Having just read the WD and the vampire counts "drawings" am I the only one who thinks he cannot draw or paint. I know people say it is a style, but often the perspective is out and the scale is distorted and please someone show him that there are other colors in the pallette. there are definitely better painters in GW employ (well maybe not now) so why is he this icon?

No you're not the only person with that opinion. I don't share it but some people do.

fullheadofhair wrote:Having just read the WD and the vampire counts "drawings" am I the only one who thinks he cannot draw or paint. I know people say it is a style, but often the perspective is out and the scale is distorted and please someone show him that there are other colors in the pallette. there are definitely better painters in GW employ (well maybe not now) so why is he this icon?

No, you are the only one. You alone. And once we convince you the domination of the Blanche Army will be complete.

Nah it's the vision he brings to things. Along with Goodwin he's done more to create GW's skull-encrusted, dirty look. There are more realistic artists in the GW stable but generally they're just copying what he does.

I know people say it is a style, but often the perspective is out and the scale is distorted and please someone show him that there are other colors in the pallette.

Do you think that because you pre-empt the response, said response is no longer usable? As you said, it is a style. De gustibus etc.

Prepare to be burned alive. On the positive I agree with you as well.

Isn't he the only artist that stayed with them without moving on? His stuff is OK the EPIC boxart was quite nice but his sketches all look the same to me. Give me Adrian Smith or Mark Gibbons any day.

I've always thoughts he was pants, his drawing always look flat and have greta wide areas of nothing. Gibbins if probably the best artist they have.

There's a difference between illustration and art, and much of why people don't like him is because they prefer illustration.

I can say that if you look at one or two of his things you might give him the benefit of the doubt as an artist since it can convey the whole gothic grimness look. I enjoy some modern art so I like the abstract, but if you try to apply the same to blanche you can't just gloss over the mistakes unless they're there for some abstract reason.

Is the perspective weird because it's meant to show a cruel world that's out-of-focus, losing its once great bastion of humanity? Maybe. His style could convey that. But you keep seeing that over and over and it becomes illustration as, to me, it loses its value as art. And that's when I criticize him for that. But hey, he's "just a concept artist".

edit: But the big beef with me is the whole skulls thing. Yeah, skulls. We get it. Maybe start adding phallic references to the weapons and you can do something similar to what Geiger did. And at least it'll be funny.

Adrian Smith überalles.

That said, I can respect Blanche as a concept artist with some solid sketch work to his name. I really enjoyed in the INQ rulebook having the juxtaposition of Blanche's character sketches in the background and Smith's reworks from them in the foreground. Kinda how it ought to work, as opposed to the 40k rulebook where IIRC there are all these Blanche full-page sketches all over the place. I personally don't think it has any negative affect on the 40k Grimdark theme and my enjoyment there of, but odd that he's given such a high pedastal to stand upon.

And for those that missed them, here are some blurry photos of Blanche's CSM models taken at some Games Day in the last year. Interesting to see his aesthetic and color preferences carry over.

- Salvage

Meh, I dislike his stuff. In fact, his style was largely what I disliked about GW stuff for a long time. In retrospect it was sort of silly to consider the quality of his artwork equivalent to the quality of the game, but I really dislike his sense of style. It always strikes me as just blotchy and messy, even beyond the raw adolescent sillyness of what he is representing.

Yes, I am aware that the entirety of 40k has a lot of adolescent sillyness in it, but just going by the Witch Hunter's codex alone, every illustration I hate has his name on it. He is like Boris... damnit what's his name... the 80's artist that did all the pictures of people 3/4's naked with a big sword and curvy woman Conan pictures. Only his work has lots of visual appeal, as opposed to Blanche's.
Also, looking at his stuff in the back of the Citadel "How to paint Citadel Miniatures" his stuff sucks compared to the Golden Demon winners and other things in the "show case". I will grant that much of them were probably done in the hoary past of miniature work, but still, there is little inspiring there.

Give me Dainton, the Kopinskis, or Gibbons any day.

Blanche is a great concept guy. He comes up with some pretty awesome ideas. His execution of those ideas, however, is crap. I really wish that GW would ease up on putting his stuff in every publication. They could be using those panels for good artwork...


~Eric

I always thought GW's fascination with skulls was odd, especially for the Imperial forces. Then I remembered that the Emperor is often referred to as "The Carrion Lord," which explains the skulls a bit. But even the Pope doesn't have as many relgious icons on him as some models do, especially Imperial Guard special characters! Commissar Yarrick alone has five of them. Ogryns, who are supposed to be fanatically superstitious and believers in the Emperor, so they get a pass with their sometimes six skulls. Personally, I like his art, maybe not his subjects, but I like the "old manuscript" look he does, but I think the morbidity level could be brought down a few steps.

Wehrkind wrote:Yes, I am aware that the entirety of 40k has a lot of adolescent sillyness in it, but just going by the Witch Hunter's codex alone, every illustration I hate has his name on it. He is like Boris... damnit what's his name... the 80's artist that did all the pictures of people 3/4's naked with a big sword and curvy woman Conan pictures.

Boris Vallejo. Just remember the paints! LOL

No- you aren't the only one who dislikes the Blanche. He is often considered the worst artist GW has--- or at least, no one seems to complain about any of the other artists. The Golden Throne did a few strips on him.



Mark (or was it Matt) Gibbons comes to mind as a very good artist. But he doesn't do GW exclusively.

There are blanche paintings that I like, but there are far more that I dislike. The real wonder is why he has been given so much to do? Why does he get so many covers when other artists could have produced better work? Why did he get both the second and third edition box art?

His characters tend to look very flat, sometimes are poorly symmetrical and have extremely poor perspective. There are a few times where his "Style" of making drawings intentionally look very messy works out well for him. There are times when his pictures' business has worked out alright for him.

But I have a very hard time forgiving him for the Second Ed box art. That was just awful.


mind- I do sometimes like the minis based on his work. But I find them infinitely more interesting than his original paintings.

Taarnak wrote:Give me Dainton, the Kopinskis, or Gibbons any day.

Blanche is a great concept guy. He comes up with some pretty awesome ideas. His execution of those ideas, however, is crap. [...]


~Eric

That is the true part. My greatest problem is that with the new demons his style gets a little to close to the model sector.

I guess I like Blanche's art because it is so self-aware. Here are drawings etc. that are consicous of how grotesque and ludicrous they are (and 40k is) and that at the same time contain elements that cannot be rationalised away. When I look at any of the other GW artworks, I am dismayed by how seriously they take themselves. "Realistic" depictions of Space Marines hacking up Orks, Orks beating up on IG, IG shooting Eldar. . . it is all a little naive, is it not? A scientist's view of a gothic reality.

