Quote from: Lynn;906310He's developed a sort of pseudo-manga style for Pathfinder that is I think is at the heart of it. I think it gives Paizo products their own distinctive look.

Yeah, to me it is very effective. I know it is pathfinder without even seeing the title just due to the art style. And his images always seem striking to me. It isn't going to appeal to everyone, but the images look fun, exciting and inspiring to me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;906298I think he is a good artist. I really don't understand the criticisms he gets from folks. The pathfinder aesthetic isn't to my taste but I still can see the attraction to it.

Man, this is going to read so damn elitist, and I'm honestly sorry for it, but it's clear you don't actually draw.  But from someone who does, he short cuts way too much without actually mapping things out like perspective, body proportions and distance and size in general.  He obfuscates his issues with bright, bold and effective colour work that makes the images pop.  Unfortunately, those of us who know see right through it.

And I've already done this rant, so if you like his work, I'm not going to say anything more, but simply be in the corner twitching and sobbing.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;906362But from someone who does, he short cuts way too much without actually mapping things out like perspective, body proportions and distance and size in general.

This is true... but so what? It doesn't make the art 'bad'. It would be 'bad' if he was aiming to produce Vermeer-level realism, but he's not. It's got a very comic-book sensibility to it and gets the job done admirably. (I'm saying this as someone who DOES draw and has been to art school... just to counter your elitism with more elitism).

It kind of reminds me of the sculpting on modern GW figures. The basic forms are often implausible and bizarre... but then they festoon the things with so many details and gribbly bits and whatever that it ends up being more interesting than it ought to be. Some people hate it, but there's definitely an audience who loves it.

Quote from: Simlasa;906364This is true... but so what? It doesn't make the art 'bad'. It would be 'bad' if he was aiming to produce Vermeer-level realism, but he's not. It's got a very comic-book sensibility to it and gets the job done admirably. (I'm saying this as someone who DOES draw and has been to art school... just to counter your elitism with more elitism).

It kind of reminds me of the sculpting on modern GW figures. The basic forms are often implausible and bizarre... but then they festoon the things with so many details and gribbly bits and whatever that it ends up being more interesting than it ought to be. Some people hate it, but there's definitely an audience who loves it.

It's jarring, and takes me out of the illusion he's trying to create, that's what's bad.  If he can fool you 'well enough' that's great, but my eye simply won't let me accept it.  If I see something I note as 'wrong' (Which I fully understand as purely subjective) it screams at me.

So again:  me, corner, sobbing quietly to self.

[Edit]OK, just to expound and clarify on why it's 'Bad art', you just said it yourself, you CAN SEE the issues.  The whole point of drawing, sketching and comic style art is to fool the viewer into thinking a 2D image is 3D.  But if you can pick out the flaws while looking at it, then it's terrible.  It's sloppy.

Would you be proud of something you drew that was that bad?

Shortcuts work when they're based in the basics, the fundamentals, again, it's based on illusion and fooling the eye, but (and no pun intended again, but laughter accepted) it looks to me that Mr. Reynolds doesn't have those down yet.  After the last 8 years you'd think he'd improve on those.

That makes it objectively bad, but if you're OK with it, I'm not going to change your mind, nor is my intention to.

So back into my little corner I go.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;906298I think he is a good artist. I really don't understand the criticisms he gets from folks. The pathfinder aesthetic isn't to my taste but I still can see the attraction to it.

His perspecta are off sometimes, ok, alot of times. It can and does throw a whole piece off. Its usually not glaring. But its there and to some it produces a sense of broken perspective. Faces are another problem he seems to have now and then.

Others just dont like his style. Personally I really like how much detail he tends to get into every piece. And from what I've been told hes a real workhorse artist who gets stuff done on schedule. Though could be mixing that last up with someone else.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;906372That makes it objectively bad,

Jesus Christ. Chris, this isn't your week. Seriously.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906391Jesus Christ. Chris, this isn't your week. Seriously.

So most art instructors and professional artists is wrong then?  Really?

OK, I lose, you win.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;906392So most art instructors and professional artists is wrong then?  Really?

OK, I lose, you win.

1st of all, Chris, I'm not here to attack you. It's merely a discussion, light in tone, no harm done, no harm intended.

