Has anybody else noticed the sharp decline in the quality of the artwork in the newest sets? I'm not talking about the professionalism or polish--which are both arguably at an all time high--I'm talking about how interesting and/or evocative the individual pieces of art actually are.
It's obviously been trending this way for years (I'd say at least since circa Alara block, but arguably even earlier, even going back to the earliest three-expansion blocks if you want to get super technical) as Wizards has shifted towards a pseudo-realistic style and increasingly relied on digital rendering, a uniform style guide, etc. in their new sets, but it's become REALLY noticeable (to me at least) since about Origins/BFZ, where it's taken a turn into almost a cartooniy caricature of realism. Coincidentally, this happens to roughly track the point where Wizards adopted the new two-block paradigm, grossly powered down every card supertype that doesn't say "creature", stopped reprinting important staples in non-supplemental product, and started pushing this goofy serialized Gatewatch storyline.
Looking at the Aether Revolt spoilers, and Kaladesh, the art now is almost completely stylistically homogenous--I couldn't point out an individual artist's work the way I used to when you could tell a Rebecca Guay from a Terese Nielsen from a Richard Kane Ferguson, etc.
I can't help but think the game has really lost some of its character. It's obvious that Hasbro has identified MtG as a cash cow in light of its booming popularity over the last few years, and has really pushed the limits of how much they can monetize it--hence the switch to two/blocks year and an ever growing list of supplemental products. It looks like it's starting to backfire as secondary market prices on a lot of cards seem to be down as of late.
I knew I've hit about five topics, but I can't help feel that the game has generally just jumped the shark in a lot of ways.
Magic is a massively popular game with a diverse player base. Wizards has tried to appeal to as broad a segment as possible, but players, especially long-time ones, being left behind is inevitable. You might have liked the game best the way it was ten, fifteen years ago, but it is impossible for the game to survive without adapting to current tastes. You and those with similar opinions can grumble as you see fit, but money is the best indicator of success, which makes the current direction a successful one. I'm afraid all you can do is come to terms with the fact that the game has left you behind.
I'm not suggesting necessarily that they should go back to the "good old-old days" (mid 90s, circa Ice Age/4th Edition) where there was no style guide and the artwork didn't make any sense in a lot of cases, but compare even like the spoilers from original Zendikar block to Battle for Zendikar or Magic Origins to Magic 2010 and tell me that the new art--subject to the rare exception I guess--is really better or more interesting than the old. There's nothing wrong with having a coherent style to solidify the feel of the block, but it would be nice if the art weren't so homogenized and you could still say "oh, that there is a Christopher Moeller", etc.
By the way, I'll go on the record as saying that I personally believe the best art came from Mirage-Visions, probably the first sets to use a true "style guide" but where artists nonetheless had wide latitude to draw within relatively broadly defined parameters. Some of the art is just stunning. A few personal favorites:
While I do agree that the artwork has become somewhat samey in a block setting because of the detailed style guides, mtg isn't the only franchise impacted by it. For example, world of Warcraft commissioned artworks are very true to the art style developed for their universe. Even the Rebecca Guay pieces felt Warcraft to me, even if a little softer. Lots of board game and have to develop a style for the base and all expansions. Like munchkin, they need to have a unique feel from other products.
It's about delivering a coheesive product and when you have cards that span multiple blocks/years then you can have some very jarring artwork combinations in front of you if you don't manage them well. This is actually a big gripe of mine with modern...I wish my elf deck had a coheesive art style. The direction now is to downplay that a bit so instead of looking like a pile of random cards, your dragon deck looks thematic across the board and across multiple sets.
I will say that kaladesh to me feels very homogenized in a bad way. The filigree and environmental patterns in the aether do tend to tie up an artists hands with artistic freedom. Some perspective shots like gather the pack seem to fall out in favor of things like fairgrounds warden which I don't like personally. It's all preference of the marketing team probably. THis is the artwork that sells packs more than likely.
As a relatively newer player, and someone with a decent (but not extensive) art and design background, this is an issue that I see coming up a lot, and it's one that fascinates me.
