this article was useless and uninteresting. art reviews are almost always this way, since it's pretty much "i like this card because it's beautifully done" or "i dont like this one because it's horribly ugly".
I took just the opposite myself; that is, I found the article to be interesting in many respects (although, I do agree with many of the assessments that it wasn't nearly as "deep" a review of the art as it could have been). Afterall, artwork is a huge element of the cards themselves; if it wasn't, then nearly 1/3rd of the card wouldn't be taken up by any kind of art and we'd just have text boxes and mana symbols. But artwork has defined Magic cards since the game's inception. Hence why it is nice to see an article on something other than strategy and/or deck construction (not to dismiss those kind of articles, just that it's nice to see someone focus in on the other element of the game that is usually overlooked). Note: of course, I have a large binder of cards at home that is comprised of many cards which I just enjoy the artwork and have no meaning more than that. The binder also has my Power 9 in it (or at least the pieces I own) and several other cards in it (such as my DCI Foils), but the bulk of it consists of cards that I just happen to like the artwork of.
Quote from lilfatdog »
there's nothign to discuss because it's all opinion.
That's not entirely true. You can discuss many elements of the artwork in terms of the usage of shading and/or highlighting. Whether the shadows drawn in the art really evoke certain feelings or reactions in the viewer, or if they don't add anything to the piece. Not to mention discussing the usage of colors and if it adds depth to the artwork or not. Many of these elements are very much factual and very little opinion.
Now, whether or not you like the artwork because of those things, or if you feel the artwork doesn't capture the card quite right... Well, that falls into the area of opinion. But there are many elements of art where you can discuss that have nothing in the way of opinion at all.
Quote from lilfatdog »
honestly, the writer doesn't appear to be particularly qualified in any way to critique the art, so what makes his opinion (which is all this article is) of enough value to warrant an article ??
Perhaps because he took the time and energy to submit something on a volunteer website? Whereas no one else did? *shrug*
Either way, I felt the article was interesting in that it did get into an element of Magic that is often overshadowed by the other elements of the game. In this respect it touched on something that attracted me to Magic long ago; the fact that it had lots of artwork to evoke a certain feeling and images in the viewer. Magic isn't just strategy and game play, it also has elements that capture the feeling of conflict and competitiveness in the artwork; sometimes telling a story, or other times just capturing a particular moment in time.
However, the author could have better defined some of the elements of the art itself and discussed what made the artwork interesting or evocative. For example, Demonfire has exceptional artwork; the contrast of black and red in the picture is really exceptional. Capturing the entire Rakdos feel (a black and red guild), showing a figure partially hidden in the shadows (only really made visible by the flames) throwing a ball of fire at something. The fire itself is animated, and isn't just a ball of fire, almost hinting at the chaotic nature of the guild itself with the grin in the fire. Likewise the figure himself is very animated, caught in a very powerful motion as he tosses the flame at his target. The figure itself is very well done, showing a powerfully muscled frame, but one that is not as muscled as some of the warriors shown... If anything, much like a shaman or warlock who would have to be tough and strong to contend with the forces he would interact with to summon the flame... That is, contending with demons.
That, to me, would be more of an analysis that would illustrate (no pun intended) exactly what elements of the art jump out at the viewer and capture the image and feel of the card. Whether or not the use of certain styles really capture it or not. That becomes a more critical and far more interesting discussion, which is less opinion and more focused on the art itself and the elements we can all see; we can discuss our impressions as well, and whether the art works or not. But the use of certain styles and colors definitely is more factually based, and isn't quite open to opinion.
As for Guay's art... I was disappointed with the Faerie to be sure (although, it looks really cool in foil). But Pride of the Clouds I felt really jumped into the Azorius feel. The lions in the picture are less "active" than most lions you would see... In this sense, capturing the idea that the Azorius are not an "active" guild and are more controlled and restrained than the others. It does get away from the idea of these being an purely aggressive creature, but it hints at the restraint that the Azorius must contend with. But the golds, blues and whites of the artwork form a very good contrast with each other, highlighting the lions themselves very well, without making it so glaringly obvious where the focus is (on the creature only). This lets you spot little details like the birds in and around the figure; giving the lions an even more ethereal quality than most pieces of art (which are usually very physical in nature). Perhaps the art would have been better suited to an Instant or Sorcery, rather than a Creature, but it still has several interesting characteristics that are rather pleasing to the eye.
Then again, perhaps I've spent a few too many days recently at the National Gallery of Art and other places.
Pride fo the Clouds is easily among my most favorite of card art in Dissension. I'd expect a token maker to have a certain ethereal look to it.
Wit's End while not spectacular in itself, is a step in the right direction. As some before me said, it's iconic. It's more of a return to the older magic art style, and something I'd love to see more of.