That being said: Good is what people consider good. In this specific case, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, art is what people consider art. No theory, no mathematical proof, no such thing defines it. People do.

You're free to say that many people dislike it. You're free to say that it doesn't put color/perspective theory into action.

Objectively bad? The drawing style of the guy is liked by many. Therefore it's not objectively bad.

You know, Brady has said repeatedly that he's not trying to convince anyone and he bows to the opinion of the majority while reserving his right to his own standards of quality.  Maybe we can, you know, let him do that?

Quote from: daniel_ream;906400You know, Brady has said repeatedly that he's not trying to convince anyone and he bows to the opinion of the majority while reserving his right to his own standards of quality.  Maybe we can, you know, let him do that?

I think Chris is complicated in the way he thinks. I'd like to learn more about that.

Online art discussions/debates are almost always heated, IME. They involve taste and that's close to many people's identity which makes that touchy about criticism, especially in public and for artists it ties into their passion and maybe profession so their temperament is sensitive for largely the same reason. And the internet in general sucks as a medium for sensitive communication.

Edit: I don't have any skin in this particular game. I've never seen the guy's work. I have liked artists that many have claimed to be objectively bad and hated ones that allot of people thought were geniuses.

Quote from: Nexus;906407Online art discussions/debates are almost always heated, IME.

I'm not planning to go that far.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;906362Man, this is going to read so damn elitist, and I'm honestly sorry for it, but it's clear you don't actually draw.  .

I definitely don't know how to draw. I am no artist. So I am not weighing in on the technical side. I just think the stuff looks good. I've seen arguments over his work between artists, and I will leave it to them to debate his use of things like perspective and proportion. I wouldn't just take the opinion of one guy who happens to draw as gospel though. I'd definitely hear other points of view from people with art training. In the end though, I file all that stuff under technique. Just like with music or writing, some people are better at different techniques and if their game is stronger elsewhere, as a listener/viewer, I am happy to enjoy their work. Jimmy Page is a bit of a sloppy guitar player, but he wrote some of the best riffs in the business, so I can put my knowledge of guitar performance aside and enjoy it.

I don't know if your post is elitist, but it doesn't help persuade me to your position.

Quote from: daniel_ream;906400You know, Brady has said repeatedly that he's not trying to convince anyone and he bows to the opinion of the majority while reserving his right to his own standards of quality.  Maybe we can, you know, let him do that?

His statement was phrased poorly. The trouble when you start tossing out terms like "Objectively bad" is you're essentially saying you opinion is the only right and valid one. Adding phrases like "but that's okay" or "I'm not going to argue." come across as meaning you're going let other people be wrong if the want to. You're calling your opinion a fact and tossing in a passive aggressive slight to their tastes, intelligence or whatever That rubs some the wrong way though it may not be how he meant it to come across.

For a hyperbolic example: If I say "Your game and/or play style is objectively bad and no fun but you can continue to play it if you want as you've deluded yourself into thinking you're having fun." That's probably not going to go over well with the fans of said game. Exaggerated yes, but that's how it can come across.

Edit: Christopher Brady's reaction is a common one,IME Artists often do notice technical flaws that laymen miss. That likely occurs in most creative fields. Sometimes they can ignore them, sometimes they can't, sometimes they excuse them as part of the artist in question particular style.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;906362Man, this is going to read so damn elitist, and I'm honestly sorry for it, but it's clear you don't actually draw.

If we are going to be elitist, I sit on the board of non-profit that provides art education. I also know a good number of life-ling professional illustrators, in fact the guy who did my avatar pic for me has work in the Smithsonian collection. I'm not saying I am a fantastic artist, but I dabble, and I talk about art a lot with people that make their living at it. Now that my credentials have been established...

Being a professional illustrator is about endless time-management. Most of what you do won't be your best work. If you want to eat, you need to realistic about what you can accomplish in the time you can set aside according to the amount that your client is paying you. Working for an RPG company, I am guessing you don't have time to go all out.

There is also the fact that many good artists simply have shortcomings. That doesn't make them "objectively bad". Look at Howard Pyle, the father of modern illustration and mentor to N.C. Wyeth and Harvey Dunn. He was not great with color theory and openly admitted it. That doesn't change the fact that he is the guy that invented the idea of what pirates look like in popular culture. Being weak in color theory doesn't make an artist "objectively bad" if they have other merits.