my problem with the digital art is that it looks very... samey. you can tell who the artist is by the style of the, and thats cool, but a lot of it looks so similar that just glancing at the art most of the time you don't recognize the actual card. sure the old way gave you a lot of bad art, but it also meant you remembered it, which meant you remembered what the cards did at a glance.
I think the problem isn't digital or not. It's more the problem of the art direction lack of individuality. I can't hardly tell the difference between the new artists. They must be really good technically speaking, but the feel the samey. The art from the newer sets few constraint and too unified. I can hardly feel any individuality in the art from the set as a whole.
That's why maybe most of the promo arts like judge promo feel better. The artist has usually more freedom and don't need to match any set as much. I understand why they take this direction, but it's so boring if the art direction isn't right. I can't hardly tell the artist from each other in the new sets except a couple of guys. I can name lot of the old artists from older sets just by looking the art. Some people don't like Foghlio's artstyle (both of them), but you can recognize them from a mile away. Same with Christopher Rush, Drew Tucker, and so on.
Digital art would strive better if the artist had as much freedom as possible. Of course, bad art or art that you personally dislike will happen, but at least you can feel the uniqueness of them.
As someone who took nearly a twenty year break in Magic (left at Legends, came back around RtR block) I can say that while I don't necessarily prefer the old style or the new style as a whole, I certainly do notice that there aren't embarrassingly bad cards now like then, i.e. every single piece by Phil Foglio. Some of that stuff made me embarrassed to be playing a game that based on the art felt clearly designed for six-year-olds.
You shut your mouth. Phil and Kaja Foglio are awesome!
I will admit, Studio Foglio's art style doesn't really match Magic's current art direction, which is probably why they haven't done any cards recently. I think Wizards has also changed the way they pay their artists, too, which would require renegotiation to use them again.
(Master Decoy is the bestest! Who wouldn't be distracted by a guy dressed like that riding a zebra unicorn?)
Yes, with digitalism comes realism. Look at computer games anno 2015, the faces look all the same. The standard is realism not art-style anymore.
Still there is a lot of craftsmanship involved making these pieces, but cards I remember are Rebecca Guay cards, not a random eldrazi or a random elf.
Yes, with digitalism comes realism. Look at computer games anno 2015, the faces look all the same. The standard is realism not art-style anymore.
Still there is a lot of craftsmanship involved making these pieces, but cards I remember are Rebecca Guay cards, not a random eldrazi or a random elf.
I find funny that you hate that all faces look the same and at the same time you love Rebecca Guay. I mean, I like her style, but I don't get why every single piece by her must show melancholic looking girls with vaporous clothes.
Magic Art is subjective, but in all, but digital art does feel very samey to me. Not all digital art is bad, nor are all the hand painted ones amazing. Like many things in life, people want to remember what they like and not what they dislike.
Looks like toy story 1. Play Pokémon if you like art for children
The pokemon card game has and have had some pretty neat art, actually. Stuff that plays with passage of time or is straight up little clay models of creatures placed outside and photographed. It also does some extravagant ***** with foils and promos.
I always loved the clay model ones. They're just so adorable.
Newer art is hardly "bad", at least by an artist's definition of the word. It might certainly be bad at appealing to the tastes of some players.
I would suggest that modern tools and WotC's budget allows for the printing of art that no longer looks like a traditional painting. Some of the cards linked here are far closer to photorealistic than the stylized works from Magic's early days, and it beggars belief to assert that a "bad" artist is responsible for such feats of replication. (For a fantastic definition of "realistic", in many cases. See: Zendikar lands) The complaint about Infinite Reflection is particularly absurd, both in that the shards show the woman's face from many different angles, and that the entire concept of the art implies that those images should be exact copies of her face!
I miss some of the earlier works. I love Ice Age Plains, especially, for their rich and varied colors (the same reason I love the DTK Evolving Wilds). There are many older cards that will remain ingrained in my memory for years to come - not for any particular degree of quality in the card or its art, but simply because memory is fallible and retains the oddest things, like Slithery Stalker or Zap or Atog.
If you don't like the modern art style, please, feel free to make your case and convey those concerns in a place where the relevant community team might find them. But at least have the honesty to acknowledge that your complaints regard style, and not artistic skill.