Voidslime has too much of an anime look to it for me. It's not bad, but not exactly good either.
As for Silkwing Scout, I used to think it looked like it was done with colour pencils until I saw a it in physical card form. The scan losses the detail that Guay has achived. This isn't my favorite piece of her's, but it's not as bad as the digital scan makes it out to be.
Overall the art in Dissension doesn't seem to spectacular to me. I'd like to see a return to less homogenized card art with less emphasis on making the most bad ass 1/1 you've ever seen. Often times, less is more.
As for the title, "The Good, The Bad, and the Guay," it seems like there could have been a better one. Using Guay as an obvious stand in for gay seems a bit sophmoric to me. Everything doesn't have to be high brow, but there had to be better choices.
Edit: In my just woken up state, I may have read into the title too much. If so, I apologize.
I'm mainly curious why someone with no artistic training, the inability to back up his opinions with any legitimate artistic reasoning, and a tendency toward sloppy, lazy writing ("I don't feel like dissecting why exactly why I like these two cards, as they pretty much speak for themselves") was published by MTGS. Are we really that hard-up for articles?
Here's a guy who doesn't like Rebecca Guay. We could publish another article next week by a guy who loves Guay. In publishing this piece (and I do mean "piece") we haven't contributed anything to the "literature of Magic" beyond the artwork posts in the Rumor Mill.
Criticism without any objective reasoning strikes me as completely worthless. While this writer is certainly entitled to his opinion, I see no reason why his opinion, above all others', should be worthy of publication. He offers a very flimsy argument for why the art of Demon's Jester is bad. One could completely disagree, citing the insane, demented flavor of Rakdos as a reason why this work of art is a success. His only argument? It's U-G-L-Y.
When I read a piece of art criticism, I would like to learn something, or have an a-ha moment when I make a new realization. People's opinions can be interesting, but are seldom useful enough to warrant an article.
As for the title, "The Good, The Bad, and the Guay," it seems like there could have been a better one. Using Guay as an obvious stand in for gay seems a bit sophmoric to me. Everything doesn't have to be high brow, but there had to be better choices.
The title of the article, if I understood it correctly, was more a reference to the title The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; the iconic spaghetti Western film with each of the main characters fitting these three elements of the title. Therefore, calling the article The Good, the Bad and the Guay is kind of a play off that (the good artwork, the bad artwork, and the Guay artwork; which could be ugly or not depending on your viewpoint). A somewhat obscure reference, but I smirked when I saw the title (again, presuming I'm right about the reference and the writer's intent).
The title of the article, if I understood it correctly, was more a reference to the title The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; the iconic spaghetti Western film with each of the main characters fitting these three elements of the title. Therefore, calling the article The Good, the Bad and the Guay is kind of a play off that (the good artwork, the bad artwork, and the Guay artwork; which could be ugly or not depending on your viewpoint). A somewhat obscure reference, but I smirked when I saw the title (again, presuming I'm right about the reference and the writer's intent).
Yeah, I got The Good, the Bad and the Ugly reference but it struck me as being more. I was just about to add a disclamer in apologizing if that wasn't the authur's intent. When I read it first, just having woken up, it struck me as that.
I agree that wits end is maybe a little too photo realistic, but I'm willing to overlook that because it's different from what other cards art is like at the moment. I'm more interesting in future possible work in a similar vein. It's good to see a magic artist pushing himself to work in a slightly different direction then the standard magic art.
Okay, I had such a need to post in response to this article that I went ahead and registered an account.
First: Wit's End is *awesome*. Completely. One of the best images in the set, imo. However, it's understandable that it's hated: it's very different than what we're used to seeing on a magic card, and as such is the type of thing that will evoke hate-it-or-love-it responses.
HOWEVER
about Rebecca Guay you are completely backwards. The art for Pride is great, and I never felt that it didn't seem to fit the card. I mean, what does it need? A bloody-fanged lion? Boring, typical fantasy art like that found on Freewind Equenaut? The Equenaut is just blah. Slap it on a bargain-bin fantasy novel in a liquidation store in the mall, fine. But keep it off of my magic cards.
THEN
we have Silkwing Scout. Superb superb, beautiful. I...I don't know. Maybe I just have to stop typing and realize I'll never understand someone who likes the Equenaut better than the Scout, and vice versa.
stick to articles on topics you know. you clearly have no knowledge of artistic terms, principles of art, tecniques, visual cues, or how to critque art in general. sorry, but its true.
You're walking on pretty thin ice there. Tread carefully.
I thought it was well done and I also hate Wit's End's art. I am not an expert on art, though, so don't flame me if you disagree with me agreeing. One regret: you should've covered the duel lands.
