I'm glad they got rid of foglio. I never liked any of his arts, it just doesn't fit in at all. The artwork today is okay. I did like the old art too, Mirage to me has some good art. Kev walker probably is one of my favorite artists. I liked Pete Venters too, and Greg Staples. They're the only names I really recognize. Well John Avon too, I think he's pretty famous in the MTG community as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
none
Modern UBG B/U/G control BBB MBC WUR Control WWW Prison RRR Goblins
Legacy BBB Pox UBG B/U/G Control UWU StoneBlade UW Miracle Control
And if Wizards can get away with paying lower-quality artists less money for work that only 10% of the playerbase will dislike (of which the majority won't dislike it enough to stop playing over it), then they come out ahead.
I was listening to a podcast a couple years ago, and a very prolific comic book artist (can't recall who) was talking about making a living as an artist. He said straight out that the golden goose for a freelance fantasy artist was Magic: the Gathering. He was talking about how so many of his peers would sells their first born to get a good regular gig like that. The next step down with regard to good steady income was art for D&D products, so still in the WotC family. I can't point to the exact podcast, or the guy who said it, so believe me or not, but I really don't think that Magic is skimping on art.
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...
One of the more respected and appreciated magic artists is Rebecca Guay, and I can spot her art at a thousand paces. Now, I personally don't like her style at all on most magic cards (talk about flat), but I did support her Kickstarter and got her book, and even though my opinion about her art on magic cards remains the same, when the art is full size it is much more interesting.
No, assuming you've read my initial post, the question I posited was why WotC continued to accept substandard work over and over again.
Well, since WotC sets the standard for art on their products, all art excepted by them by definition meets or exceeds that standard.
Also, anyone who says Magic art looks like video game art (as a pejorative) clearly has no idea what today's video game art looks like. Here are just 4 examples:
1) Metroid Prime 3
2) Last of Us
3) Child of Light
4) Borderlands 2
I even only included art you would see when actually playing the game, which means that it has to actually move and be dynamic which limits the artists somewhat. If you want to add in the stills, well that becomes even more amazing. Each example not only shows how well crafted the art for today's games is, taken together they show that that the styles are so incredibly different. So, video game art is very high quality and thus using it as a pejorative is just false. Video game art also has a wide range of styles so saying magic card art looks like video game art is like saying that Monet's Water Lillys looks like oil painting art.
The thing that people fail to understand about today's MTG art is that for the last decade or so wizards has been focusing more and more on world building, which means that you need a style guide that sets the tone for a block or set. Each artist will have a different approach and personal style, but by adhering to a tighter, more cohesive look you tie each style together to make the all the art feel connected. The world building in older sets was just a mess most of the time. Wizards wants magic to be more than just a card game, it wants it to be an identifiable brand, for lack of a better term.
My favorite MTG artist is Scott M. Fischer, and I think his best work for the game has been from the modern border era on (by a long shot). My favorite work of his on a card is Graceful Adept.
I think the art on Jeskai Ascendency does look a little like a homage to Disney, but it is not without it's charms. Honestly the only current regular MTG artist off the top of my head that I consistently can't stand is Wayne Reynolds. His style is so grating to me, and all the goofy proportions are just absurd. Do I think he is a sub-standard artist? No, I just don't like what he does.
When I referenced that my gripe with today's bad, IMO, digital art looks like a video game - I didn't mean video games of today, more like something from 10 years ago. Obviously, much of the art we get in MtG is awesome, such as the Feldon of the Third Path mentioned above. Compare that, however, to some of the work I referenced earlier. It's simply no contest when it comes to detail, texture, etc.
I haven't read the whole thread and I do agree with your general message, but can we please not use this argument? It is incredibly defensive and really isn't relevant at all.
Stuff like Stasis is what sticks with people. My non magic playing friend can recognize it.
Yea, most Americans can recognize a stop sign too, but that does not make it art. Being memorable just means it needs to be very absurdly commonplace or pretty shocking. Perhaps wizards should just put photos of real bloated rotting corpses on their cards...people would remember that.
When I referenced that my gripe with today's bad, IMO, digital art looks like a video game - I didn't mean video games of today, more like something from 10 years ago.