As small disclaimer, I'm about to offer some blunt opinions - those are meant to be in the interest of honesty, and not actual disagreement. I didn't grow up playing Magic, and to me, older art can be like nails on a chalkboard. Whenever a reprint set comes out, be that Modern Masters or Conspiracy or anything like it, I pray for new art on cards. Frankly, I love alternate art, period. Some 'old' art I love (Auramancer is a good example of something that I personally adore), but the for vast majority, even the art on top-tier cards like Slaughter Pact can make me cringe. The obvious thing to say is that this comes down to personal taste, but some of that is just general aesthetics. Some classic cards look like something from a Middle School Art class. Does this add to the variety? Absolutely. But for someone like me, when anyone loudly laments "Why don't reprint the original art from Birds of Paradise?" and tells me they can't stand the 'terrible new art' it completely blows my mind. I see comments like that all the time, and it never ceases to amaze me. I think some of this comes down to time-based aesthetic (SNES pixel aesthetic vs. Modern Games is a good parallel), but in my opinion, some of that is just insane quality improvement.
That, said, I would agree that sometimes the art is just a little too cohesive. I think part of the homogenization is a reflection of the art community at large. Even something as varied as the Spectrum Collections (if you haven't seen them, check them out) can start to feel same-old-same-old quickly. I think it's something that will swing back and forth, and eventually blocks will start experimenting with whole art styles that fit the plane the same way characters do, a la the Lorwyn / Shadowmoor feel.
As a related side note, the mothership just highlighted a great video on Jesper Ejsing here and I think that shows that this is something on the collective mind.
I know that I miss the Foglios, Richard Kane Ferguson, Rebecca Guay and plenty of others. I also lament the OP's observed homogeny. That said though, there are still plenty of artists doing great, unique work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
I can't help but think the game has really lost some of its character. It's obvious that Hasbro has identified MtG as a cash cow in light of its booming popularity over the last few years, and has really pushed the limits of how much they can monetize it--hence the switch to two/blocks year and an ever growing list of supplemental products. It looks like it's starting to backfire as secondary market prices on a lot of cards seem to be down as of late.
I don't know if it's as much losing its character as consolidating the art of the game into a single, cohesive style. Early magic was a mess. Cards rarely made sense and the art was so diverse it was almost like each card came from a different game. I personally like having a single style that's easily identifiable and can be super detailed.
And haven't secondary market prices been something players have been begging for for years now? That's exactly what just about every player has wanted, especially with the increase in reprints we see to push some of those cards down in price. I think secondary market prices going down was what they were going for.
I will agree that some of the early sets were incoherent and some of the individual pieces were crap. I think they really hit the sweet spot on the art between about 1997 and 2006--they got rid of some of the really off-base stuff (what one poster described as "middle school art class art") and made the game feel like it had at least a cohesive aesthetic for each block without feeling completely homogenous so that the individual pieces grabbed your attention.
I know as a fact that as far back as Mercadian Masques WotC was forced into a style, it might have even started before that.
Sure you might not have liked Kaladesh or BFZ. However, you are leaving out Shadows over Innistrad and at the very least Eldritch Moon. Look at Gisa and Geralf or Hanweir Garrison and compare them to Mercurial Geists or Ride Down. Peace of Mind looks pretty realistic too... HOLY CRAP THEY REPRINTED PEACE OF MIND!
Anyone that knows Terese Neilsen knows Stalking Tiger. The fact they didn't use that picture for the Vanguard card was ludicrous. I've yet to use Aura Flux from Urza's Saga, but I've always loved the card art. Same for Kazandu Blademaster and Rotting Fensnake(which literally startled me the first time I saw it. I later used it as my desktop wallpaper in class so if I noticed anyone looking at my screen too long, I just minimized my window and they got to see THAT. I heard the last guy I did that to jump almost out of his seat.)
To bring this back around: I was not a big fan of the Mercadian Masques art style, but I think the cards were very playable. Inviolability has a cartoony-goofy picture (seriously, is that supposed to be Cho-manno, Revolutionary who I thought was a girl for years until someone showed me the right flavor text?), but that and Diplomatic Immunity are amazing auras... I have a Statis deck...yep, that art.
Just like videogames, graphics aren't the most important part of a game. I have gone as far to hand pick swamps for decks, but I've never avoided a card purely because of its art (unless it had nudity like Sylvan Paradise or...well, Invoke Prejudice due to my player's circle.)
I will agree that some of the early sets were incoherent and some of the individual pieces were crap. I think they really hit the sweet spot on the art between about 1997 and 2006--they got rid of some of the really off-base stuff (what one poster described as "middle school art class art") and made the game feel like it had at least a cohesive aesthetic for each block without feeling completely homogenous so that the individual pieces grabbed your attention.