Personally, crummy artwork pretty much dictates how well i respect the card. Even great cards like Mutilate which has comparably dumb artwork are completely lost on me as viable spells to play.
uhm, the scout is terrible, look at it again. You ever read a really stupid comic in the morning paper and think "hmm, boy that guy wasn't even trying today. He/she must have thrown that together 5 minutes before the deadline"
Hallowed Fountain and Dovescape are my two favorite pieces in Dissension. I'm shocked that they weren't mentioned in the article.
Hallowed Fountain is simply gorgeous to every detail (except one--read on). From the central fountain and the shadow it creates, to the Ravnican civilians walking around it, and to the contrast between the blue water and the surrounding yellowish structures (not to mention the precise architecture in the background), this card is a masterpiece. My only complaint is that the pair of orange banners contrasts sharply with the rest of the work, and detracts from the Azorious essence of the piece. If they were white they would have meshed much better than they do now.
Dovescape, and for that matter, all of Shishizaru's art, is equally beautiful in my opinion. All of its elements blend harmoniously, coiling around and coalescing into a central circle. Its colors are varied and well-chosen, and add to the ethereal tone of the piece. On closer inspection one can see several small doves spiraling out of the spell, which reflects perfectly the card's function. There is no mistaking it: this card is an enchantment spell.
Shishizaru's bird token art is spectacular, too. Check today's Magic Arcana at www.wizards.com/magic to see it.
I didn't find anything wrong with the article. So what if he isn't an expect in judging art, are you? Sure, some of his opinons were brief, but whatever. I thought it was just fine. Don't let all the negative reviews keep you down.
Anyway, Rebecca Guay's art is absolute trash. Seriously, my buddies and I could get drunk and draw better pictures with magic markers than she could completely sober, and I can't even draw!! No, they don't need to have blood dripping off the fangs, but can we try to make it less obvious Crayolas were used in the "art". I find her stuff to be very bland, and almost blotchy in spots and it is really terrible. Its almost like she was in a rush, then just tried to slop something together just to see if they would print it. Find a new job lady.
I didn't find anything wrong with the article. So what if he isn't an expect in judging art, are you? Sure, some of his opinons were brief, but whatever. I thought it was just fine. Don't let all the negative reviews keep you down.
Anyway, Rebecca Guay's art is absolute trash. Seriously, my buddies and I could get drunk and draw better pictures with magic markers than she could completely sober, and I can't even draw!! No, they don't need to have blood dripping off the fangs, but can we try to make it less obvious Crayolas were used in the "art". I find her stuff to be very bland, and almost blotchy in spots and it is really terrible. Its almost like she was in a rush, then just tried to slop something together just to see if they would print it. Find a new job lady.
A very thoughtful comment... I hope you were being facetious when you likened a proffesional painter's work to art made by someone who "can't even draw."
I agree that Guay is not the right artist to draw a card like Pride of the Clouds (a mistake made by the Creative Team, not the artist); however, most of Guay's other pieces "fit" their respective cards.
It's fairly well established that Guay's art is not run-of-the-mill style, but diversity is good. Rather than trash her work, why not focus your intellect on the Magic art you appreciate?
this article was useless and uninteresting. art reviews are almost always this way, since it's pretty much "i like this card because it's beautifully done" or "i dont like this one because it's horribly ugly". there's nothign to discuss because it's all opinion. there are plenty of folks on these forums who think wit's end is really cool (maybe the POINT was that it's so jarring !) and plenty of people who don't value computer-generated lighting effects over all other aspects of art. honestly, the writer doesn't appear to be particularly qualified in any way to critique the art, so what makes his opinion (which is all this article is) of enough value to warrant an article ??
I agree completely. The article has no critical analysis beyond the author's personal tastes and shallow opinions, with the most common remark being "lack of detail." This article has exactly the same validity as the artsy-fartsy nerd at your local store.
Illustration is meant to communicate and evoke emotion; the simplicity of design or technique is secondary to this, and completely open to subjective as far as criticism and analysis goes. I believe Dissension is a success in regards to communication of concept... with the probable exception of Dovescape, which is abstract enough to make any attempt at formal criticism completely moot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People hiss and grunt at Mark Rosewater for the state of the game. Few realize, though, that it is Aaron Forsythe who is directly responsible of the current state of affairs due to negligence as head of Magic R&D and a completely skewed view of the game as a whole.
So next time you want to make an avvy with Rosewater pissing on something, take a deep breath and consider pasting Forsythe's face there instead...
I absoloutly hate wits end. I hope this is not a preview of what we're going to get in the future from Kev.
I loved the art for blood crypt. When I first looked at the art I just sat there and stared at it for a full minute(or close enough).
I got a foil rakdos augermage and I absoloutly love the art. Words cannot explain.
I HATE silkwing scout. Not just the art, the actual card as well (though that forum is for another time).