"Wow, this is gross, it tastes like apple pie."
"What are you talking about, apple pie is great."
"I'm talking about ten year old apple pie. I would have expected you to know that even though I never said it and was comparing it to this fresh desert."
I looked for 2 min and found several examples of 2005 video game art from top shelf games that have lighting and polygon problems that no MTG card art has, but that's not fair because it is often easier to proove the exception. I put it to you then- please provide a screen shot of a video game from 2005 and the magic card that it looks like.
EDIT: In your OP you name specific cards and then end by saying that "Whatever, it's all total crap that looks like it was generated during a game of Unreal Tournament." So you are saying that the two attached URT screen shots look to be generated by the same source as the attached art for Bloodsoaked Champion? That was probably hyperbole on your part, but do you actually mean that they look to be of the same quality? Seriously? I attached a screen shot from the original 1999 release, and one from UT2004, and in neither are the textures or shading even comparable.
Even if that did make sense as an argument, the most salient point I made still stands - there is no such thing as "looking like video game art" because that is not one "look". Video game art is not a mono-culture of style. Ever since Nintentdo and Sega started competing in the home market (maybe before, that is just when I noticed) video game art styles and quality started to vary more and more every year. Watercolor art is not a single vision, and video game art is even broader than that since there have been video games that utilize watercolor techniques.
I haven't read the whole thread and I do agree with your general message, but can we please not use this argument? It is incredibly defensive and really isn't relevant at all.
I am on the side of MTG art being very good, and I agree with you here. There are very few discussions in which "oh yea, then you do better" is a relevant response.
Stuff like Stasis is what sticks with people. My non magic playing friend can recognize it.
Yea, most Americans can recognize a stop sign too, but that does not make it art. Being memorable just means it needs to be very absurdly commonplace or pretty shocking. Perhaps wizards should just put photos of real bloated rotting corpses on their cards...people would remember that.
When I referenced that my gripe with today's bad, IMO, digital art looks like a video game - I didn't mean video games of today, more like something from 10 years ago.
"Wow, this is gross, it tastes like apple pie."
"What are you talking about, apple pie is great."
"I'm talking about ten year old apple pie. I would have expected you to know that even though I never said it and was comparing it to this fresh desert."
I looked for 2 min and found several examples of 2005 video game art from top shelf games that have lighting and polygon problems that no MTG card art has, but that's not fair because it is often easier to proove the exception. I put it to you then- please provide a screen shot of a video game from 2005 and the magic card that it looks like.
EDIT: In your OP you name specific cards and then end by saying that "Whatever, it's all total crap that looks like it was generated during a game of Unreal Tournament." So you are saying that the two attached URT screen shots look to be generated by the same source as the attached art for Bloodsoaked Champion? That was probably hyperbole on your part, but do you actually mean that they look to be of the same quality? Seriously? I attached a screen shot from the original 1999 release, and one from UT2004, and in neither are the textures or shading even comparable.
Even if that did make sense as an argument, the most salient point I made still stands - there is no such thing as "looking like video game art" because that is not one "look". Video game art is not a mono-culture of style. Ever since Nintentdo and Sega started competing in the home market (maybe before, that is just when I noticed) video game art styles and quality started to vary more and more every year. Watercolor art is not a single vision, and video game art is even broader than that since there have been video games that utilize watercolor techniques.
I haven't read the whole thread and I do agree with your general message, but can we please not use this argument? It is incredibly defensive and really isn't relevant at all.
I am on the side of MTG art being very good, and I agree with you here. There are very few discussions in which "oh yea, then you do better" is a relevant response.
A stop sign is one of the most recognized feats of graphic design, it most definitely is art. Go check the graphic design installation of the MOMA sometime, I guarantee you none of them have generic heroes fighting generic dragons on them. Secondly, you seem to equate memorable with "bad". The fact is you don't need to all look like Stasis to look memorable. For example Rebecca Guay stuff, or Paolo Parente stuff from a while ago. Stasis is just the real life example I had. Generic fantasy garbage devoid of style that every illustration student from around the world can put out get old very fast.