The lack of abstract art is the best part of the modern art IMO. I hope to never see anything like word of command get printed again.
I read this and I was like Then I was all "Oh, Sheepz means modern Magic art." (Because Abstract Expressionism is totally part of Modernism.)
Seriously, though, I have to say, for me, I liked the old abstract art, on occasion. I only really get angry when artists are bad with anatomy (and there's no particular reason for it) or when it just looks really, really bad. (Again, Lavalanche.)
And no, OP, using modern media doesn't make an artist 'bad'. Because wouldn't you know it? Two hundred years ago, photography didn't exist. Clearly, every photographer is not a 'real' artist. Oh wait, no? That's not how art works? I don't even know the right insult for that mentality. "Philistine" doesn't really fit. "Pseudointellectual" somewhat does. I think I'll go with "Luddite", though. (Note that it's not just this thread where this mentality shows up. A lot of people believe this.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
It's funny that you feel that way OP because I feel like the art in the older days of magic was done by 6 year olds... or MaRo.
I never said I hate all digital art, or that all the "older" art was great, cuz it's not. What I said is that, when lazily done, digital art looks all the same: perfectly straight lines, no texture, no depth. The clothes look like those flat magnetic doll dress up things that little kids play with, etc.
I never said I hate all digital art, or that all the "older" art was great, cuz it's not. What I said is that, when lazily done, digital art looks all the same: perfectly straight lines, no texture, no depth. The clothes look like those flat magnetic doll dress up things that little kids play with, etc.
Sooooo..... What you're telling me is that you posted a thread in order to say that you dislike some art and like others? What a revelation. I'm so glad you've come to these forums as you are a great credit to the Magic community.
Public Mod Note
(cryogen):
Infraction for trolling
I never said I hate all digital art, or that all the "older" art was great, cuz it's not. What I said is that, when lazily done, digital art looks all the same: perfectly straight lines, no texture, no depth. The clothes look like those flat magnetic doll dress up things that little kids play with, etc.
Sooooo..... What you're telling me is that you posted a thread in order to say that you dislike some art and like others? What a revelation. I'm so glad you've come to these forums as you are a great credit to the Magic community.
No, assuming you've read my initial post, the question I posited was why WotC continued to accept substandard work over and over again. What you trolled me on was my reply to another posters post.
No, assuming you've read my initial post, the question I posited was why WotC continued to accept substandard work over and over again. What you trolled me on was my reply to another posters post.
No, no. I'm still referring to the OP. The title of the thread is "Why does WotC keep using bad artists?." Specifically you mentioned Igor Kieryluk. Infinite Reflection, personally, is a great piece of art. In fact he has many fantastic pieces and only a few sub par ones. All you did was come on here to post about how you dislike some art. But here's the funny thing. Notice how I said I really liked one of the pieces you specifically called out as bad? It's a matter of opinion. That's the "rubbins" with art. It's not like science where things are definite and set in stone regardless of what you believe. In the OP you talked about how you like the older art and artists. But, let's take Drew Tucker for example. I dislike many of his arts. I mean look at Clockwork Beast(Edit: that's not the Drew Tucker version). You can't even tell what it is. How about Gravebind? Are we sure an adult did that?
If you like the more "abstract" (that's the only thing I can think of to describe some of those things) pieces from the old days that's fine. I like to know what I'm looking at. But you don't have to come on here and say that an artist is bad and doesn't deserve his job because you don't like one or two pieces he made.
Ok now that I know the artist I have to say the Foglio art is really bad and too cartoony for such a game. Also, I don't think non-illustrators understand that virtually all professional illustrations today are edited, if not completely made, with art software. Stuff that you think is oils are pastels is just a brush or technique someone used in photoshop. A lot of the newest cards are obviously made with art software but you would probably be shocked at which of your "hand made" favorites are made with art software.
Not sure why you don't think Highway Robber is good art, that was one of the first cards I ever owned and the art fascinated me. There's so much emotion in the body orientation, like you know something dark and devastating is happening in that picture.
Not sure why you don't think Highway Robber is good art, that was one of the first cards I ever owned and the art fascinated me. There's so much emotion in the body orientation, like you know something dark and devastating is happening in that picture.