Well, a lot of the reason for that can be traced to Sue Ann Harkey, who came on as the art director during Alliances and lasted to Weatherlight. She really shook up a lot of things in the company, too, and was hated for it. The old guard of artists didn't like her because she brought in a lot of new blood, and she was put in the unenviable position of ending royalty payments for the artists. R&D didn't like her because she would pair art with cards that made sense artistically but not necessarily in a game-mechanic sense. Mark Rosewater in particular had it out for her; recall his disgruntlement at changing the effect of Waiting in the Weeds because of the art she chose for the card.
The overall feel of the last few blocks has felt... I don't know how to describe it... kind of tacky and juvenile?
Speaking as a lapsed artist, you're absolutely right. Two big reasons: colour scheme and anthropocentrism. This has been trending for a long time. Just look at the cards from recent sets and you start to notice that the colour choices for the illustration tends to reflect the actual spell's colour. White cards have bright colour palettes. Blue cards tend to be cooler. Black cards are dark, and so on. This is a very deliberate move to make the art not just "readable", but also simpler to intuit, by using strong colours and composition. Unfortunately, it also means that, in terms of palette, the cards begin to look too similar.
My second point, anthropocentrism, is essentially self-explanatory. The vast majority of cards that get printed in recent years are representational, especially of living creatures, and especially of humanoid creatures. Again, this has been done deliberately. In a semiotic sense, they want the card to give the viewer the idea of exactly what it is or does, and the tendency is to insert a human figure in the work to ground it in "reality". Figures running from a natural disaster or crawling out of the earth, floating in the air or marching in lockstep formation, and so on.
The developers want the audience to see what is happening on a human level, to draw people in. That's fine, but over-reliance on the human element means you lose a lot of work that could be left up to interpretation or imagination. Artwork like Natural Balance would never be printed today, because it's not representational enough. Modern sets seem to have lost a lot of the thoughtful, dreamlike qualities of early Magic.
In terms of rendering skill, the artwork is leaps and bounds beyond the early sets. As far as theme, colour and quality of expression... I would say it has indeed regressed to a far more juvenile mentality.
I know as a fact that as far back as Mercadian Masques WotC was forced into a style, it might have even started before that . . .
I was not a big fan of the Mercadian Masques art style, but I think the cards were very playable . . .
I think that's more a function of the particular aesthetic they chose for the set--it was very cartoony. It was definitely more homogenous than previous sets, but if you compare the individual pieces there's still a lot of variety and individual expression, which is what I miss about the early sets.
Speaking as a lapsed artist, you're absolutely right. Two big reasons: colour scheme and anthropocentrism. This has been trending for a long time. Just look at the cards from recent sets and you start to notice that the colour choices for the illustration tends to reflect the actual spell's colour. White cards have bright colour palettes. Blue cards tend to be cooler. Black cards are dark, and so on. This is a very deliberate move to make the art not just "readable", but also simpler to intuit, by using strong colours and composition. Unfortunately, it also means that, in terms of palette, the cards begin to look too similar.
Artwork like Natural Balance would never be printed today, because it's not representational enough. Modern sets seem to have lost a lot of the thoughtful, dreamlike qualities of early Magic.
In terms of rendering skill, the artwork is leaps and bounds beyond the early sets. As far as theme, colour and quality of expression... I would say it has indeed regressed to a far more juvenile mentality.
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about but couldn't quite express because I'm not an artist, just an observer. Thanks for laying it out in terms that I can understand.
Speaking as a lapsed artist, you're absolutely right. Two big reasons: colour scheme and anthropocentrism. This has been trending for a long time. Just look at the cards from recent sets and you start to notice that the colour choices for the illustration tends to reflect the actual spell's colour. White cards have bright colour palettes. Blue cards tend to be cooler. Black cards are dark, and so on. This is a very deliberate move to make the art not just "readable", but also simpler to intuit, by using strong colours and composition. Unfortunately, it also means that, in terms of palette, the cards begin to look too similar.
That's very interesting. I agree with most of the points made on this thread if we're talking about Kaladesh specifically, which does look tacky more often than not. But Shadows over Innistrad and Eldritch Moon had some amazing art, on par with the original Innistrad block. Also, the color choices you mentioned made want to go look for cards in those sets, and there are actually some good examples: Cool blues on red cards, warm gold on black cards, near-monochrome on green cards, rainbows in blue (yeah, had to go all the way back to Dragons of Tarkir for this one because Innistrad isn't exactly known for its rainbows), and strong contrasts in white.