A stop sign is one of the most recognized feats of graphic design, it most definitely is art. Go check the graphic design installation of the MOMA sometime,...
Well, you and I have slightly different opinions on what is art, and frankly so does just about everyone. For me Art is something that gives you something different to consider each time you experience it. A stop sign is brilliant design; the MTG mana symbols are good design, but neither has depth. It think context is key here too. Warhol used design as art, but few people would actually display a Campbell's soup can. In the context that Warhol put his pieces he was intending to speak about consumerism, which gives them more depth. The piece that is used for Stasis is probably Art in the context that the painter usually presents her work, but on a card it is jarring and out of context (IMO).
That said, now that I think about it I am using the term art two different ways. Capital "A" Art, for me, is what I defined above, whereas "art" I use as a shorthand for things like illustration and design. Most of the time in this thread I am probably talking about illustration, as there are very few MTG pieces I would actually consider "Art" to the extent that would continue going back to it for more reasons than "it's attractive". I am not using the term "Art" as a measure of quality. One could argue about the quality of something like a Frank Frazetta painting (they don't aesthetically appeal to me), and it would not take much to imagine his work used in some kind of fantasy game, but I would argue it only becomes "Art" when it is taken in the cultural context of the time it was written and what it says about the roles of gender at the time vs now.
So, and yes I am working this out in my head as I type, perhaps a good deliniation for what I am trying to communicate is:
Good Design needs to be functional and aesthetically pleasing.
Good Illustration needs to be aesthetically pleasing, but serve a function in the context it is being used (such as world building).
Art needs to have a voice beyond it's initial experience, and does not even need to be aesthetically pleasing. What "Art" gives you has little to do with what you see (in the case of visual art), and more about how you feel and think when you experience it. It's hard to define "Art" but I know it when I feel it.
Generic fantasy garbage devoid of style that every illustration student from around the world can put out get old very fast.
I wold argue that most magic illustrations are not generic, since they do need to stick to a style guide that is designed to build a world developed my WotC. I would also argue that calling it garbage implies that it has no purpose, and it clearly does have a purpose. WotC uses illustrations to pull together mechanics, names, and fantastic beasts into a cohesive vision. Having wildly varying styles and interpretations defeats that purpose.
Cards illustrations do not need to be "Art", and it can be counter to the purpose of illustration on a card. Comic books are a good example of the use of illustration predominantly as an aspect of the the Art that is the complete book. Rarely are the illustrations themselves art out of context, though it does happen from time to time. I think it would be visually exhausting if they always were, which would not serve it's role and thus be non-functional in that context.
I want you to show side by side comparisons, because I am still not seeing it. A good 80% of the older art was terrible. Done by no name up and coming artists where ever they could find them. I don't deny that art is what got me into this game years ago, but I'll be damned if most of the art today isn't better than it was. I think the big problem most people have is that the art today doesn't 'stand out' or is not 'instantly recognizable from 50 feet away'. The Foglios... don't even get me started. They are good for their niche, but for magic cards? Uuugh. I'll take a current card over an Ed Beard any day. Presence of the Master? Why is Einstein in Mtg? Give me a break.
There are only 2 artists that I can think of in Magic art that consistently strike me a "bad" or jarring enough that I wonder why this art was used, then I look at the artist and it's the same names:
The Foglios (Way too cartoonish, like newspaper comic style art) and Wayne Reynolds. Some of his are even horrible, but if there is one creature, it is almost always in an action pose with the chest thrust forward and the arms angled behind.
The Foglios (Way too cartoonish, like newspaper comic style art)
Well, Phil Foglio pretty much got his start doing a comic in Dragon magazine with TSR in the early 80s (What's New with Phil and Dixie?). And then Phil and Kaja resurrected the What's New comic for Duelist magazine with Wizards for most of the magazine's existence. So you're not that far off likening their style to a newspaper comic, since their style was used in a magazine comic for both D&D and Magic.