I am afraid I don't see how the drawings are conscious of anything. All I see is work that looks like it was done by a 14 year old. Shouldn't art take itself seriously, or at least more seriously than his work seems to imply?
If the idea of the artwork is to point out how silly the who fluff side is, ok, his work fits it perfectly.
If, however, the point of the artwork is to give us a look at the "real" 40k world, to create versimlitude by way of visual reinforcement, are not the more... ok I am struggling to not say "talented" or "skilled"... artists not a better choice?

I don't know, maybe it just reminds me too much of the crap I drew in middle school, which even I recognized at the time as "bad."

odinsgrandson wrote:He is often considered the worst artist GW has--- or at least, no one seems to complain about any of the other artists.

Wehrkind wrote:All I see is work that looks like it was done by a 14 year old.

Ouch. Both of these sentiments seem overly harsh. I think Blanche has to be the most different artist GW has, which clearly won't jive with everybody. All the same ...

odinsgrandson wrote:The real wonder is why he has been given so much to do? Why does he get so many covers when other artists could have produced better work? Why did he get both the second and third edition box art?

... that's a good question, and one reason I'm overjoyed Adrian Smith got both of the new Demon army books. For the record though, I liked the 3rd ed. box art, much much more than the very generic Battle for Macragge (if that counts as the 4th ed. box) art.

- Salvage

Can "different" in this case mean "rides the short bus and has trouble eating Cheerios out of a baggie"? If that is the case, I can get behind you

I just don't think he is a good artist. He was probably the best they could get in the early days of RT since they no doubt had a tight budget and skilled scifi artists probably were not exactly thick upon the ground. Now, I can't help but think his paycheck could be feeding two art school students who would do better work.

Blanche is real hit or miss for me. Alot of his art I love (Witchunter's Codex, about half the 40k Rulebook) and some of his art I absolutely hate (The entire Vampire Counts Army Book and the other half of the 40k Rulebook).

Sometimes it really is just dark and gritty and epic looking, and very much fits the theme. The abstractness works well for the 41st Millenium, I think, as it is so far fetched to be abstract itself.

Sometimes it looks like he ate a box of Crayolas for lunch and spent the afternoon in the bathroom 'making art'. (I refer you to exhibit A: The Abyssal Terror drawing for the new VC. Utterly horrible).

I still respect him as an artist though, whether or not some of the stuff he does is GOOD, it's still quite imaginative. I can definitely see how most of his concept art sets the mood for 40k, if in no other way than to inspire other artists, be they illustrators, modellers, or painters.

When I first saw John Blanches work I was chastised for not loving it :(

What Kid Kyoto said! The man has vision!

- G

While I prefer Goodwin's stuff to Blanche's, his artwork has been the foundation for much of GW's miniatures. And I totally dig his CSMs - nice conversions!

Wehrkind, IMO art can't take itself seriously and at the same time take the epic battle between Galactic Rangers and Space Fungus seriously. I'm not saying it should treat it all as a joke--and Blanche's work doesn't--but I like that it reflects the fact that the 41st millenium basically doesn't make sense. It's a universe gone mad, in a way that's horrifying but also absurd, and I think he captures it perfectly.

and thus it is art of the highest kind...because there is a legion of fans who love it and a legion of people who hate it. ^_^

I dislike his visual style, especially the way he seems to 'scribble' pictures. I prefer the art of Mark Gibbons. His pictures capture 40K more for me than any other of their artists.

That said, the concept behind Blanche's work is often quite good and none of us can ignore what a huge impact he's had on the visual tone of 40K.

Something I do like of his are the Vostroyans. They are the only Guard miniatures that match his old 'Imperial Army' sketches, and they are more '40K-ish' than most of the things in 40K.

BYE

tegeus-Cromis wrote:I guess I like Blanche's art because it is so self-aware. Here are drawings etc. that are consicous of how grotesque and ludicrous they are (and 40k is) and that at the same time contain elements that cannot be rationalised away. When I look at any of the other GW artworks, I am dismayed by how seriously they take themselves. "Realistic" depictions of Space Marines hacking up Orks, Orks beating up on IG, IG shooting Eldar. . . it is all a little naive, is it not? A scientist's view of a gothic reality.

This sounds like the reasoning for the re-vamping of the Transformers for the new movie. Think about it... If you saw the old 80's boxy characters walking around the screen, it'd look pretty hokey. Blanche introduces a lot of ideas that, let's face it, are pretty ludicrous if you simply happened upon them in the middle of a suburban street. Every artist has their crap pieces, but personally he's more "hit" than "miss" as far as I'm concerned.

I think the reason you still see him even though GW's budget has increased is because he's been there since the beginning. Hell, I believe he did that Harry the Hammer piece GW's basing their new limited model on! Loyalty should be rewarded (as long as it doesn't mean by promotion or power). He's had a huge hand in a lot of their concepts. The ones that stand out the most are of his Tech-Seers and Adeptus Mechanicus.

I'd be willing to bet that most (not ALL) of the people here who don't dig his work weren't exposed to the 2nd edition stuff. I think his artwork's more suited in the package that RT and 2nd Ed offered. It was on a crappier paper stock, things were professional but their priorities were on the rules and the models. Now everything's packaged up pretty and on nice paper and I think that has an effect on how your perceive his art. For those of you who've picked up just about any art book, notice everything's on a thick glossy stock paper. Blanche's art doesn't suit that (not his b&w stuff anyway).

Actually, what I really like is how GW moved away from box artwork to box photos. That was a brilliant masterstroke. First, GW has their house painters painting for the inevitable WD advert. Now GW gets to leverage the models for the box package. And the Customer finally sees what the models actually look like.... Genius!

Now, imagine if every GW boxed set had Blanche's artwork on it? You'd have no clue what the models actually looked like.

I don't think anyone will take issue with that. Of course it's nice to see what we're buying, and of course John Blanche's sketches will tell us nothing of the kind.

"I'll take one box of Amorphous Blobs, two boxes of Slouching Hooded Guys, and a Tentacled Thingummy set."

tegeus-Cromis wrote:"I'll take one box of Amorphous Blobs, two boxes of Slouching Hooded Guys, and a Tentacled Thingummy set."

And the wierd thing - those would be the Dark Angels!

odinsgrandson wrote:

But I have a very hard time forgiving him for the Second Ed box art. That was just awful.

aw... who doesn't love this image:

People fail to see the point COMPLETELY!!!

It is a different "job" at a different phase of the process. Blanche is steve jobs, these other guys are brilliant marketing personnel. Which one is more crucial to Apple? Can their mediums be compared so thinly?

Yup, this is indeed a discussion with history. In my past I was something of a GW studio visitor, which involved tapas with Andy C and indepth chats with quite a few studio personnel, sevral visits etc. Blanche is responsible (and appreciated as such) for creating the entire visual template of the universes and pushing the art dept to where it is now. You could see his influence everwhere not the least bringing in people ike Jes Goodwin It pains me to hear people compare his work to illustrators without understanding their roles .