I wonder what the artists instructions ( is that right?) were for pride of the clouds. I don't totally hate the art though it could have been a lot better.
I hope you were being facetious when you likened a proffesional painter's work to art made by someone who "can't even draw."
It was partly an exaggeration, but the sad thing is, maybe I couldn't personally draw anything better, by friends sure could. No doubt about it.
Rather than trash her work, why not focus your intellect on the Magic art you appreciate?
Well, everyone else was reflecting their comments on Guay, and a section of the article was devoted to Guay, and I was just saying my piece. I had never really payed attention to who drew the cards, but after seeing her specific ones, then seeing some of the "art" he linked in the article, like the Angelic Page I think, I also vomited. Her art is just terrible. I can't believe she gets paid to slop that kind of trash together. I figured if you were going to be a professional "artisit" you would have to be, oh I don't know, good at art. If she can get paid with that **** then I might rethink my career path. I would love to slop something together in 15 minutes, then get paid, then have people say, 'its not too bad, its really unique, and thats good!"
As for stuff I like, the flame stuff looks pretty good, it all looks fine to me. Guay's stuff just sticks out to me, and not in a good way at all. Oh, and Wits End is terrible too. Just because it is iconic, doesn't make it good. Frankly, it is ugly. Its some wrinkled, hairless face, with white eyes. It is iconic for sure, but it is ugly and is lacking something.
Oh, and Wits End is terrible too. Just because it is iconic, doesn't make it good. Frankly, it is ugly. Its some wrinkled, hairless face, with white eyes. It is iconic for sure, but it is ugly and is lacking something.
If anyone has seen the recently released "Mysterious Skin," you'll understand that the face in Wits End looks like that of the old sketchy guy from L.A.--creepy and something out of a nightmare. That having been said (and I'm not sure Kev Walker was going for "rapist" when he drew the card), the art does match the card's function, despite its...lack...severe lack...of attractiveness.
It seems that the trend is all Guay haters liked this article, as well as those who agree with the author's opinions. As for those who find this article lacking, there are a diversity of opinions, ranging from "the author needs some iota of a credential" to "we don't need an article giving someone a soapbox to shout his personal response to works of art" to "this article was hastily written and lacks substance."
Can you imagine if everyone who had an opinion about card art was allowed to write and publish an article like this?
Whether or not you like Guay, try to evaluate this article objectively, as he has not done with the art he critiques.
Let's make sure we're commenting about the article and individual pieces of art, folks. Personal attacks against any MTGS author will not be tolerated.
Can you imagine if everyone who had an opinion about card art was allowed to write and publish an article like this?
Actually, anyone can write an article about their opion on card art and get it published. If you want to, go ahead. I don't mind hearing about other's opinions.
Quote from Polyjak »
Whether or not you like Guay, try to evaluate this article objectively, as he has not done with the art he critiques.
I would like to clear up a misconception surrounding me that seems to have come out of this article.
I do not hate guay's art. If you had actually read the article you would see that instead of just saying "GUAY ROCKS" or "GUAY SUCKS" I actually took a look at each piece of her art from dissension and explained why I did or did not like the piece. One piece I liked, one I hated, and one I thought didn't belong on the card it was on. I am a firm believer that guay's art belongs in Magic. I love a LOT of her older art. However, it doesn't mean my love is unconditional. In my opinion, art like Silkwing Scout is unacceptable (though I will admit it looks a lot better in foil).
"If I meant everything I said, I'd be a total *******"
Humour:
Quote from Conical Object »
In Soviet Russia, deck play you!
Quote from Me »
I think that that undefined would be the perfect power for the flying spaghetti monster.
Player A: "I hit you for an undefined amount of damage."
Player B: "I shock FSM."
Player A: "Does it do undefined damage?"
Player B: "No."
Player A: "Then it doesn't die. Take your damage *****!"
Player B: "How?"
Wizards of the coast nearly lost Rebecca Guay once and it would be a detriment to the game if she ever were not part of the creative development of the art in Magic: The Gathering. Few artists I have ever seen have such a mastery of the female form. Her art is sensual and inviting, always beautiful.
She is unique and talented with a distinct and recognizable style that she has trained for and worked hard on for many many years. Calling into question her ability or skills is as pointless as it is ignorant. Voicing your opinion whether you like or dislike her art is, in fact, why art is created. Art that is never noticed, art that never sparks discussion, art that never offends or enraptures... is forgotten.
In my opinion, Rebecca Guay is one of the greatest illustrators we are blessed to have working on Magic: The Gathering cards; also in my opinion, Pride of the Clouds is one of her greatest works, though the Equinaut is even more of an achievement. As for the fairy, I like it well enough, though the foil in particular is very eye-catching.