I'm a lurker, but I logged in specifically to mention Quinton Hoover. I'm happy to see someone else already brought him up. I've been buying and playing off and on since Unlimited and I've seen a lot of good and bad art. But Hoover was immediately, and remains today, one of my favorites. I plan to collect all of his M:tG cards eventually, and several years ago I purchased a few lots of his original sketches on eBay. Adarkar Unicorn, Archangel, Ivory Gargoyle, Nettling Imp, Regeneration, and Wrath of God are all-time favorites, but Vesuvan Doppelganger is the one that I always think about when I think of his Magic art. So cool! I had it as my desktop background for years!
Having said that, I enjoy most of the new art as well. I like that they're trying to have some consistency. I just kind of wish they'd do an Unglued type of set again and invite back a lot of classic artists like the Foglios to have another fun run. I doubt it'll happen, but I'd enjoy it.
Sure WotC might be paying the most for artists in the fantasy market right now Dr Worm and be the golden goose. Go ask Jesper Myrfors how it was back in 94 though. They were getting paid far more back then then they are now and the game is several times larger now than it was back then. Until the WotC CEO Peter Adkison decided no more royalties and went for what most CEOs go for nowadays/more money in their own pocket than the people who do the real work. WotC is a pathetic company if you look at it closely. It's almost a shame MTG is so popular or in other words no matter how badly run WotC is as a company it's not like it means anything because they still get millions in profits annually. Artists are underpaid virtually everywhere. The grossest irony in this is that when an artist dies their art goes up in value dramatically but money means nothing to the deceased.
I miss old magic artwork a great deal. When I first started playing the game around 7th ed. and onslaught I loved the art a great deal. Now I look at current art and just sigh.
I miss Quinton Hoover a lot may he rest in peace. Good to know some of his original sketches are in good hands. Vesuvan doppelganger is one of the finest pieces of magic art ever made with ease. The funny side was that he got paid $50 for the original piece because all alpha artwork was commissioned at that price as WotC was a very poor company at the time of course having not made a big splash yet.
People constantly misjudge artwork. If you look at the full artwork in its original size it is often far more beautiful than it appears on the card. You can only put so much detail into a little square on a piece of cardboard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
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!
I miss Quinton Hoover a lot may he rest in peace. Good to know some of his original sketches are in good hands. Vesuvan doppelganger is one of the finest pieces of magic art ever made with ease. The funny side was that he got paid $50 for the original piece because all alpha artwork was commissioned at that price as WotC was a very poor company at the time of course having not made a big splash yet.
Yeah, me too. I also bought an ATC from him off eBay (scan attached to the bottom of this post along with a note / sketch that he sent in the package), and eventually was friends with him on Facebook. I miss seeing him post about random things, but especially art. I'm not living near my storage unit right now, so I wish I also had scans of the original sketches that I have there. Pretty sure I have preliminary sketches of Vodalian Mage and Homarid, along with a bunch of other non-MTG drawings. He was a really fantastic artist! By far, my favorite. Couldn't agree more with you about Vesuvan Doppelganger
Some art that I have found particularly crappy: SyncopateTrue Conviction... Really it's just that one face on True Conviction. Dear lord, how did that get on a card??
Raymond Swanland is one artist who never disappoints. I would be happy if he did all Magic art.
Edit2: I give up. Is there some character restriction on links in this forum?? WTF? Copy and paste it into your browser if you want, it's just a Visual Spoiler of all Raymond Swanland cards in Gatherer.
I'm not a fan at all of any of the new eldrazi art, or works with eldrazi in them. It looks like just about every one of them is a screenshot for a battle for zendikar video game that wizards gave up on halfway through, but didn't want all the work done on it to go to waste.
I'm not a fan at all of any of the new eldrazi art, or works with eldrazi in them. It looks like just about every one of them is a screenshot for a battle for zendikar video game that wizards gave up on halfway through, but didn't want all the work done on it to go to waste.
Yea the new Eldrazi have kinda strange feeling to it, looks more like a generic alien, while before they had quite a pretty big feeling (mostly the 3 Titans, All is Dust and such cards).
The worst part is that a lot of players cant really distinguish them at all, they look very much alike somehow, or just undefined ; the old Zendikar ones looked way more diverse.