He's the guy who came up with the Arcoflagellant (that has an initial aesthetic). Then these other guys draw different Arcoflagellants (with new possible more pleasing aesthetics and more beautiful "pictures") in different environments

All I am saying if people compare the two, please understand the comparison and be specific of the pieces/modes of work.

eg. I prefer Paul Daintons illustration work such as the DH Codex cover to Blanche's ilustration work such as the 2nd ed SOB Codex cover that is also inside the witchhunter codex.

tegeus-Cromis wrote: I'm not saying it should treat it all as a joke--and Blanche's work doesn't--but I like that it reflects the fact that the 41st millenium basically doesn't make sense. It's a universe gone mad, in a way that's horrifying but also absurd, and I think he captures it perfectly.

I agree 100%!

And like I said, factor in that he is the guy who brings in the other artists and sets the vision and this thread becomes increasingly ridiculous...at least on the subject of evaluating "better" artists, when we are mostly talking about illustration technique, aesthetics and matter of taste.

Well I don't know, migs. Though I'm a Blanche fan, it does seem fair to me to criticise his sketches, paintings etc. as just that: sketches and paintings. We wouldn't justify shoddy rules writing or sculpting based on the fact that their creators have played a part in shaping 40k that goes beyond rules writing or sculpting, after all.

Yea, I agree with Migs that Blanche has a different job. The title of that job is not "artist" however. It might be "Conceptual Designer" or "Idea Man" or something. He is no more an "artist" than a "Caffinated Beverage Distribution Engineer" at Dunkin Donuts is an "engineer". Perhaps more politely, building a bridge out of legos does not make me an engineer, no more than having a cool idea about a tech priest and scratching out a sketch a first year art student would hide for shame makes him an "artist".

For me, the issue seems to be more an overly broad and inclusive definition of "artist" and "art." A great idea is not art. Art is being able to communicate that idea effectively through selective representation in a medium. Blanche's work is simply not art in that sense. It is a great concept that needs to be given to someone who can actually manipulate a medium to make it workable.
One might as well say an illiterate fellow with a 2000 word vocabulary is a writer, by virtue of the fact his ideas get other people to write good books.

A great idea is not art. Art is being able to communicate that idea effectively through selective representation in a medium. Blanche's work is simply not art in that sense. It is a great concept that needs to be given to someone who can actually manipulate a medium to make it workable.

Unfortunately, centuries of critical thought have yet to give us any solid ground on which to debate such terms. Blanche's art communicates effectively (to say the least)--to me. He makes the medium workable--as I see it. There is no "overly broad and inclusive definition of 'artist' and 'art'" at work here, as far as I'm concerned. We agree on what a good artist is, but disagree on whether Blanche is one.

Maybe that old saying isn't entirely true--maybe we cna dispute taste--but at any rate it will only take us so far.

John Blanche has a 'trumph' card in his sleeve!

JB was one of the original games developers for GW, and his illustrations were pretty much instrumental to GW being what they are today with their games. Many of the models are besed on his concept art and it took GW from being a few guys writing rules and printing WD at university, to producing a glossy magazine and armies with rich detail. In GW's infancy, in order to secure JB's concepts, a contract was formed which effectively meant that a % of all illustative work featured in GW publications, must be JB's. This simple reason is why JB's work is featured so heavily. This may be offset by having a Codex wich has no JB work, to a codex full of it. Just look at the 40k rule books and on every few pages there is something of his in the book. When you've been in the hobby as long as I have, you get to know these things.

JB's work may seem outdated when compared to other artisits who draw 'clean' illustrations, and this appeals to the younger or new gamer, but this isn't what JB is for. JB's work is very dark and heavily gothic in appearance and this is exactly how 40k was presented when it was first published. A dark time for mankind, a very gothic structure, unclean, and imense when compared to Warhammer. When you look at a lot of JB's battle scenes, they generate an image of imense, planet size battles featuring 1000's of troops and tank's battling over huge gothic cityscapes. You're drawn to a central character, but in the background is some imense war machine or building.

Love him or hate him, GW would not be where they are today, or the games, armies and backgrounds would not be as rich as they are, without JB. Having met the guy and got his squiggle on his art book, he gets a big thumbs up from me !

HELLO KITTY 40,000! Yep. That's the one! The Hello Kitty images really don't detract much, but they remove some of the biggest problems with the image.

No one is looking at the people they are shooting! What are they looking at?!?


This image is really the reason I dislike Blanche. I admit that I do like some of his other works (I love it when he isn't doing a battle scene. His Wierdboy was terrific). But I have such a hard time forgiving him for the years that I had to look at this box art as a representation of my hobby.

This picture was just such a mess. True, the 3rd ed art was a great deal better. The color composition issues were solved by limiting his pallet, and the "what are you looking at" issue was solved by an image without people firing guns in random directions.

Neither can compare to the Rogue Trader cover art. That was a masterwork of composition, not the messy chaos of this piece. I am rather glad that the 4th ed book has simple artwork that I don't have to hate.

You're right, that illustration is horrendous. Clearly he's out of his element when it comes to representational battle scenes.

On the other hand, we've had several very legitimate defenses of Blanche's artwork.


1) It is his style. Quite honestly, I like the elements of Blanche's style. I like the warm-neutral desaturated colors, I like the messiness and randomness on the pallet. But his poor compositions are not an element of style, they simply show his weaknesses as an artist. This is why I like his paintings when he is doing a single character or something simple. When things get complicated, he just doesn't know how to handle the composition. He chokes.


2) Blanche's artwork portrays the feel of 40k. I think we've mentioned this before, and I don't think it holds up unless you love the artwork already. If you don't like his artwork, then it doesn't talk to what you think 40k is any better than Turn Signals on a Land Raider does. So this argument works for the choir but not the dissenters.


3) GW minis are better because they are based on Blanche's work. I actually love minis based on Blanche paintings, and I love the conversions based on Blanche style. I even love paintjobs based on Blanchian artwork. So I wouldn't necessarily give up on Blanche.


Now, I must say that I don't hate all of Blanche's work, but recently he's been doing worse and worse, especially since he has never been my favorite GW artist. My real beef with him is that he is so often out of his element. I don't like most of his battle scenes, and it irk me that he keeps getting more. It is his portraits and calmer scenes that shine- and in that respect, I think he actually does accomplish all of the things we've discussed.

That is actually the crux of my argument Odin'sGS, only you clarified it for me well. His technical skills are weak. His idea mill is pretty good. He is the night soil from which a lovely flower grows.

glad I could help

Check out Lost & the Damned and Slaves to Darkness, or 3rd edition of WHFB.
There was a happy little chap named Tony Ackland. Now THERE was a man who couldn't draw or paint.

And yet he illustrated most of the three books. At the time I thought JB couldn't draw, and I still think his style is, hmmm, original.

