Quote from: Voros;966427Depends, Erol Otus is often sniffed at but his style fits very much in with the underground comix style of Clay S. Wilson, Crumb, etc.

There is just a lot of genuine imagination in Otus' work, something that is surprisingly lacking in a great deal of D&D art. I get that some people find his loose style off-putting, but the guy never phoned it in like Elmore could at times.


When it comes to RPG inspiration, I'll take this cover over that Dragonlance cover earlier in the thread.

Ehhh...the Elmore hate. I grant that some of the Dragonlance covers were rough but that was probably the fault of the publisher. Could you imagine if they came to you and said, " we need 3 characters on the cover because it is a trilogy (get it?) And shoe horn a dragon in there.and make it fit a seasonal landscape. Ohhh and make it look cool...."

Some of Elmore's other work is the very definition of what I think of when I imagine the fantasy characters. And though many may not appreciate it, I love the "Western" style of naturalism that infuses his fantasy. His paintings tend to be more focused and evoke not just a single subject but the entire ecosystem in which they exist.

The Erol Otus style has grown on me, mostly due to embracing a more Gonzo style of campaign through DCC.

But a Red Dragon will always be that one on the red box.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;966568Ehhh...the Elmore hate. I grant that some of the Dragonlance covers were rough but that was probably the fault of the publisher. Could you imagine if they came to you and said, " we need 3 characters on the cover because it is a trilogy (get it?) And shoe horn a dragon in there.and make it fit a seasonal landscape. Ohhh and make it look cool...."

None of those images are actually the covers of the modules. Of the modules it is only true of Dragons of Truth, the best of which tend to be very dynamic with good use of colour cf. Dragons of Despair, Dragons of War and especially Dragons of Dreams and Dragons of Faith.

Elmore's work has always been a little too smooth and polished for me, like Boris Valejo. I prefer Frazetta. I don't hate Elmore, he's just not my favorite. But I agree that red dragon is great.

Erol Otis took a little while to grow on me, but he has a distinctive style. The Albuquerque Starport fits Gamma World to a T.

I've got a book of AD&D art. There are other artists in the book whose work is as polished as Elmore's, but their poses are more dynamic, and they make good use of lighting to focus the viewers eye on key points in the work (Jeff Easley is particularly good at this). Elmore paints these beautiful landscapes that are broken up by heroes standing around in vaguely awkward poses. Elmore's red box cover is iconic because it isn't that. The viewer's eye is drawn immediately to the dragon's face, then downward to the hero, who is charging forward. The pose is a little weird, but the whole image conveys action. This, by contrast, is just folks posing on a landscape:



There's no real focus to this image. Everything looks still, like a mannequin. My gut feeling when looking at this image is that the artist was enchanted by his landscape and treated the figures as a homework project.

Contrast with this by Easley:



There's a lot to be said about this one. The most obvious is that the most intense light and color are centered on the battling dragons. The background is no less detailed than Elmore's, but the way he colors and shades it ensures that it doesn't draw attention away from the main battle. Everything about how the dragons' wings are shaded and contoured conveys motion, while Elmore's dragon wings are completely flat and lifeless.

Another thing to notice is that Easley's landscapes follow the contours of the action, whereas they're mostly independent in Elmore's paintings. Another good example:


Note how the crags of the cliff and the clouds are used to enhance the look of the warrior charging right out of the page. The whole image is part of the action. When Elmore draws a horse (er, centaur) running at the viewer, the landscape is just a place for the horse to be.

Your criticisms are entirely correct pirate, and Elmore's landscapes would look better blank of characters.... but... '80s Big Hair Centaur Elves? How cool is that?

I think Easley is better than Elmore no doubt.

There was a rather obscure (And now quite collectible) Boot Hill module from the tail end of the line that had Elmore doing Western art.

Great stuff, if you can find it.

Quote from: Baulderstone;966563There is just a lot of genuine imagination in Otus' work, something that is surprisingly lacking in a great deal of D&D art. I get that some people find his loose style off-putting, but the guy never phoned it in like Elmore could at times.


When it comes to RPG inspiration, I'll take this cover over that Dragonlance cover earlier in the thread.

Agreed.

Quote from: Voros;966427Depends, Erol Otus is often sniffed at but his style fits very much in with the underground comix style of Clay S. Wilson, Crumb, etc.

I kind of wish Erol Otus had drawn a cool D&D comic strip or comic book. I remember those old ads (not drawn by Otus) in comic books way back when and thinking, "Gee, I wish this story continued." It was kind of a cool series of ads with the werewolf druid guy and the party in the tavern and the mysterious castle...

Quote from: Baulderstone;966563There is just a lot of genuine imagination in Otus' work, something that is surprisingly lacking in a great deal of D&D art. I get that some people find his loose style off-putting, but the guy never phoned it in like Elmore could at times.


When it comes to RPG inspiration, I'll take this cover over that Dragonlance cover earlier in the thread.

Besides being one of my all-time favorite games (though I prefer the 1992 edition) this image is just so evocative and inspirational. Loose yes. But not dull.

Quote from: Tetsubo;967393Besides being one of my all-time favorite games (though I prefer the 1992 edition) this image is just so evocative and inspirational. Loose yes. But not dull.

I love how I can't tell who are the PCs and who are the 'monsters'...

Quote from: S'mon;967423I love how I can't tell who are the PCs and who are the 'monsters'...

That is pretty awesome. Could go either way.

Quote from: Tetsubo;967393Besides being one of my all-time favorite games (though I prefer the 1992 edition) this image is just so evocative and inspirational. Loose yes. But not dull.

I completely missed the 4th edition. Gamma World was the second game I ever owned, and I love it. As a testament to my inexperience with RPGs in 1983, I own the 2nd edition boxed set and all the 1st edition supplements.

Fourth edition does look interesting, but the prices on it right now are a little high.

Quote from: S'mon;967423I love how I can't tell who are the PCs and who are the 'monsters'...

My PC is probably the skeleton in the bottom left of the picture.