Did anyone mention that First Volley should have been the art for Shuriken?,
EDIT: Opps, sorry, I saw a comment about First Volley in a previous post, and I am so out of touch with the last few sets that for some reason I thought first volley was released in Dissension... and therefore thought my comment (and photoshop) was relevent to this discussion.
anyway... still think shuriken's art was lame...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And to get back on topic.
Originally Posted by grozathia As for the title, "The Good, The Bad, and the Guay," it seems like there could have been a better one. Using Guay as an obvious stand in for gay seems a bit sophmoric to me. Everything doesn't have to be high brow, but there had to be better choices.
Later Posted by grozathia Edit: In my just woken up state, I may have read into the title too much. If so, I apologize.
A legitimate "mistake", Actually when I first saw the title I thought it was "The Good, The Bad, and the Gay" as some magic players have the adolescent prepensity to use "gay" as a synonym for "lame". And, I am sure a few players have not over-looked the pun when talking about Rebecca Guay's artwork.
stick to articles on topics you know. you clearly have no knowledge of artistic terms, principles of art, tecniques, visual cues, or how to critque art in general. sorry, but its true.
You're walking on pretty thin ice there. Tread carefully.
If anyone want's to see Bristol's qualifications, they need only head on over the creativity/art threads and see his fantastic renderings thus far. That being said, Bristol's obv. a Guay fan.
However... We've had some strong arguments occur in the last few months on the art threads themselves over style, technique, principles of art relating to magic, style guide, etc. and I can't recall anyone simply flaming someone else. Well reasoned *****-slapping, but not flaming. So that needs to stop.
I think I share the general feeling that if I were the editor and had recieved this piece I wouldn't have printed it based on face value, since it's pretty much an opinion piece and it's guaranteed to raise the ire of the Guay lovers.
Personally I would have pointed said writer over to the art/creativity thread in the first place, where we would have had a great time dissecting.. I mean discussing his opinions!
I don't have an issue with Pride of the Clouds, the only one I've opened is foil and it looks bombtastic. I don't have any issue with the fact that it's not an action piece, actually the composition reminds me a lot of Oyobi, Who Split the Heavens
Judging individual card art is really tough job, you're really setting yourself up for critiscism. It's really easy to point out the pieces that suck because of poor skill or composition, and really easy to get excited about the next Kev Walker or Alexi piece (my personal fav is Adam Rex, raar!).. it's hard when you say "X is the best piece in the set" and leave it at that. That would be my feedback.
Here's five simple requests.
What do you like or dislike about the medium that the artist used?
What do you like or dislike about the subject matter?
" " about the composition?
" " about use of color or line?
Did the artist portray the flavor of the card well?
If any of your answers were negative, what's your expectation?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----------------------------------------
Visit the MTGSalvation art forum for all your Magic art/artist questions, and participate in the monthly art contest!!!
-----------------------------------------
My personal portfolio! http://somnovore.deviantart.com/
-----------------------------------------
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I took just the opposite myself; that is, I found the article to be interesting in many respects (although, I do agree with many of the assessments that it wasn't nearly as "deep" a review of the art as it could have been). Afterall, artwork is a huge element of the cards themselves; if it wasn't, then nearly 1/3rd of the card wouldn't be taken up by any kind of art and we'd just have text boxes and mana symbols. But artwork has defined Magic cards since the game's inception. Hence why it is nice to see an article on something other than strategy and/or deck construction (not to dismiss those kind of articles, just that it's nice to see someone focus in on the other element of the game that is usually overlooked). Note: of course, I have a large binder of cards at home that is comprised of many cards which I just enjoy the artwork and have no meaning more than that. The binder also has my Power 9 in it (or at least the pieces I own) and several other cards in it (such as my DCI Foils), but the bulk of it consists of cards that I just happen to like the artwork of.
That's not entirely true. You can discuss many elements of the artwork in terms of the usage of shading and/or highlighting. Whether the shadows drawn in the art really evoke certain feelings or reactions in the viewer, or if they don't add anything to the piece. Not to mention discussing the usage of colors and if it adds depth to the artwork or not. Many of these elements are very much factual and very little opinion.
Now, whether or not you like the artwork because of those things, or if you feel the artwork doesn't capture the card quite right... Well, that falls into the area of opinion. But there are many elements of art where you can discuss that have nothing in the way of opinion at all.
Perhaps because he took the time and energy to submit something on a volunteer website? Whereas no one else did? *shrug*
Either way, I felt the article was interesting in that it did get into an element of Magic that is often overshadowed by the other elements of the game. In this respect it touched on something that attracted me to Magic long ago; the fact that it had lots of artwork to evoke a certain feeling and images in the viewer. Magic isn't just strategy and game play, it also has elements that capture the feeling of conflict and competitiveness in the artwork; sometimes telling a story, or other times just capturing a particular moment in time.