But it's a rock solid fact that JB has influenced GW's style and originality more than anyone else.

And speaking of great artists, does anyone know what Paul Bonner is doing nowadays?

migsula wrote:People fail to see the point COMPLETELY!!!

Art is completely subjective. How can anyone miss the point of subjective? Some people look at lines on a paper and call it art. Some people take junk, weld it up in all sorts of shapes and forms and call it art. Some people use marble to create statues and call it art. Some people think nudity is art. To each of those subjective arts, there will be a critic and a coneseure. Neither of these people are right or wrong. They enjoy what they enjoy and why is it "failing to get the point?"

John Blance has a very definitive art style. He has even said that his art style is very niche oriented. Since his paintings are used at the idea stage of the development process, his ideas inspire many of the other artists to do greater things than they might normally do.

Either way, love him or not, his art is a standard of GW and I don't see that ending any time soon. Just like Brom, if you love the art, do so with respect to those that don't. And if you don't love the art, do so with respect to those that do.

two_heads_talking wrote:Some people look at lines on a paper and call it art. Some people take junk, weld it up in all sorts of shapes and forms and call it art.

Those people are called "morons with no taste."

Now a 1" tall daemon with 6 titties? Put it in the Louvre!

:-P

Ian Miller did crazy just as well as John Blanche but he could also do body proportions and perspective. Mark Gibbons produces concept art for a number of companies, all of which is (probably) better than John Blanche's stuff.

Some of Ian Miller's GW stuff here.

Mark Gibbons does do concept work.

And it's very good.

BYE

Ｉ’ｖｅ　ａｌｗａｙｓ　ｈａｔｅｄ　Ｊｏｈｎ　Ｂｌａｎｃｈｅ’ｓ　ｓｔｕｆｆ．

Wow, not only are we gaming elitists, but now we are art critics!

John Blanche has always stated his style was based off of styles from the 15th and 16th centuries, which tends to be more off in perspective and flat. It's more like a painter from that period was painting the future.

Very evocative in my mind, and it all being subjective anyway, who exactly are we to judge.

(oh, yeah, right

I forgot)

Toreador wrote:Wow, not only are we gaming elitists, but now we are art critics!

Yes, 'cause God forbid we actually have a discussion about a topic of our choosing! How dare we have a discussion between adults about topics we enjoy. The audacity we have is astounding!!!

:S

I would also like to chime in and share my disgust for his lack of talent and cred. It is quite evident that he is a pompus P.o.C. Have you seen him in the new WD? I bet he wears stilletos himself, as he is quite the fan of androginy when its certainly not needed in nearly every aspect of his art, or as he calls his style: Blanche-itsu or blanche-udo... i forgot what he calls his crap. Its like he spends hours sketching, and mastering his sketch and never going back and doing a final work. I can think of multiple artists who blow his work out of the water, conceptually and medium wise, take for example Adrian Smith who has worked for GW and sabertooth art for a long time. Currently I would like to make a website dedicated to hating this mans work with supportive evidence and compared annalysis from art work and professors. YES there would be forums so everyone can enjoy making fun of the artist who prides himself on using 3 colors, and drawing like a 10yr old with downsyndrome.

If it was an adult conversation I would say yes. More comments than not are quite beneath that.

Funny thing is Blanche has been responsible for hiring quite a few of those who people are "better" than him. He has been head of the art department for quite some time now.

two_heads_talking wrote:

migsula wrote:People fail to see the point COMPLETELY!!!

Art is completely subjective. How can anyone miss the point of subjective? Some people look at lines on a paper and call it art. Some people take junk, weld it up in all sorts of shapes and forms and call it art. Some people use marble to create statues and call it art. Some people think nudity is art. To each of those subjective arts, there will be a critic and a coneseure. Neither of these people are right or wrong. They enjoy what they enjoy and why is it "failing to get the point?"

John Blance has a very definitive art style. He has even said that his art style is very niche oriented. Since his paintings are used at the idea stage of the development process, his ideas inspire many of the other artists to do greater things than they might normally do.

Either way, love him or not, his art is a standard of GW and I don't see that ending any time soon. Just like Brom, if you love the art, do so with respect to those that don't. And if you don't love the art, do so with respect to those that do.

I think out of the lot that have replied to this post, only a handful understand these concepts. It's a shame.

dogfender wrote:I would also like to chime in and share my disgust for his lack of talent and cred. It is quite evident that he is a pompus P.o.C. Have you seen him in the new WD? I bet he wears stilletos himself, as he is quite the fan of androginy when its certainly not needed in nearly every aspect of his art, or as he calls his style: Blanche-itsu or blanche-udo... i forgot what he calls his crap. Its like he spends hours sketching, and mastering his sketch and never going back and doing a final work. I can think of multiple artists who blow his work out of the water, conceptually and medium wise, take for example Adrian Smith who has worked for GW and sabertooth art for a long time. Currently I would like to make a website dedicated to hating this mans work with supportive evidence and compared annalysis from art work and professors. YES there would be forums so everyone can enjoy making fun of the artist who prides himself on using 3 colors, and drawing like a 10yr old with downsyndrome.

Take a breath...it's not all that bad.

As I stated in my initial post: His ideas = awesome. His illustrations = crap. Having said that, I do own his sketchbook because I like his ideas.

I love his ideas, and I love the look that he has guided 40k to. Been around since late Rogue Trader myself. Seen better and worse.

~Eric

I have always had this sneaking admiration for J Blanche because, of all the thousands of 14-year-olds who doodle fantasy crap during math class, he managed to go on to get an actual job, as an actual artist, without having to improve his technical skills.

I personally like much of Blanche's drawings/painting. He has more of the classic look about his work. Much of his drawings/paintng look like the models from days long gone, kind of a throwback to the beginnings of GW, when they were just a model company who made a game to go with the models they made. I think the more you look at his stuff the more you become warm to it, just like some of the old models.

I actually asked the same question while reading the most recent WD. And I wondered at his soul patch and odd glasses. Didn't realize he was that foppish.

I think the 40K vision is interesting and unique, and to whatever extent he created it, he does deserve credit, as migs said, as a great idea man.

