because it's not stylized at all.
Draft my cube!
Watch me stream!
I'm not implying you're trolling because you disagree with me. Now who's not reading the posts?
You put "valid" in parentheses? Did you do that on purpose? Seriously, if you think "it's got detail" is a "valid" reason to dislike a piece, then your opinion on art is completely irrelevant. You can still state it, but it's useless tripe. And you think I have an illusory sense of superiority because I've taken art classes? I used that knowledge to point out the flaws in your critique. I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm saying you appear to know nothing about art. If you truly have taken art classes, then you should realize why your arguments hold very little position.
And it is stylized. The artwork looks rather like he used a drybush-like technique, and diffused the light to create a rather placid effect. Most of the stylization is visible in the creature being "regressed".
You really want to know why I keep saying you're trolling? See all those points I just made? Just like I keep making points solidly based in art theory? I'm not doing it to flaunt my art knowledge, I'm doing it to back up my argument. You however resort to posting links to an unreliable encyclopedia to insult me, and simply saying "you're not right" without providing anything to back up your own stance. This is probably the fifth time in a row you've done so, and it's getting old. If your goal is to "win" the argument by saying something to which I don't reply, then go ahead and take your hollow victory. Unless you have something meaningful to say that can back up your argument, and not simply resort to personal attacks such as that little linkage bit you did, then this argument is finished.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
I actually do have to agree with this, for the most part. You'll notice that the three examples you listed aren't creatures - they're just lands and an enchantment.
Also, it has no action. You can't compare stagnant art with active art. Ancient Hellkite is obviously doing something. Look at Graven Cairns. Its not doing anything.
Each art supports what it depicts. Rob Alexander's art fits the atmosphere of what he draws (although, he needs more focal). You're pretty much comparing an apple to a pear, so to speak.
Realm of photoshops and Skittles!
Akroma has vigilance so you can't tap that.
Realm of photoshops and Skittles!
Akroma has vigilance so you can't tap that.
I would say the very same about you and Trancebam.
I'm not comparing apples to pears. Even when it comes to other "active" pieces of art, I could find tons more "active" pieces that make Ancient Hellkite look like a Photoshop-color-burn-abuse piece of ****.
I read your posts, sir. What other reasoning do you have for calling me a troll? I give my opinions and your the one who shoots them down, as if yours are somehow more valid than mine.
No it's not, and you are utterly pretentious.
No, I think you have an illusory sense of superiority, because you use your supposed "knowledge" to shoot down anybody else's tastes that differ from yours.
Also, I don't give a **** about your supposed "knowledge", because being stylized and showing realism are not mutually exclusive. A piece can show both traits.
See above...
I have provided things to back up my stance. I was discussing my tastes in art, which is a very subjective thing. As I said before, true art comes from the soul... **** people who think that technical detail is a factor that makes a piece "good", they are the kind of utterly pretentious people that completely kill art for me.
And you haven't attacked me? You're the one sitting here being The Boy Who Called Troll at every opportunity.
In fact, I don't like it myself. But for the sake of debate, I used your example.
The problem with your argument is technical detail is a factor. You're proving yourself wrong.
It might not be a very influential factor, but nevertheless it is one. There's a difference between touching art, and good art. Rob Alexander is a professional - you can't expect him to pour his soul into every commission. That's how it works. You expect him to do that with something like a funeral.
Regardless of what you think, Trancebam obviously has a different opinion. You're proving nothing by trying to say he is wrong. You state yourself:
So you have nothing to gain by attacking another's taste in art.
On a side note, Trancebam, you're guilty of that too.
Realm of photoshops and Skittles!
Akroma has vigilance so you can't tap that.
This.
You may not like well defined, realistic art, but that doesn't mean you have to bash it. I can see artistic qualities in older magic art and in surreal pieces, but it's not necessarily as aesthetically appealing or fun to look at (especially at card size) as some of the more realistic (and very well done) pieces of modern magic art.
To each his own, not to mine and mine alone. Calm the eff down.
Indianapolis Regionals 2009 (Standard)
Worldwake Gameday (Limited)
See my alters here: http://s132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/jimmy2do/Cards/
i wasnt taking myself seriously when i said that. but in all seriousness i think FAy Jones take on stasis was pretty clever and pretty volkan Baga because of elspeth, knight-errant and whoever did Primal Beyond .
That's quite enough de-railment of this thread, and taking it over with anymore back and forth, line by line quotes about whether realism sucks or not.
If you've got a problem, move it somewhere else.
Any further posts on the matter will be infracted (not warned) and deleted. This is your warning.
My Moderator Helpdesk| My Custom Set List | My MSE Template HostingBeers Tasted: 113 | Last Beer Sampled: Flying Dog Horn Dog Barley Wine Ale
I'm overall dissapointed in the direciton magic art has been going in. I think there is too much digital stuff creeping in and it seems like most sets are at least 3/4 digital. I'd rather it be 1/2 so it would be more balanced. Then everyone could be happy.