However, the author could have better defined some of the elements of the art itself and discussed what made the artwork interesting or evocative. For example, Demonfire has exceptional artwork; the contrast of black and red in the picture is really exceptional. Capturing the entire Rakdos feel (a black and red guild), showing a figure partially hidden in the shadows (only really made visible by the flames) throwing a ball of fire at something. The fire itself is animated, and isn't just a ball of fire, almost hinting at the chaotic nature of the guild itself with the grin in the fire. Likewise the figure himself is very animated, caught in a very powerful motion as he tosses the flame at his target. The figure itself is very well done, showing a powerfully muscled frame, but one that is not as muscled as some of the warriors shown... If anything, much like a shaman or warlock who would have to be tough and strong to contend with the forces he would interact with to summon the flame... That is, contending with demons.
That, to me, would be more of an analysis that would illustrate (no pun intended) exactly what elements of the art jump out at the viewer and capture the image and feel of the card. Whether or not the use of certain styles really capture it or not. That becomes a more critical and far more interesting discussion, which is less opinion and more focused on the art itself and the elements we can all see; we can discuss our impressions as well, and whether the art works or not. But the use of certain styles and colors definitely is more factually based, and isn't quite open to opinion.
As for Guay's art... I was disappointed with the Faerie to be sure (although, it looks really cool in foil). But Pride of the Clouds I felt really jumped into the Azorius feel. The lions in the picture are less "active" than most lions you would see... In this sense, capturing the idea that the Azorius are not an "active" guild and are more controlled and restrained than the others. It does get away from the idea of these being an purely aggressive creature, but it hints at the restraint that the Azorius must contend with. But the golds, blues and whites of the artwork form a very good contrast with each other, highlighting the lions themselves very well, without making it so glaringly obvious where the focus is (on the creature only). This lets you spot little details like the birds in and around the figure; giving the lions an even more ethereal quality than most pieces of art (which are usually very physical in nature). Perhaps the art would have been better suited to an Instant or Sorcery, rather than a Creature, but it still has several interesting characteristics that are rather pleasing to the eye.
Then again, perhaps I've spent a few too many days recently at the National Gallery of Art and other places.
Wit's End while not spectacular in itself, is a step in the right direction. As some before me said, it's iconic. It's more of a return to the older magic art style, and something I'd love to see more of.
Voidslime has too much of an anime look to it for me. It's not bad, but not exactly good either.
As for Silkwing Scout, I used to think it looked like it was done with colour pencils until I saw a it in physical card form. The scan losses the detail that Guay has achived. This isn't my favorite piece of her's, but it's not as bad as the digital scan makes it out to be.
Overall the art in Dissension doesn't seem to spectacular to me. I'd like to see a return to less homogenized card art with less emphasis on making the most bad ass 1/1 you've ever seen. Often times, less is more.
As for the title, "The Good, The Bad, and the Guay," it seems like there could have been a better one. Using Guay as an obvious stand in for gay seems a bit sophmoric to me. Everything doesn't have to be high brow, but there had to be better choices.
Edit: In my just woken up state, I may have read into the title too much. If so, I apologize.
[join the princes of pauper]
+1
Here's a guy who doesn't like Rebecca Guay. We could publish another article next week by a guy who loves Guay. In publishing this piece (and I do mean "piece") we haven't contributed anything to the "literature of Magic" beyond the artwork posts in the Rumor Mill.
Criticism without any objective reasoning strikes me as completely worthless. While this writer is certainly entitled to his opinion, I see no reason why his opinion, above all others', should be worthy of publication. He offers a very flimsy argument for why the art of Demon's Jester is bad. One could completely disagree, citing the insane, demented flavor of Rakdos as a reason why this work of art is a success. His only argument? It's U-G-L-Y.
When I read a piece of art criticism, I would like to learn something, or have an a-ha moment when I make a new realization. People's opinions can be interesting, but are seldom useful enough to warrant an article.
The title of the article, if I understood it correctly, was more a reference to the title The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; the iconic spaghetti Western film with each of the main characters fitting these three elements of the title. Therefore, calling the article The Good, the Bad and the Guay is kind of a play off that (the good artwork, the bad artwork, and the Guay artwork; which could be ugly or not depending on your viewpoint). A somewhat obscure reference, but I smirked when I saw the title (again, presuming I'm right about the reference and the writer's intent).
Yeah, I got The Good, the Bad and the Ugly reference but it struck me as being more. I was just about to add a disclamer in apologizing if that wasn't the authur's intent. When I read it first, just having woken up, it struck me as that.