I'd have to agree with the sentiment - mostly, the bad thing about magic illustration today is the LACK of creativity, most work looking pretty much like generic fantasy art that would stamp any generic, made-for-profit fantasy related work. It looks like the artists are all freelancers doing generic - not necessarily bad, in technical terms - work, in order to gain some money to invest in their personal projects; or, at least, they're not creative, simply.
Magic world is a created, invented world, and when the creative aspect of its visualization is stripped away from the artists, it ends up as a middle-of-the-road, uninspiring mess. If the artist is not allowed to inject personality into the illustration, the card itself loses all vitality and therefore that aspect of the game goes away.
At this rate I don't see much difference from the card just being what it needs to be for utilitarian playing - it's worded content.
It's unfortunate, 'cause it really doesn't inspire me to play much.
Curiously, no one mentioned Rob Alexander, by far some of the best illustrations are his:
This entire discussions seems to ignore the fact that wizards actually has a say in how the final piece looks and requests revisions to art until they say it is done or the contract specifies a certain amt of revisions.
Much of my work has gone out and eventually gets sliced and diced because when it's client work, I don't own it and what client says goes for the most part. Then again, wizards aren't the biggest fish in this pond. If they don't pony up the cash they will get the work they paid for, and no more.
none
Modern
UBG B/U/G control
BBB MBC
WUR Control
WWW Prison
RRR Goblins
Legacy
BBB Pox
UBG B/U/G Control
UWU StoneBlade
UW Miracle Control
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I was listening to a podcast a couple years ago, and a very prolific comic book artist (can't recall who) was talking about making a living as an artist. He said straight out that the golden goose for a freelance fantasy artist was Magic: the Gathering. He was talking about how so many of his peers would sells their first born to get a good regular gig like that. The next step down with regard to good steady income was art for D&D products, so still in the WotC family. I can't point to the exact podcast, or the guy who said it, so believe me or not, but I really don't think that Magic is skimping on art.
One of the more respected and appreciated magic artists is Rebecca Guay, and I can spot her art at a thousand paces. Now, I personally don't like her style at all on most magic cards (talk about flat), but I did support her Kickstarter and got her book, and even though my opinion about her art on magic cards remains the same, when the art is full size it is much more interesting.
Well, since WotC sets the standard for art on their products, all art excepted by them by definition meets or exceeds that standard.
Also, anyone who says Magic art looks like video game art (as a pejorative) clearly has no idea what today's video game art looks like. Here are just 4 examples:
1) Metroid Prime 3
2) Last of Us
3) Child of Light
4) Borderlands 2
I even only included art you would see when actually playing the game, which means that it has to actually move and be dynamic which limits the artists somewhat. If you want to add in the stills, well that becomes even more amazing. Each example not only shows how well crafted the art for today's games is, taken together they show that that the styles are so incredibly different. So, video game art is very high quality and thus using it as a pejorative is just false. Video game art also has a wide range of styles so saying magic card art looks like video game art is like saying that Monet's Water Lillys looks like oil painting art.
The thing that people fail to understand about today's MTG art is that for the last decade or so wizards has been focusing more and more on world building, which means that you need a style guide that sets the tone for a block or set. Each artist will have a different approach and personal style, but by adhering to a tighter, more cohesive look you tie each style together to make the all the art feel connected. The world building in older sets was just a mess most of the time. Wizards wants magic to be more than just a card game, it wants it to be an identifiable brand, for lack of a better term.
My favorite MTG artist is Scott M. Fischer, and I think his best work for the game has been from the modern border era on (by a long shot). My favorite work of his on a card is Graceful Adept.
I think the art on Jeskai Ascendency does look a little like a homage to Disney, but it is not without it's charms. Honestly the only current regular MTG artist off the top of my head that I consistently can't stand is Wayne Reynolds. His style is so grating to me, and all the goofy proportions are just absurd. Do I think he is a sub-standard artist? No, I just don't like what he does.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
EDH: Xenagos, God of Revels.
Stuff like Stasis is what sticks with people. My non magic playing friend can recognize it.
Everything now looks like a generic fantasy novel cover garbage. Just photoshop in Fabio and you're set.
I haven't read the whole thread and I do agree with your general message, but can we please not use this argument? It is incredibly defensive and really isn't relevant at all.