However, the thread is asking if he cannot draw or paint, and I'd agree he can't really draw or paint. His stuff is often painful to behold, and to me, often obviously failing. He just seems to get things "wrong" in terms of physical proportions, etc, in a way that does nothing but detract from the immersion of the image. What's worse, is it often appears that he's doing it on purpose, and thinks it's clever.

i'm gonna throw my 2 cents in today, just for the hell of it...i've been a fan of john blanche for 22 years now...usually it's me alone in my corner against all comers, so many people hate his work...
that said, there have not been any artists who have worked in the studio that i'm not a fan of...
i've been lucky enough to work in this industry as a mini painter for 5 years now, even though i have a very unique paintin' style...
there are some people who like my minis, and some who don't...
havin' a niche is a double-edged sword...i'm friends with a lot of artists and mini painters in the industry, and we all have different styles...all are great artists, but some have a stlye that makes me wanna sell my soul to draw like they do...mark gibbons is one, and probably my all time favorite...
the point is that of all the people who have inspired me over the last couple decades, not one of them gets more respect as an artist outta me than any other...if everyone was forced to draw and paint in exactly the same way, i would be a very unhappy dude...
variety is the spice of life, and if someone can generate so much hate, he must be doin' something right...gettin' a reaction from someone, positive or negative, is the sign of good art...something that is bland and doesn't get a rise outta anybody isn't even fit for hallmark cards...

cheers
jah

lol keep gettin high in alaska jah. art is a much broader spectrum than looking in books and painting miniatures, take a couple art history, and fine art classes, without that an opinion is just an opinion without any background or substantial clout.

John Blanche is a good artist.

His style is nothing like Adrian Smith's, who is an INCREDIBLE artist.

I think the discontinuity is what sets people off.

I started out disliking John's work; but there's a really visceral quality that stuck with me as I grew up, and I@m now a full-blown Blanche apologist – I think his work is great.

The accusation of poor draughtsmanship is pretty off-the-mark, to my mind. Check out his seminal 'Amazonia Gothique' (http://darklondon.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/influences-john-blanche/).

I do think it's important to contextualise art – and this piece emerged at a point when nigh-on all fantasy treatments of women were bikini-clad models. The Amazonia is obviously not wearing practical armour, but it's a smaller measure of suspension of belief that she's dangerous – and more importantly, that she exists as part of a broader world.

This is the aspect of John's art that I love best: the suggestion that whatever (intentional) grotesquerie is on the canvas, there's something a lot more threatening, insane and dangerous just out of sight – a real feeling of involvement and practicality; even when married to armoured stilettoes!

Ian Miller's work has a similarly deranged feel – his graphic novel Rats is really, really creepy; but I prefer John's work because of the looser style and the extremes to which baroque and gothic flutings and stylistics are taken to a level of grotesquerie and exaggeration that becomes both striking and knowingly absurb – even darkly comical.

Translated to the rulesbooks and tabletop by the other studio members, his ideas have led to some fantastic work that is absolutely unique – and it's this distinctiveness that to my mind makes it Art with a capital A.

Check out his website; and spend some time looking over the briefcase thingie. Now that is awesome.
http://www.lvxmvndi.com/main.htm

fellblade wrote:I have always had this sneaking admiration for J Blanche because, of all the thousands of 14-year-olds who doodle fantasy crap during math class, he managed to go on to get an actual job, as an actual artist, without having to improve his technical skills.

JB didn't just get a job, he's the Director of Art for GW.

One thing for sure, his style ( good for some and bad for others) do pass and express his ideas and concepts to other people if thats not being a artist i dont know what is.

Maybe Blanche represents GW more than we actually realise.

The Dev team who writes all those crappy Codices always have fantastic ideas, but its in the execution of these ideas where they constantly fall down.

Blanche is the same. His concepts are magnificant... but the way he executes them leaves a lot to be desired.

BYE

When JB is on form I absolutely love his work, like all artists he has some less inspiring pieces, but I've been into his stuff since the late 80s and although it may not look so groundbreaking now, at the time it was an absolute breathe of fresh air (maybe not the perfect phrase) compared to most fantasy artwork, the Vallejos and their wannabes, and the TSR and Dragon magazine stuff. That's why I felt the need to write about him on my blog that was linked by Cpl_Saint. I also loved the illustrations he did for the Steve Jackson Fighting Fantasy series Sorcery! I posted a few images here - http://darklondon.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/old-skool-fantasy-post/

I agree that he's not technically the best artist, but he managed to capture and shape the unique atmosphere of the Warhammer world. I guess that's what stonefox means when he says there's a difference between art and illustration. I'd use Adrian Smith and Mark Gibbons to show players characters and scenarios in an RPG, but I'd use JB's work to inpsire to get the mood and themes for a campaign.

TBH, I prefer JB's older stuff, I think it's richer and more technical, whereas his newer stuff, which to be fair tends towards concept sketches, is more wishy washy and scrappy. If you can get hold of Ratspike, a book JB did with Ian Miller (another great old school GW artist), you'll see what I mean. You can pick them up on ebay usually http://search.ebay.co.uk/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=ratspike although you can definitely get it cheaper than £35.

dogfender wrote:lol keep gettin high in alaska jah. art is a much broader spectrum than looking in books and painting miniatures, take a couple art history, and fine art classes, without that an opinion is just an opinion without any background or substantial clout.

I think you're out of line with this Dog. Jah was stating his opinion on the matter and that's if people like what John Blanche does. This is a thread FULL of opinions. Some people have more artistic background than others do. It's actually rather refreshing to see a line of conversation like this as it's really drawing out some very thought out opinion based posts as well as technical and high brow artistic talk from those with the background you're referencing.

I am a quiet fan of what Blanche does. I can appreciate it for what it is and what it accomplishes. His artwork sparks emotion and creativity in so many people. When I look at a piece by Blanche, I see the sweeping concepts and what he's trying to get you to pay attention to most. It's all about the feel of his work for me. The technical skills are all for nothing if I don't feel some sort of emotion when I look at a piece of artwork.

This all comes down to, what visual styling do you enjoy looking at more?

I am really really enjoying this thread by the way.

I'm liking it too.

The vitrol some people feel comfortable throwing is amazing to me. While a lot of JB's pieces are less appealing and do feel like he could have given them more technical polish, his ability to convey atmosphere and the dark, warped psychological "feel" of Warhammer and 40k is rarely equalled by any other artist. I'm similarly an enormous fan of Ian Miller, and wish he was still doing stuff for GW.

I had two of those old "Sorcery!" Choose your own adventure/fighting fantasy style books. They were full of his stuff, and those things were the most immersive, at times brutal, experience I ever had in that genre.

I wonder what projects Ian Miller has on now, it's not very clear from his official site. Another artist I loved was Russ Nicholson, who did a lot of Fighting Fantasy books, inlcuding the interior illustrations for The Warlock of Firetop Mountain. Like JB he was very influenced by renaissance artists like Albrecht Durer, his style was 'woodcut-like', and his human characters tended to be pretty grotesque. There's a short interview with him here http://www.fightingfantasygamebooks.com/interviews_russ1.htm sounds like he doesn't get much work now, which is a shame. His work is probablymore relevant to today's market because the lines are much cleaner.

Cpl_Saint wrote:I started out disliking John's work; but there's a really visceral quality that stuck with me as I grew up, and I@m now a full-blown Blanche apologist – I think his work is great.

I'm of a similar mind as this. When I first got into Games Workshop games years ago, I remember looking through Rogue Trader and the Warhammer Fantasy RPG at his work and thinking what crap it was. But over the years, I've grown to appreciate his work.