[join the princes of pauper]
+1
[join the princes of pauper]
+1
First: Wit's End is *awesome*. Completely. One of the best images in the set, imo. However, it's understandable that it's hated: it's very different than what we're used to seeing on a magic card, and as such is the type of thing that will evoke hate-it-or-love-it responses.
HOWEVER
about Rebecca Guay you are completely backwards. The art for Pride is great, and I never felt that it didn't seem to fit the card. I mean, what does it need? A bloody-fanged lion? Boring, typical fantasy art like that found on Freewind Equenaut? The Equenaut is just blah. Slap it on a bargain-bin fantasy novel in a liquidation store in the mall, fine. But keep it off of my magic cards.
THEN
we have Silkwing Scout. Superb superb, beautiful. I...I don't know. Maybe I just have to stop typing and realize I'll never understand someone who likes the Equenaut better than the Scout, and vice versa.
You're walking on pretty thin ice there. Tread carefully.
RRR Buy some of my art! Prints! RRR
Artist Strikes Fish
uhm, the scout is terrible, look at it again. You ever read a really stupid comic in the morning paper and think "hmm, boy that guy wasn't even trying today. He/she must have thrown that together 5 minutes before the deadline"
That's what the scout is.
Hallowed Fountain is simply gorgeous to every detail (except one--read on). From the central fountain and the shadow it creates, to the Ravnican civilians walking around it, and to the contrast between the blue water and the surrounding yellowish structures (not to mention the precise architecture in the background), this card is a masterpiece. My only complaint is that the pair of orange banners contrasts sharply with the rest of the work, and detracts from the Azorious essence of the piece. If they were white they would have meshed much better than they do now.
Dovescape, and for that matter, all of Shishizaru's art, is equally beautiful in my opinion. All of its elements blend harmoniously, coiling around and coalescing into a central circle. Its colors are varied and well-chosen, and add to the ethereal tone of the piece. On closer inspection one can see several small doves spiraling out of the spell, which reflects perfectly the card's function. There is no mistaking it: this card is an enchantment spell.
Shishizaru's bird token art is spectacular, too. Check today's Magic Arcana at www.wizards.com/magic to see it.
Anyway, Rebecca Guay's art is absolute trash. Seriously, my buddies and I could get drunk and draw better pictures with magic markers than she could completely sober, and I can't even draw!! No, they don't need to have blood dripping off the fangs, but can we try to make it less obvious Crayolas were used in the "art". I find her stuff to be very bland, and almost blotchy in spots and it is really terrible. Its almost like she was in a rush, then just tried to slop something together just to see if they would print it. Find a new job lady.
A very thoughtful comment... I hope you were being facetious when you likened a proffesional painter's work to art made by someone who "can't even draw."
I agree that Guay is not the right artist to draw a card like Pride of the Clouds (a mistake made by the Creative Team, not the artist); however, most of Guay's other pieces "fit" their respective cards.
It's fairly well established that Guay's art is not run-of-the-mill style, but diversity is good. Rather than trash her work, why not focus your intellect on the Magic art you appreciate?
I agree completely. The article has no critical analysis beyond the author's personal tastes and shallow opinions, with the most common remark being "lack of detail." This article has exactly the same validity as the artsy-fartsy nerd at your local store.
Illustration is meant to communicate and evoke emotion; the simplicity of design or technique is secondary to this, and completely open to subjective as far as criticism and analysis goes. I believe Dissension is a success in regards to communication of concept... with the probable exception of Dovescape, which is abstract enough to make any attempt at formal criticism completely moot.
So next time you want to make an avvy with Rosewater pissing on something, take a deep breath and consider pasting Forsythe's face there instead...
I loved the art for blood crypt. When I first looked at the art I just sat there and stared at it for a full minute(or close enough).
I got a foil rakdos augermage and I absoloutly love the art. Words cannot explain.
I HATE silkwing scout. Not just the art, the actual card as well (though that forum is for another time).
I wonder what the artists instructions ( is that right?) were for pride of the clouds. I don't totally hate the art though it could have been a lot better.
It was partly an exaggeration, but the sad thing is, maybe I couldn't personally draw anything better, by friends sure could. No doubt about it.
Well, everyone else was reflecting their comments on Guay, and a section of the article was devoted to Guay, and I was just saying my piece. I had never really payed attention to who drew the cards, but after seeing her specific ones, then seeing some of the "art" he linked in the article, like the Angelic Page I think, I also vomited. Her art is just terrible. I can't believe she gets paid to slop that kind of trash together. I figured if you were going to be a professional "artisit" you would have to be, oh I don't know, good at art. If she can get paid with that **** then I might rethink my career path. I would love to slop something together in 15 minutes, then get paid, then have people say, 'its not too bad, its really unique, and thats good!"