Well, a lot of the reason for that can be traced to Sue Ann Harkey, who came on as the art director during Alliances and lasted to Weatherlight. She really shook up a lot of things in the company, too, and was hated for it. The old guard of artists didn't like her because she brought in a lot of new blood, and she was put in the unenviable position of ending royalty payments for the artists. R&D didn't like her because she would pair art with cards that made sense artistically but not necessarily in a game-mechanic sense. Mark Rosewater in particular had it out for her; recall his disgruntlement at changing the effect of Waiting in the Weeds because of the art she chose for the card.
I remember this. Ironic how one of the pieces she pulled from an artist trade show was the "forest spirit" that would end up as the art for Maro, the original of which Mark Rosewater now proudly owns. She may not have been the best fit for the position but she wasn't afraid to make what turned out to be some vital, enduring decisions.
I don't think it's accurate to say Mark Rosewater "had it out" for Sue Ann - most of the times I've seen him talk about her, it was very positive. He just brings up the Waiting in the Weeds story because it's a funny story and he likes squirrels and likes talking about their history.
To get back to the OP - as a Terese Nielsen fan I'm definitely pretty upset to see the art style kind of edge her out of the running after all of the work she's invested in the game. But that said, it's the story thing that really annoys me, that we've gone from full length novels and giant meaningful story arcs to some cheesy Saturday morning mystery gang really feels like an embarrassing downgrade. I used to brag about the depth of MTG lore but in the past few years (especially post Origins) there's not been so much as a drop in that bucket. It's amazing how fast the formula of "Jace and the gang show up on a plane, find out something bad is happening, uncover the identity of the main villain by the end of set one, then big end fight during set two where the villain invariably sneaks away" BFZ and OGW, Shadows and Eldritch Moon, Kaladesh and Aether Revolt - from the titles, Amonkhet and Hour of Devastation and the possible Atlazan/Conquest of Power plan to follow this recipe pretty closely too. I feel like the groundhog really saw his shadow here, there's no end in sight for this garbage story ride we're stuck on.
WOTC is hearing the amount of people who hate the recent stories, right? Do they care? I suppose it's hard to quantify those complaints as product sales lost....
WOTC is hearing the amount of people who hate the recent stories, right? Do they care?
If so, we won't know about it for a while, considering they plan blocks years in advance. To get an idea of the span of time: Kaladesh was in development since Theros. If their market research indicates that the audience is getting tired of Jace and Pals or the way the storyline is plodding along, the earliest we'll see any changes will be 2018 or 2019.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's obviously been trending this way for years (I'd say at least since circa Alara block, but arguably even earlier, even going back to the earliest three-expansion blocks if you want to get super technical) as Wizards has shifted towards a pseudo-realistic style and increasingly relied on digital rendering, a uniform style guide, etc. in their new sets, but it's become REALLY noticeable (to me at least) since about Origins/BFZ, where it's taken a turn into almost a cartooniy caricature of realism. Coincidentally, this happens to roughly track the point where Wizards adopted the new two-block paradigm, grossly powered down every card supertype that doesn't say "creature", stopped reprinting important staples in non-supplemental product, and started pushing this goofy serialized Gatewatch storyline.
Looking at the Aether Revolt spoilers, and Kaladesh, the art now is almost completely stylistically homogenous--I couldn't point out an individual artist's work the way I used to when you could tell a Rebecca Guay from a Terese Nielsen from a Richard Kane Ferguson, etc.
I can't help but think the game has really lost some of its character. It's obvious that Hasbro has identified MtG as a cash cow in light of its booming popularity over the last few years, and has really pushed the limits of how much they can monetize it--hence the switch to two/blocks year and an ever growing list of supplemental products. It looks like it's starting to backfire as secondary market prices on a lot of cards seem to be down as of late.
I knew I've hit about five topics, but I can't help feel that the game has generally just jumped the shark in a lot of ways.
Thoughts?