There's no depth to it, no texture. It's flat. The background looks like he was planning on getting around to finishing it, but then The Simpsons came on and he couldn't be bothered. Most of the colouring looks like paint-by-numbers (this section is light yellow, this other section is dark yellow, and there is a rigidly-defined border between the two). If you think the composition looks good, fair enough, but even if the composition is good, the artwork is destroyed by the half-assed effort. Good idea, poor execution.
And that holds for almost all of Walker's artwork. Many times when playing with my playgroup, someone will comment on some bad art, and often times I take one look, say "look at the artist credit", and we all go "oh, right, that's Kev Walker's terrible artwork once again".
Yeah Scrapskin Drake, Bump in the Night, Bladewing the Risen, Centaur Battlemaster, Dragon Tyrant, Dread Return, Giant Warthog, Goblin Kaboomist are really bad.
Going through gatherer Kev Walker has done some of the best, most iconic, consistent art. I'd really like to know what you think warrants commendation because if you think Kev Walker is bad I can't imagine what you think is good.
Those two different yellows are what artists call lighting, not all lighting fades into other shades, especially the contrast between a dark alley and a brightly lit street. The background is excellent, the blending of colors is strong and atmospheric without being busy. I guess you're mad there isn't an empty barrel in the background.
Agreed with all, except maybe Giant Warthog, I think that's one of those 10% OK cards he does (although, big surprise, the background to the right of the warthog looks like he couldn't be bothered to finish it). Bump in the Night is also OK. The rest of them though, all pretty bad.
What do I like? Foglios, Drew Tucker (although I'll happily accept that people will hate his style, totally fair...I probably like him more for the nostalgia factor because I played a bunch of his cards back when I was a kid), Anson Maddocks, Rebecca Guay, Raymond Swanland (in addition to his fine MTG art, his metal album covers are also awesome), Melissa Benson, John Avon, Seb McKinnon, Rob Alexander, Titus Lunter. Probably lots more, but those are the artists who immediately jump to mind.
Not sure if you're serious at this point since Drew Tucker doesn't put any more effort into backgrounds than Kev Walker even though I do like some of this macabre impressionist art. Rebecca Guay and John Avon are kind of givens, would be more shocked if someone didn't like them. Feel like this is just a case of nerds online finding something to nitpick about since your favorite and hated artists do extremely similar backgrounds.
Same with Anson Maddocks, just really ephemeral water color backgrounds. You like and hate identical things when different artists do them.
If we're just comparing artists now, I reeeeeally like Chase Stone.
Have you seen the full art of Feldon of the Third Path? Gorgeous.
Hey, I never caught his name for some reason but looking through his gallery, he did a lot of art that I really like, like Jace, the Living Guildpact and Extinguish All Hope. Feldon is also a great one. Can't believe I never noticed his name. It'ss cool that he's on Deviantart.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
They didn't care that he was the savior of Fort Keff, the great hunter of Ondu, the champion of Kabira. To them, he was just another piece of flesh, a thing with life to be drained away.
Heh. I do agree that many of the examples given from Igor in magic origins look just horrendous: Gather the Pack, Eyeblight Massacre, but I don't say that because it was digitally made. I say that because the background and the characters look to be in completely different themes to me, the background looks more realistic than the characters, that makes it really weird, because the characters look like sprints from a computer game and the background some sort of CGI that you would see in a movie (though not a very good movie).
I particularly enjoy more realistic art, such as the art of Chase Stone, just fantastic. I had Yisan, the Wanderer Bard as my wallpaper in the desktop for a real long time. That said, I do appreciate different concepts of art in magic. Take a look at the art of Quinton Hoover: aisling leprechaun, brine hag, headless horseman. They all look so original and great to me. They truly do. I even don't mind things like ashes to ashes from Drew Tucker that much (the version from The Dark). Because I get it that it is a different concept, a different approach. But when I look at Mold Demon or (come on) Word of Command I just see lazy, uninspiring, weirdly drawn stuff.