As for stuff I like, the flame stuff looks pretty good, it all looks fine to me. Guay's stuff just sticks out to me, and not in a good way at all. Oh, and Wits End is terrible too. Just because it is iconic, doesn't make it good. Frankly, it is ugly. Its some wrinkled, hairless face, with white eyes. It is iconic for sure, but it is ugly and is lacking something.
If anyone has seen the recently released "Mysterious Skin," you'll understand that the face in Wits End looks like that of the old sketchy guy from L.A.--creepy and something out of a nightmare. That having been said (and I'm not sure Kev Walker was going for "rapist" when he drew the card), the art does match the card's function, despite its...lack...severe lack...of attractiveness.
Can you imagine if everyone who had an opinion about card art was allowed to write and publish an article like this?
Whether or not you like Guay, try to evaluate this article objectively, as he has not done with the art he critiques.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
Actually, anyone can write an article about their opion on card art and get it published. If you want to, go ahead. I don't mind hearing about other's opinions.
I would like to clear up a misconception surrounding me that seems to have come out of this article.
I do not hate guay's art. If you had actually read the article you would see that instead of just saying "GUAY ROCKS" or "GUAY SUCKS" I actually took a look at each piece of her art from dissension and explained why I did or did not like the piece. One piece I liked, one I hated, and one I thought didn't belong on the card it was on. I am a firm believer that guay's art belongs in Magic. I love a LOT of her older art. However, it doesn't mean my love is unconditional. In my opinion, art like Silkwing Scout is unacceptable (though I will admit it looks a lot better in foil).
Just thought I should clear that up.
Humour:
She is unique and talented with a distinct and recognizable style that she has trained for and worked hard on for many many years. Calling into question her ability or skills is as pointless as it is ignorant. Voicing your opinion whether you like or dislike her art is, in fact, why art is created. Art that is never noticed, art that never sparks discussion, art that never offends or enraptures... is forgotten.
In my opinion, Rebecca Guay is one of the greatest illustrators we are blessed to have working on Magic: The Gathering cards; also in my opinion, Pride of the Clouds is one of her greatest works, though the Equinaut is even more of an achievement. As for the fairy, I like it well enough, though the foil in particular is very eye-catching.
EDIT: Opps, sorry, I saw a comment about First Volley in a previous post, and I am so out of touch with the last few sets that for some reason I thought first volley was released in Dissension... and therefore thought my comment (and photoshop) was relevent to this discussion.
anyway... still think shuriken's art was lame...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And to get back on topic.
Originally Posted by grozathia
As for the title, "The Good, The Bad, and the Guay," it seems like there could have been a better one. Using Guay as an obvious stand in for gay seems a bit sophmoric to me. Everything doesn't have to be high brow, but there had to be better choices.
Later Posted by grozathia
Edit: In my just woken up state, I may have read into the title too much. If so, I apologize.
A legitimate "mistake", Actually when I first saw the title I thought it was
"The Good, The Bad, and the Gay" as some magic players have the adolescent prepensity to use "gay" as a synonym for "lame". And, I am sure a few players have not over-looked the pun when talking about Rebecca Guay's artwork.
If anyone want's to see Bristol's qualifications, they need only head on over the creativity/art threads and see his fantastic renderings thus far. That being said, Bristol's obv. a Guay fan.
However... We've had some strong arguments occur in the last few months on the art threads themselves over style, technique, principles of art relating to magic, style guide, etc. and I can't recall anyone simply flaming someone else. Well reasoned *****-slapping, but not flaming. So that needs to stop.
I think I share the general feeling that if I were the editor and had recieved this piece I wouldn't have printed it based on face value, since it's pretty much an opinion piece and it's guaranteed to raise the ire of the Guay lovers.
Personally I would have pointed said writer over to the art/creativity thread in the first place, where we would have had a great time dissecting.. I mean discussing his opinions!
I don't have an issue with Pride of the Clouds, the only one I've opened is foil and it looks bombtastic. I don't have any issue with the fact that it's not an action piece, actually the composition reminds me a lot of Oyobi, Who Split the Heavens
Judging individual card art is really tough job, you're really setting yourself up for critiscism. It's really easy to point out the pieces that suck because of poor skill or composition, and really easy to get excited about the next Kev Walker or Alexi piece (my personal fav is Adam Rex, raar!).. it's hard when you say "X is the best piece in the set" and leave it at that. That would be my feedback.
Here's five simple requests.
What do you like or dislike about the medium that the artist used?
What do you like or dislike about the subject matter?
" " about the composition?
" " about use of color or line?
Did the artist portray the flavor of the card well?
If any of your answers were negative, what's your expectation?
Visit the MTGSalvation art forum for all your Magic art/artist questions, and participate in the monthly art contest!!!
-----------------------------------------
My personal portfolio!
http://somnovore.deviantart.com/
-----------------------------------------