Yea, most Americans can recognize a stop sign too, but that does not make it art. Being memorable just means it needs to be very absurdly commonplace or pretty shocking. Perhaps wizards should just put photos of real bloated rotting corpses on their cards...people would remember that.
"Wow, this is gross, it tastes like apple pie."
"What are you talking about, apple pie is great."
"I'm talking about ten year old apple pie. I would have expected you to know that even though I never said it and was comparing it to this fresh desert."
I looked for 2 min and found several examples of 2005 video game art from top shelf games that have lighting and polygon problems that no MTG card art has, but that's not fair because it is often easier to proove the exception. I put it to you then- please provide a screen shot of a video game from 2005 and the magic card that it looks like.
EDIT: In your OP you name specific cards and then end by saying that "Whatever, it's all total crap that looks like it was generated during a game of Unreal Tournament." So you are saying that the two attached URT screen shots look to be generated by the same source as the attached art for Bloodsoaked Champion? That was probably hyperbole on your part, but do you actually mean that they look to be of the same quality? Seriously? I attached a screen shot from the original 1999 release, and one from UT2004, and in neither are the textures or shading even comparable.
Even if that did make sense as an argument, the most salient point I made still stands - there is no such thing as "looking like video game art" because that is not one "look". Video game art is not a mono-culture of style. Ever since Nintentdo and Sega started competing in the home market (maybe before, that is just when I noticed) video game art styles and quality started to vary more and more every year. Watercolor art is not a single vision, and video game art is even broader than that since there have been video games that utilize watercolor techniques.
I am on the side of MTG art being very good, and I agree with you here. There are very few discussions in which "oh yea, then you do better" is a relevant response.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
A stop sign is one of the most recognized feats of graphic design, it most definitely is art. Go check the graphic design installation of the MOMA sometime, I guarantee you none of them have generic heroes fighting generic dragons on them. Secondly, you seem to equate memorable with "bad". The fact is you don't need to all look like Stasis to look memorable. For example Rebecca Guay stuff, or Paolo Parente stuff from a while ago. Stasis is just the real life example I had. Generic fantasy garbage devoid of style that every illustration student from around the world can put out get old very fast.
Well, you and I have slightly different opinions on what is art, and frankly so does just about everyone. For me Art is something that gives you something different to consider each time you experience it. A stop sign is brilliant design; the MTG mana symbols are good design, but neither has depth. It think context is key here too. Warhol used design as art, but few people would actually display a Campbell's soup can. In the context that Warhol put his pieces he was intending to speak about consumerism, which gives them more depth. The piece that is used for Stasis is probably Art in the context that the painter usually presents her work, but on a card it is jarring and out of context (IMO).
That said, now that I think about it I am using the term art two different ways. Capital "A" Art, for me, is what I defined above, whereas "art" I use as a shorthand for things like illustration and design. Most of the time in this thread I am probably talking about illustration, as there are very few MTG pieces I would actually consider "Art" to the extent that would continue going back to it for more reasons than "it's attractive". I am not using the term "Art" as a measure of quality. One could argue about the quality of something like a Frank Frazetta painting (they don't aesthetically appeal to me), and it would not take much to imagine his work used in some kind of fantasy game, but I would argue it only becomes "Art" when it is taken in the cultural context of the time it was written and what it says about the roles of gender at the time vs now.
So, and yes I am working this out in my head as I type, perhaps a good deliniation for what I am trying to communicate is:
I wold argue that most magic illustrations are not generic, since they do need to stick to a style guide that is designed to build a world developed my WotC. I would also argue that calling it garbage implies that it has no purpose, and it clearly does have a purpose. WotC uses illustrations to pull together mechanics, names, and fantastic beasts into a cohesive vision. Having wildly varying styles and interpretations defeats that purpose.
Cards illustrations do not need to be "Art", and it can be counter to the purpose of illustration on a card. Comic books are a good example of the use of illustration predominantly as an aspect of the the Art that is the complete book. Rarely are the illustrations themselves art out of context, though it does happen from time to time. I think it would be visually exhausting if they always were, which would not serve it's role and thus be non-functional in that context.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I guess the good artists just move onto better stuff
The Foglios (Way too cartoonish, like newspaper comic style art) and Wayne Reynolds. Some of his are even horrible, but if there is one creature, it is almost always in an action pose with the chest thrust forward and the arms angled behind.