Cpl_Saint wrote:This is the aspect of John's art that I love best: the suggestion that whatever (intentional) grotesquerie is on the canvas, there's something a lot more threatening, insane and dangerous just out of sight – a real feeling of involvement and practicality; even when married to armoured stilettoes!

I think it's exactly this that he evokes in his style that makes some people uncomfortable with his work. I imagine that if prompted, that Blanche could do a perfectly normal character study. But you can tell in his artwork that he wants to make his viewers slightly uncomfortable. He wants the viewer to be at least a little disturbed by what they're seeing. And I think he does this very intentionally with the choices he makes in the execution of his artwork. So, if you think it looks bad, I think that's the cutting edge of what Blanche wants you to think. But I think since that's just the edge of what he's trying to evoke, he's hoping that some viewers will continue to study the picture to get what he was trying for. Thus, some folks think his work sucks. And that's fine. And other people obsess on his stuff. And that's fine, too. And still others are somewhere in between. It's art. It's not supposed to be something that everyone will like. And for Games Workshop, it's conceptual art. Blanche, to me, evokes the grim future of 40k that we don't fully understand. It's up to the other artists at GW to take his concepts and homogenize and focus group his artwork into something that, if not everyone likes, then a majority of folks find agreeable. That's the way GW makes it's money, right? But without Blanche's creativity behind it, I think we'd see GW's work get a lot more boring.

fellblade wrote:I have always had this sneaking admiration for J Blanche because, of all the thousands of 14-year-olds who doodle fantasy crap during math class, he managed to go on to get an actual job, as an actual artist, without having to improve his technical skills.

This is probably why people hate him so much. If I had a career in some art field, I'd probably care more that some no-talent hack got ahead of me.

Ok, I'd like to limit the things I'm responding to here:

two_heads_talking wrote:
Art is completely subjective... Some people take junk, weld it up in all sorts of shapes and forms and call it art.

Wehrkind wrote:
Those people are called "morons with no taste."

Now a 1" tall daemon with 6 titties? Put it in the Louvre!

The Louvre is overrated. It is filled with works commissioned by wealthy French noblemen with nothing to say except "aren't we great" while their people starved in the streets. Most of them never represented anyone's actual state of existence, but were used for the propagandistic purposes of tying 17th century France to ancient Greece, and show why the nobility have a right to oppress the masses. They were meant as walls to show the people what it was alright to think about and what it was not.

And all of them are technical masterpieces.

The truly expressive 14th century artwork was the Danse Macabre. This was an artform that came out of the people's daily brushes with death. It represented an expression of the actual conditions underwhich the artists and viewers of the art lived. They said something. To someone. And possibly to me.

I have looked at a work of junk that has been weilded together, and it has spoken to me and my conditions of existence. I can say that the medium of junk-weilding can be successfully employed to show things that don't come through in other media. This is something more than technique at work here.



There is something to this, but it seems as though we are putting John Blanche with the Dadaists (or he could be a futurist... yeah, not seeing that though). Follow that link to Blanche's website and look over that suitcase, because there's something brilliant in there. I'm not in love with his paintings (still) but the works of in three-dimensional forms were rather beautiful.

I wouldn't claim he isn't an artist, but that's not the point. Perhaps the purpose of Blanche's art is reactionary to Vallejo and even modern fantasy style (sans Dave McKean and the like). There is something to that. But i don't always love it.

jah-joshua wrote:
variety is the spice of life, and if someone can generate so much hate, he must be doin' something right...gettin' a reaction from someone, positive or negative, is the sign of good art...something that is bland and doesn't get a rise outta anybody isn't even fit for hallmark cards...

Amen Brother.

Mannahnin wrote: I had two of those old "Sorcery!" Choose your own adventure/fighting fantasy style books. They were full of his stuff, and those things were the most immersive, at times brutal, experience I ever had in that genre.

If I could write a campaign with half as much atmosphere and peril as the Sorcery! books I'd be a very happy GM. Coincientally, I just found a nostalgic review of the Sorcery! books with some more of JB's work included http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/03/column_save_the_robot_the_lone.php

Hehe Hallmark cards irk me too. More on point though is that just because something annoys other people doesn't mean it is good or bad. Being offensive is not generally an end in itself when art is involved. Many have tried that, but no one really remembers their names.

The bit about 6 breasted figures in the Louvre was a joke too. Trying to highlight the amusement I felt considering in another thread I recall posting that the new nippless daemonettes were a travesty :-P

Now, I am quite ready to agree that technical mastery alone does not great art make. I am more inclined to say that a lack of concept or technical adroitness makes one less of an artist. The greatest idea is worth nothing in art if one can not convey it by their work. The most well constructed picture is dull if not born of a great concept. My point in Blanche is that his concepts are often strong, but the execution lacks.

However, looking at his Amazonia Gothica for a while, I gotta say I am less impressed with his conceptual work in that picture. Beyond the ridiculous hair, the expressionless face, the silly shoes, and the bland "cheap 80's miniature" pose, there is still the issue of what the purpose of the peice is. If it is to portray a chick with wierd feet and the aforementioned aspects, ok. Can anyone tell me anything interesting or deep about this piece? Studying it for a bit, I fail to see anything clever or interesting hidden inside. That doesn't mean it isn't there, but if there is something, what am I missing?

Without something working inside, it is only carrying its weight on "is it a pretty picture that is neat to look at?" At that point I am willing to say "Well, some might like that sort of thing." I personally don't care for it, and I don't think it is particularly well put together. Not bad perhaps, but not good either. (I would be pleased if I could have made it, but not based on content.)

Maybe I'm prolonging a conversation that has run its course, but would anyone care to concisely list Blanche's technical failings, then demonstrate that they show themselves in a specific work you can link to? There are plenty on his site, so it should not be difficult.

I'm just trying to get a hold on what exactly you guys mean when you say he can't draw, has terrible technical skills, etc.

Wehrkind wrote:
However, looking at his Amazonia Gothica for a while, I gotta say I am less impressed with his conceptual work in that picture. Beyond the ridiculous hair, the expressionless face, the silly shoes, and the bland "cheap 80's miniature" pose, there is still the issue of what the purpose of the peice is. If it is to portray a chick with wierd feet and the aforementioned aspects, ok. Can anyone tell me anything interesting or deep about this piece? Studying it for a bit, I fail to see anything clever or interesting hidden inside. That doesn't mean it isn't there, but if there is something, what am I missing?

Without something working inside, it is only carrying its weight on "is it a pretty picture that is neat to look at?" At that point I am willing to say "Well, some might like that sort of thing." I personally don't care for it, and I don't think it is particularly well put together. Not bad perhaps, but not good either. (I would be pleased if I could have made it, but not based on content.)

