|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 5:47PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2011
|
I've noticed over the past few sets that Wizards has been increasingly using artists who use computers to create their art (through Photoshop or some other program).
I was wondering what other people think about this. Is this a good direction for wizards to move in?
Personally I think that, though many of these artists are very good (Chippy comes to mind), overall computer generated artwork looks and feels very similar. Sometimes it seems as though Magic is becomming visually homogenous. As a painter, what I love to see in artwork is an artist's individual way of making art. I think that a lot of the modern art is great, but I wish they would mix in a few more artists like Rebecca Guay, Terese Nielsesn or Mark Tedin, who I think all have very distinct, interesting styles.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 7:32PM
#2
|
|
|
Be careful not to conflate "digitally created" with "visually homogenous". The two are not at all the same thing. It's quite probable that a lot of the pieces you think "look" and "feel" digital are actually physical, and vise versa.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2011 - 5:31AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 27, 2001
|
This is something of an old chestnut. And a red herring. And a scapegoat, which is still kind of edible.
What you're seeing isn't the result of having too many digital artists, it's the result of Magic's art direction. New artists are chosen because their styles match the style WotC wants for Magic; it's years since they decided that having too many varying styles didn't suit the game's IP. That a lot of those artists work digitally is unrelated; it's just a fact of the modern illustration industry, and you'll find a huge percentage of digital artists in products with very different art directions to Magic's.
Some artists who have traditionally painted on canvas have made the switch to digital - Pete Venters, Matt Cavotta - without any sudden, drastic changes in style. That debunks the argument by itself: The art comes from the artist, not the tools.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 8:32AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2008
|
It also might be worth considering what style of digital art you're talking about. I mean, I've noticed a number of pieces in the past few sets that look less like paintings and more like a 3D computer model. I don't like that look too much, but although those pieces stand out to me as less attractive, I actually can't say for certain whether they're legitimately created that way, created in a painting program, or created with actual paint.
As Dunjohn says, it's possible that what you don't like is a particular style, rather than a process.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 7:48PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2011
|
Thanks for your input guys. I guess you all are right, its the style of recent sets that I don't really like; the way the art is made doesn't affect that in any way.
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