And I actually do like the thing that magic does in making the style of art more 'uniform' throughout a set. That is part of what makes Lorwyn so great to me, the art was bright, vivid, fairy-tale-like. I think it gives every set a different feels. If I had to elect my favorite style though it would be something like Boomerang from Rebecca Guay, the special version of it. It is just so bright, so vivid, so entrancing, looks like stained-glass that you find in churchs when the sunlight goes through them. Just perfect.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
That's why maybe most of the promo arts like judge promo feel better. The artist has usually more freedom and don't need to match any set as much. I understand why they take this direction, but it's so boring if the art direction isn't right. I can't hardly tell the artist from each other in the new sets except a couple of guys. I can name lot of the old artists from older sets just by looking the art. Some people don't like Foghlio's artstyle (both of them), but you can recognize them from a mile away. Same with Christopher Rush, Drew Tucker, and so on.
Digital art would strive better if the artist had as much freedom as possible. Of course, bad art or art that you personally dislike will happen, but at least you can feel the uniqueness of them.
I will admit, Studio Foglio's art style doesn't really match Magic's current art direction, which is probably why they haven't done any cards recently. I think Wizards has also changed the way they pay their artists, too, which would require renegotiation to use them again.
(Master Decoy is the bestest! Who wouldn't be distracted by a guy dressed like that riding a zebra unicorn?)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Still there is a lot of craftsmanship involved making these pieces, but cards I remember are Rebecca Guay cards, not a random eldrazi or a random elf.
I always loved the clay model ones. They're just so adorable.
I would suggest that modern tools and WotC's budget allows for the printing of art that no longer looks like a traditional painting. Some of the cards linked here are far closer to photorealistic than the stylized works from Magic's early days, and it beggars belief to assert that a "bad" artist is responsible for such feats of replication. (For a fantastic definition of "realistic", in many cases. See: Zendikar lands) The complaint about Infinite Reflection is particularly absurd, both in that the shards show the woman's face from many different angles, and that the entire concept of the art implies that those images should be exact copies of her face!
I miss some of the earlier works. I love Ice Age Plains, especially, for their rich and varied colors (the same reason I love the DTK Evolving Wilds). There are many older cards that will remain ingrained in my memory for years to come - not for any particular degree of quality in the card or its art, but simply because memory is fallible and retains the oddest things, like Slithery Stalker or Zap or Atog.
If you don't like the modern art style, please, feel free to make your case and convey those concerns in a place where the relevant community team might find them. But at least have the honesty to acknowledge that your complaints regard style, and not artistic skill.
I read this and I was like Then I was all "Oh, Sheepz means modern Magic art." (Because Abstract Expressionism is totally part of Modernism.)
Seriously, though, I have to say, for me, I liked the old abstract art, on occasion. I only really get angry when artists are bad with anatomy (and there's no particular reason for it) or when it just looks really, really bad. (Again, Lavalanche.)
And no, OP, using modern media doesn't make an artist 'bad'. Because wouldn't you know it? Two hundred years ago, photography didn't exist. Clearly, every photographer is not a 'real' artist. Oh wait, no? That's not how art works? I don't even know the right insult for that mentality. "Philistine" doesn't really fit. "Pseudointellectual" somewhat does. I think I'll go with "Luddite", though. (Note that it's not just this thread where this mentality shows up. A lot of people believe this.)
On phasing:
I never said I hate all digital art, or that all the "older" art was great, cuz it's not. What I said is that, when lazily done, digital art looks all the same: perfectly straight lines, no texture, no depth. The clothes look like those flat magnetic doll dress up things that little kids play with, etc.
I agree, I too miss the Foglios, Tucker, Venters, and also Rebecca Guay.
Sooooo..... What you're telling me is that you posted a thread in order to say that you dislike some art and like others? What a revelation. I'm so glad you've come to these forums as you are a great credit to the Magic community.
No, assuming you've read my initial post, the question I posited was why WotC continued to accept substandard work over and over again. What you trolled me on was my reply to another posters post.