The interest is in the details for me really. Looking at it, I'm given a very original take on a very overused subject matter. I immediately take notice of the hair, which gives me a feeling for the style in which they are accustomed to wearing their hair, which gives you a glimpse into the culture. Then my eyes roam, taking in the armor design, and how it's obviously influenced by the natural surroundings and gives me an idea about their closeness to the lands they inhabit. The shield shows a piece of functional artwork for the people.

The background is somewhat contrived, but even it can give meaning, a new day, the rising sun, A new outlook.

Just some thoughts ^_^. Am I stretching for that? Not really.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:
Well I don't know, migs. Though I'm a Blanche fan, it does seem fair to me to criticise his sketches, paintings etc. as just that: sketches and paintings

Yes it is! But when people compare loose sketches done as part of the concept creation, for artists to draw inspiration - not to please and wow kids and gamers against illustrations that take tens, if not hundreds of times more time it isn't really.

Even then it is fair to criticize them, as it is for me to try and paint a better picture of what his role actually is in much of what we know as Warhammer Gothic.

I think this is a little like movies. It is so easy to a) understand and b) appreciate something like Transformers or the Lord of The rings and easy to be igorant and hostile against something like 2046. All 3 are certainly art, all have fans around the world, but the genius of the third movie is maybe harder to understand. Blanche does not have the "budget" and "CGI" of the first two movies - but some people see something different and possible much greater than any technical merit.

There is no absolute truth of course. I absolutely love and admire Paul Dainton's work, ditto with Kopinski and some others. I am confident I could learn to be almost as impressive as an illustrator should I set my career goal as that. I would never get close to Blanche and what he does, because personally I think his gift is the unique vision and ability to inspire which is tuned differently to that of mine. This is why I have so much respect and admiration for the guy.

@dogfender: i will keep gettin high in alaska...cheers ...i will keep gettin' high anyplace i live...i'm a rastaman after all...
as for the whole thing about art bein' more than lookin' in books and paintin' miniatures, i couldn't agree with ya more...art is an infinite variety of mediums...
i didn't realize that i needed to submit my resume before i stated my OPINION...

i've drawn for as long as i can remember...illustration has always been my first love...art is my life...an artist is what i have always been...
my first 2 years of high school i was forced to take draftin' and architechture classes, because i was told that ya cannot make a livin' as an artist...
the next year i rebelled, and took art instead...based on my portfolio, i was put right into the a.p. art class...that year i won the scholarship to the art center school of design's summer program for high school students...
tired of school, i ran away to mexico...still a teenager, i made my livin' down there paintin' murals(the national art form!!!)...the money i made from that financed my surf trips throughout latin america, where i saw vastly different forms of cultural art...
i came back to l.a. a year later, and made my livin' as a poet...even givin' readings to timothy leary before he died...i then moved to nyc, and made a it as a poet there too, and that's a tough town...

the next move was to new orleans, and then tempe, and finally miami(all places with a rich artistic heritage, though most of the galleries are is scottsdale, not tempe)...in these places, i made a livin' sellin' tattoo designs...

from miami, i moved to amsterdam, and spent 5 years soakin' in the artistic history of europe...it was here that i started to build up a reputation as a mini painter...

i came back to the americas in '03, and was instantly accepted into the ranks of pro-painters...in those 5 years, i've been able to live in california, mexico, and alaska...soakin' in the different artistic mediums...

mini paintin' continues to finance my travels, and it is a great mobile medium(as everything is small, and easy to transport)...next year will see the launch of a line of hemp clothin' with my grafitti, but mini paintin' is where i feel i have built my reputation as a good artist, as it is such a global community...

as i said, art is my life...i love the cave paintings in france from 45,000 years ago, i love the babylonian sculptures, the work of the ancient egyptians, the greeks, the romans, the celts, the norse, the maori and other pacific islanders, the chinese, the japanese, the thai and indonesians, the tibetans, the hindus, the muslims, the christians, the old masters, the pre-raphaelites, and more recently, fantasy and sci-fi illustrators, as well as album cover designers, grafitti and tattoo artists...

so yes, art is more than lookin' at books and paintin' miniatures, and i've spent 15 years of my life circlin' the globe to take it all in...

@grey-death: big-ups for havin' my back homeboy...

cheers
jah

I have looked at his work for many, many years now as themes, not representative imagery.

I can't stand the scribble work they keep jamming into all the army books and codii- That stuff seems to be done for in house use to inspire the design team and miniature makers.... does a great job. But that is where it should, for the most part be kept.

Mark Gibbons for me captures 40k and WHFB better than anyone else (Although its been a long time since Jes has done much artwork I remember his eldar stuff was fantastic in RT era)

I wish they'd put out more for MG's and JG's concept art. MG has some of it at his website and it's great stuff.

BYE

This is the aspect of John's art that I love best: the suggestion that whatever (intentional) grotesquerie is on the canvas, there's something a lot more threatening, insane and dangerous just out of sight – a real feeling of involvement and practicality; even when married to armoured stilettoes!

While I can generally parse the words here, and understand what they mean, I think there must be some sort of brain-software module required to really absorb this, and it's probably the same module required to appreciate John Blanche's work.

In the end, I'm left thinking "hey, that's the sort of thing a guy that likes John Blanche would say."

The piece you linked is certainly clean, and not typical of a lot of what he does. It's also got the elements of over the top gothic madness that he brings to the table. But he also produces a lot of klonky, jacked up looking sketches that are crappybad, and no amount of art critic type rationalization will unsuck them.

I think the point Gonads makes is very good: They take his concept art and plonk it into the book like it's meant to be there. I'm not sure that's fair to do... But then again, he's the art director, if he had the clue to know his brainstorms don't constitute "great art" he wouldn't let them get published.

PS. everyone.

Have you read the Eisenhorn Omnibus introduction by Dan Abnett? I did yesterday and such a wide smile I had - it was so topical. He's such a great writer and sums up Blanche better than I ever can. The whole intro is about one picture by blanche that inspired the entire Eisenhorn series.

(so obviously I am biased - the series is my fave books - and now withdraw from the conversation.)

Phryxis wrote:While I can generally parse the words here, and understand what they mean, I think there must be some sort of brain-software module required to really absorb this, and it's probably the same module required to appreciate John Blanche's work.
In the end, I'm left thinking "hey, that's the sort of thing a guy that likes John Blanche would say."

That's a fair enough comment – even if I don't agree. In slightly less high-falutin' style, I posted the link (kudos to Nickbjorn – and apologies for not crediting your site initially) to show that a lot of John's earlier stuff is much more conventional or 'arty'. If you don't like that piece, see if you can dig out a copy of Warhammer 3rd edition (that's the last big hardback book) and look at the great Knights Panther piece – a fantastic oil painting that I reckon can be at least partially credited with changing humans from pseudo-Conans in WH3 into the current Empire line.

Or, to put it another way:

John Blanche - am I the only one who thinks he cannot draw or paint?