By the way, I'll go on the record as saying that I personally believe the best art came from Mirage-Visions, probably the first sets to use a true "style guide" but where artists nonetheless had wide latitude to draw within relatively broadly defined parameters. Some of the art is just stunning. A few personal favorites:
Plains: http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/mirage/plains4.jpg
Cursed Totem: http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/mirage/cursed_totem.jpg
Enlightened Tutor: http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/mirage/enlightened_tutor.jpg
Dissipate: http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/mirage/dissipate.jpg
Dark Ritual (itself a casualty of 'progress'): http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/mirage/dark_ritual.jpg
Suq'Ata Lancer: http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/visions/suqata_lancer.jpg
It's about delivering a coheesive product and when you have cards that span multiple blocks/years then you can have some very jarring artwork combinations in front of you if you don't manage them well. This is actually a big gripe of mine with modern...I wish my elf deck had a coheesive art style. The direction now is to downplay that a bit so instead of looking like a pile of random cards, your dragon deck looks thematic across the board and across multiple sets.
I will say that kaladesh to me feels very homogenized in a bad way. The filigree and environmental patterns in the aether do tend to tie up an artists hands with artistic freedom. Some perspective shots like gather the pack seem to fall out in favor of things like fairgrounds warden which I don't like personally. It's all preference of the marketing team probably. THis is the artwork that sells packs more than likely.
As small disclaimer, I'm about to offer some blunt opinions - those are meant to be in the interest of honesty, and not actual disagreement. I didn't grow up playing Magic, and to me, older art can be like nails on a chalkboard. Whenever a reprint set comes out, be that Modern Masters or Conspiracy or anything like it, I pray for new art on cards. Frankly, I love alternate art, period. Some 'old' art I love (Auramancer is a good example of something that I personally adore), but the for vast majority, even the art on top-tier cards like Slaughter Pact can make me cringe. The obvious thing to say is that this comes down to personal taste, but some of that is just general aesthetics. Some classic cards look like something from a Middle School Art class. Does this add to the variety? Absolutely. But for someone like me, when anyone loudly laments "Why don't reprint the original art from Birds of Paradise?" and tells me they can't stand the 'terrible new art' it completely blows my mind. I see comments like that all the time, and it never ceases to amaze me. I think some of this comes down to time-based aesthetic (SNES pixel aesthetic vs. Modern Games is a good parallel), but in my opinion, some of that is just insane quality improvement.
That, said, I would agree that sometimes the art is just a little too cohesive. I think part of the homogenization is a reflection of the art community at large. Even something as varied as the Spectrum Collections (if you haven't seen them, check them out) can start to feel same-old-same-old quickly. I think it's something that will swing back and forth, and eventually blocks will start experimenting with whole art styles that fit the plane the same way characters do, a la the Lorwyn / Shadowmoor feel.
As a related side note, the mothership just highlighted a great video on Jesper Ejsing here and I think that shows that this is something on the collective mind.
My 720 Peasant Cube
I don't know if it's as much losing its character as consolidating the art of the game into a single, cohesive style. Early magic was a mess. Cards rarely made sense and the art was so diverse it was almost like each card came from a different game. I personally like having a single style that's easily identifiable and can be super detailed.
And haven't secondary market prices been something players have been begging for for years now? That's exactly what just about every player has wanted, especially with the increase in reprints we see to push some of those cards down in price. I think secondary market prices going down was what they were going for.
For reference:
MIRAGE:
http://wafry.com/MAGIC/Mirage_PICTESTER.htm
URZA'S SAGA:
http://wafry.com/MAGIC/Urzas_Saga_PICTESTER.htm
ONSLAUGHT:
http://wafry.com/MAGIC/Onslaught_PICTESTER.htm
The overall feel of the last few blocks has felt... I don't know how to describe it... kind of tacky and juvenile?
Sure you might not have liked Kaladesh or BFZ. However, you are leaving out Shadows over Innistrad and at the very least Eldritch Moon. Look at Gisa and Geralf or Hanweir Garrison and compare them to Mercurial Geists or Ride Down. Peace of Mind looks pretty realistic too... HOLY CRAP THEY REPRINTED PEACE OF MIND!
Anyone that knows Terese Neilsen knows Stalking Tiger. The fact they didn't use that picture for the Vanguard card was ludicrous. I've yet to use Aura Flux from Urza's Saga, but I've always loved the card art. Same for Kazandu Blademaster and Rotting Fensnake(which literally startled me the first time I saw it. I later used it as my desktop wallpaper in class so if I noticed anyone looking at my screen too long, I just minimized my window and they got to see THAT. I heard the last guy I did that to jump almost out of his seat.)