Aven Fleetwing, Bane of Hanweir, Call to Glory, Facevaulter, Goldmeadow Stalwart, ect.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I'm a lurker, but I logged in specifically to mention Quinton Hoover. I'm happy to see someone else already brought him up. I've been buying and playing off and on since Unlimited and I've seen a lot of good and bad art. But Hoover was immediately, and remains today, one of my favorites. I plan to collect all of his M:tG cards eventually, and several years ago I purchased a few lots of his original sketches on eBay. Adarkar Unicorn, Archangel, Ivory Gargoyle, Nettling Imp, Regeneration, and Wrath of God are all-time favorites, but Vesuvan Doppelganger is the one that I always think about when I think of his Magic art. So cool! I had it as my desktop background for years!
Having said that, I enjoy most of the new art as well. I like that they're trying to have some consistency. I just kind of wish they'd do an Unglued type of set again and invite back a lot of classic artists like the Foglios to have another fun run. I doubt it'll happen, but I'd enjoy it.
I miss old magic artwork a great deal. When I first started playing the game around 7th ed. and onslaught I loved the art a great deal. Now I look at current art and just sigh.
I miss Quinton Hoover a lot may he rest in peace. Good to know some of his original sketches are in good hands. Vesuvan doppelganger is one of the finest pieces of magic art ever made with ease. The funny side was that he got paid $50 for the original piece because all alpha artwork was commissioned at that price as WotC was a very poor company at the time of course having not made a big splash yet.
People constantly misjudge artwork. If you look at the full artwork in its original size it is often far more beautiful than it appears on the card. You can only put so much detail into a little square on a piece of cardboard.
Currently Playing:
Retired
cardname|setname
Like this.
Regeneration
Wrath of God
On phasing:
Yeah, me too. I also bought an ATC from him off eBay (scan attached to the bottom of this post along with a note / sketch that he sent in the package), and eventually was friends with him on Facebook. I miss seeing him post about random things, but especially art. I'm not living near my storage unit right now, so I wish I also had scans of the original sketches that I have there. Pretty sure I have preliminary sketches of Vodalian Mage and Homarid, along with a bunch of other non-MTG drawings. He was a really fantastic artist! By far, my favorite. Couldn't agree more with you about Vesuvan Doppelganger
Thanks so much! I didn't know you could specify sets like that!
Raymond Swanland is one artist who never disappoints. I would be happy if he did all Magic art.
Edit: Why is my link getting redirected to this thread? The URL I used in the link is http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?output=spoiler&method=visual&action=advanced&artist= ["Raymond Swanland"]
Edit2: I give up. Is there some character restriction on links in this forum?? WTF? Copy and paste it into your browser if you want, it's just a Visual Spoiler of all Raymond Swanland cards in Gatherer.
WWWAvacyn: We Can Make The World StopWWW
Yea the new Eldrazi have kinda strange feeling to it, looks more like a generic alien, while before they had quite a pretty big feeling (mostly the 3 Titans, All is Dust and such cards).
The worst part is that a lot of players cant really distinguish them at all, they look very much alike somehow, or just undefined ; the old Zendikar ones looked way more diverse.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Magic world is a created, invented world, and when the creative aspect of its visualization is stripped away from the artists, it ends up as a middle-of-the-road, uninspiring mess. If the artist is not allowed to inject personality into the illustration, the card itself loses all vitality and therefore that aspect of the game goes away.
At this rate I don't see much difference from the card just being what it needs to be for utilitarian playing - it's worded content.
It's unfortunate, 'cause it really doesn't inspire me to play much.
Curiously, no one mentioned Rob Alexander, by far some of the best illustrations are his:
<snip
Flooded may very well be my favorite magic illus.
Removed leeched images - cryogen
Much of my work has gone out and eventually gets sliced and diced because when it's client work, I don't own it and what client says goes for the most part. Then again, wizards aren't the biggest fish in this pond. If they don't pony up the cash they will get the work they paid for, and no more.