No, no. I'm still referring to the OP. The title of the thread is "Why does WotC keep using bad artists?." Specifically you mentioned Igor Kieryluk. Infinite Reflection, personally, is a great piece of art. In fact he has many fantastic pieces and only a few sub par ones. All you did was come on here to post about how you dislike some art. But here's the funny thing. Notice how I said I really liked one of the pieces you specifically called out as bad? It's a matter of opinion. That's the "rubbins" with art. It's not like science where things are definite and set in stone regardless of what you believe. In the OP you talked about how you like the older art and artists. But, let's take Drew Tucker for example. I dislike many of his arts. I mean look at Clockwork Beast(Edit: that's not the Drew Tucker version). You can't even tell what it is. How about Gravebind? Are we sure an adult did that?
If you like the more "abstract" (that's the only thing I can think of to describe some of those things) pieces from the old days that's fine. I like to know what I'm looking at. But you don't have to come on here and say that an artist is bad and doesn't deserve his job because you don't like one or two pieces he made.
Not sure why you don't think Highway Robber is good art, that was one of the first cards I ever owned and the art fascinated me. There's so much emotion in the body orientation, like you know something dark and devastating is happening in that picture.
There's no depth to it, no texture. It's flat. The background looks like he was planning on getting around to finishing it, but then The Simpsons came on and he couldn't be bothered. Most of the colouring looks like paint-by-numbers (this section is light yellow, this other section is dark yellow, and there is a rigidly-defined border between the two). If you think the composition looks good, fair enough, but even if the composition is good, the artwork is destroyed by the half-assed effort. Good idea, poor execution.
And that holds for almost all of Walker's artwork. Many times when playing with my playgroup, someone will comment on some bad art, and often times I take one look, say "look at the artist credit", and we all go "oh, right, that's Kev Walker's terrible artwork once again".
Going through gatherer Kev Walker has done some of the best, most iconic, consistent art. I'd really like to know what you think warrants commendation because if you think Kev Walker is bad I can't imagine what you think is good.
Those two different yellows are what artists call lighting, not all lighting fades into other shades, especially the contrast between a dark alley and a brightly lit street. The background is excellent, the blending of colors is strong and atmospheric without being busy. I guess you're mad there isn't an empty barrel in the background.
Agreed with all, except maybe Giant Warthog, I think that's one of those 10% OK cards he does (although, big surprise, the background to the right of the warthog looks like he couldn't be bothered to finish it). Bump in the Night is also OK. The rest of them though, all pretty bad.
What do I like? Foglios, Drew Tucker (although I'll happily accept that people will hate his style, totally fair...I probably like him more for the nostalgia factor because I played a bunch of his cards back when I was a kid), Anson Maddocks, Rebecca Guay, Raymond Swanland (in addition to his fine MTG art, his metal album covers are also awesome), Melissa Benson, John Avon, Seb McKinnon, Rob Alexander, Titus Lunter. Probably lots more, but those are the artists who immediately jump to mind.
Same with Anson Maddocks, just really ephemeral water color backgrounds. You like and hate identical things when different artists do them.
Have you seen the full art of Feldon of the Third Path? Gorgeous.
Hey, I never caught his name for some reason but looking through his gallery, he did a lot of art that I really like, like Jace, the Living Guildpact and Extinguish All Hope. Feldon is also a great one. Can't believe I never noticed his name. It'ss cool that he's on Deviantart.
But the people behind the barrier knew.
I particularly enjoy more realistic art, such as the art of Chase Stone, just fantastic. I had Yisan, the Wanderer Bard as my wallpaper in the desktop for a real long time. That said, I do appreciate different concepts of art in magic. Take a look at the art of Quinton Hoover: aisling leprechaun, brine hag, headless horseman. They all look so original and great to me. They truly do. I even don't mind things like ashes to ashes from Drew Tucker that much (the version from The Dark). Because I get it that it is a different concept, a different approach. But when I look at Mold Demon or (come on) Word of Command I just see lazy, uninspiring, weirdly drawn stuff.
And I actually do like the thing that magic does in making the style of art more 'uniform' throughout a set. That is part of what makes Lorwyn so great to me, the art was bright, vivid, fairy-tale-like. I think it gives every set a different feels. If I had to elect my favorite style though it would be something like Boomerang from Rebecca Guay, the special version of it. It is just so bright, so vivid, so entrancing, looks like stained-glass that you find in churchs when the sunlight goes through them. Just perfect.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).