To bring this back around: I was not a big fan of the Mercadian Masques art style, but I think the cards were very playable. Inviolability has a cartoony-goofy picture (seriously, is that supposed to be Cho-manno, Revolutionary who I thought was a girl for years until someone showed me the right flavor text?), but that and Diplomatic Immunity are amazing auras... I have a Statis deck...yep, that art.
Just like videogames, graphics aren't the most important part of a game. I have gone as far to hand pick swamps for decks, but I've never avoided a card purely because of its art (unless it had nudity like Sylvan Paradise or...well, Invoke Prejudice due to my player's circle.)
Well, a lot of the reason for that can be traced to Sue Ann Harkey, who came on as the art director during Alliances and lasted to Weatherlight. She really shook up a lot of things in the company, too, and was hated for it. The old guard of artists didn't like her because she brought in a lot of new blood, and she was put in the unenviable position of ending royalty payments for the artists. R&D didn't like her because she would pair art with cards that made sense artistically but not necessarily in a game-mechanic sense. Mark Rosewater in particular had it out for her; recall his disgruntlement at changing the effect of Waiting in the Weeds because of the art she chose for the card.
Speaking as a lapsed artist, you're absolutely right. Two big reasons: colour scheme and anthropocentrism. This has been trending for a long time. Just look at the cards from recent sets and you start to notice that the colour choices for the illustration tends to reflect the actual spell's colour. White cards have bright colour palettes. Blue cards tend to be cooler. Black cards are dark, and so on. This is a very deliberate move to make the art not just "readable", but also simpler to intuit, by using strong colours and composition. Unfortunately, it also means that, in terms of palette, the cards begin to look too similar.
Just looking at some of the cards in Mirage and Urza's Saga and I'm amazed at the sheer variety of colour choices going on back then. The card illustrations tend towards the colour of the spell, but there's a lot more freedom in colour choice for individual cards. I see cool blues on red cards, warm gold on black cards, near-monochrome on green cards, rainbows in blue, strong contrasts in white... We just don't see that kind of variety any more.
My second point, anthropocentrism, is essentially self-explanatory. The vast majority of cards that get printed in recent years are representational, especially of living creatures, and especially of humanoid creatures. Again, this has been done deliberately. In a semiotic sense, they want the card to give the viewer the idea of exactly what it is or does, and the tendency is to insert a human figure in the work to ground it in "reality". Figures running from a natural disaster or crawling out of the earth, floating in the air or marching in lockstep formation, and so on.
The developers want the audience to see what is happening on a human level, to draw people in. That's fine, but over-reliance on the human element means you lose a lot of work that could be left up to interpretation or imagination. Artwork like Natural Balance would never be printed today, because it's not representational enough. Modern sets seem to have lost a lot of the thoughtful, dreamlike qualities of early Magic.
In terms of rendering skill, the artwork is leaps and bounds beyond the early sets. As far as theme, colour and quality of expression... I would say it has indeed regressed to a far more juvenile mentality.
I think that's more a function of the particular aesthetic they chose for the set--it was very cartoony. It was definitely more homogenous than previous sets, but if you compare the individual pieces there's still a lot of variety and individual expression, which is what I miss about the early sets.
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about but couldn't quite express because I'm not an artist, just an observer. Thanks for laying it out in terms that I can understand.
That's very interesting. I agree with most of the points made on this thread if we're talking about Kaladesh specifically, which does look tacky more often than not. But Shadows over Innistrad and Eldritch Moon had some amazing art, on par with the original Innistrad block. Also, the color choices you mentioned made want to go look for cards in those sets, and there are actually some good examples: Cool blues on red cards, warm gold on black cards, near-monochrome on green cards, rainbows in blue (yeah, had to go all the way back to Dragons of Tarkir for this one because Innistrad isn't exactly known for its rainbows), and strong contrasts in white.
I don't think it's accurate to say Mark Rosewater "had it out" for Sue Ann - most of the times I've seen him talk about her, it was very positive. He just brings up the Waiting in the Weeds story because it's a funny story and he likes squirrels and likes talking about their history.
WOTC is hearing the amount of people who hate the recent stories, right? Do they care? I suppose it's hard to quantify those complaints as product sales lost....
If so, we won't know about it for a while, considering they plan blocks years in advance. To get an idea of the span of time: Kaladesh was in development since Theros. If their market research indicates that the audience is getting tired of Jace and Pals or the way the storyline is plodding along, the earliest we'll see any changes will be 2018 or 2019.