No, you're not – plenty of people do. Here are some examples of his more polished work for you to consider.

But he also produces a lot of klonky, jacked up looking sketches that are crappybad, and no amount of art critic type rationalization will unsuck them.

Surely that's a matter of taste? I like some of 'em (the Titan Legions work), while the Fantasy Vampire stuff I find a bit bland.

@cpl_saint: that exact paintin' of the knight panther in the old rulebook has always been a favorite of mine, and inspired mike mcvey to make a great mini based on that exact picture...
yet another example of the man inspirin' a master to create a masterpiece...a truly great mini if anyone can come up with a pic...

cheers
jah

I'd completely forgotten about the Knights Panther painting, again a really stunning piece - rich colours and amazing attention to detail, wasn't it based on a renaissance piece in some way. The other John Blanche piece I think is equally brilliant is his huge undead diorama, I think it's in the 2nd edition of the WFB rulebook, brilliantly evocative and captures a geniune feel of action that a lot of miniature dioramas don't. There is a detail from it on page 2 of this how to paint miniatures PDF I found, but it doesn't do it justice at all - http://mastig.com/EbunFaylo/WarhammerGuidev1.7.PDF

Another piece I like, although it's far less iconic, is his work for the game Chaos Marauders http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d6/Chaos-marauders-box-cover.jpg/180px-Chaos-marauders-box-cover.jpg

It's mostly just a load of goblinoid heads, but ut really reminds me of Bosch's paintings, especially Christ Carrying the Cross http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/carrying/carrying.jpg

The text explaining Bosch's painting states "Bosch's belief in the pervasive evil of the world colored his paintings of more conventional religious subjects; the stories of Christ and the saints became images of torment by demons or mobs of mocking humans", which I think is very much in line with the state of humanity in the Warhammer world, always teetering on the egde of corruption, decadence and despair where the boundary between humans and demons (chaos) is blurred. That's always what I've seen as the strength of Warhammer: the potential for corruption of even the most noble races and JB's work communicates that feeling very well.

I suppose this is less apparent in WFB than WFRP, in WFRP PCs can become tainted with chaos, whereas in WFB the difference is more black and white, an Empire army won't be tainted by chaos. So maybe JB's images have more resonance with WFRP players?? I could be totally wrong on that count of course. Maybe the degree to which you like JB's work has more to do with how you envision the Warhammer world??

Phyrxis:

But he also produces a lot of klonky, jacked up looking sketches that are crappybad, and no amount of art critic type rationalization will unsuck them.

I see what you did there.

The truth is that there is no sketch so "crappybad" that cannot be "unsucked" by someone]s way of approaching it. "Rationalisation" doesn't even enter into it: someone will like it, someone else will not. All this critic-ese is really just a way of trying to articulate why we like what we like.

We cannot dispute taste unless we first agree to a set of principles on which to base our discussion, and it seems that no one on this thread wants to come forward to state their principles. We are all proceeding on our own unstated assumptions; that is why this thread has proven so useless.

Its a good thing for him Im not exorbantly wealthy enough to buy all of his books, and works of 'art' because id just eradicate it all

Troll more, dogfender. Put up or, well, you know the rest.

TG: We cannot dispute taste unless we first agree to a set of principles on which to base our discussion, and it seems that no one on this thread wants to come forward to state their principles. We are all proceeding on our own unstated assumptions; that is why this thread has proven so useless.

That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. I don't have the vocabulary or exhaustive knowledge of art principles to do so, but I think someone coming up with a 25-250,000 point list of things that make a work of art good or bad would be nice.

@ Grey Death: That's just it, WHAT do those details tell you of the world?
The hair: what manner of culture produces hair like that? It is impossibly long, and unless her otherwise fairly primitive culture (armor, axes etc) produces highly advanced hair care products, it doesn't work.
The armor: ok, it is laquered green. It is also exceedingly ornate, and highly impractical. It is seemingly made from metal. Even beyond the impossibly silly foot wear, what else does that tell you? Given she is standing on some sort of rocky, barren plain devoid of features other than short, dead bits of grass, the color is quite poor. As such, I don't see quite how it is influenced by natural surroundings, unless the influence is "f*** off nature!" Perhaps if the armor was made from the chiton of some giant insect (and recognizable as such) it would bespeak more of a culture that is close to nature, using more what they can kill than what they can dig and smelt.
The shield is quite ornate, but doesn't tell you much about the bearer other than she must be pretty ripped to use a shield like that effectively. Given the general overly ornate version of her armor, perhaps she is a powerful warlord who can afford to wear armor that is more decorative than useful.
Her axe, on the other hand, is quite plain (and exceedingly awkwardly designed.) Why? Are any hints given as to a story in this picture?
Where is she coming from? Is she going to a battle? Coming from one? She has brought nothing with her, be it wounds or supplies. Perhaps the battle is pretty close to her house, so she didn't need much. More likely she is a tart John dressed up in his head and posed. I recognize that because I cranked out 100's of similar drawings when I was young and learning to do portraits.

That isn't to say that perhaps your ideas of what you are looking at and for are wrong. It may well be that John intended all those things. But did he really acheive it? I think that by straying SO far from "reality" he has lost what story could be told by the picture. Perhaps if her face had some sort of expression, or there was some small detail that speaks against the over all look of her (perhaps a small trickle of blood below a subtle tear in the armor) you would have something to think about.

Opinions are just like buttholes. We all have them and we all think each other's stink, but we fail to recognize that the odor might just be our own stinky holes.

What I am saying is even with a standard of measure, No one will fully agree as to where John Blanche sits on the dias of artists.

I am ok with those that do not like his work. I am also ok with those that think he inspires them but think he also lacks flare and artistic ability. I am also ok with those that worship his ability.

Why do we attack each other or John for these reasons? Does it hurt us if someone else doesn't share our own opinion? If so, will bullying and arguing your point of view win them over? the only converts that occur from forced persuasaion are usually converted at the end of a sword and are they truly converted?

In order to sway someone to your way of thinking, that last thing you wish to do to them is bust them in the mouth and say "Look butthead, you are a moron!" They immediately shut you off and quite rightly won't even listen to your opinion any more.

anyways, what I am saying is enjoy it if you like it, and burn it if you hate it, but for the sake of all the ones rolled in when you needed sixes, don't reach across the table and hit your opponent because of it. Don't hate the person for not agreeing with you. Just take him to the pub, by him a round of his favorite and maybe, quite possibly while you are enjoying each others company, you might make a friend.

Is the artwork of the mordheim box/book by John Blanche?
I think so and the style of the book made the city of mordheim so interesting, it's one freakin apocalyptic and insane place to be.

I like the concept art or artwork in the Eldar book clean and crisp because for me, Eldar are not pretty much the sane guys in 40k. None of that "billion people living in hive cities" stuff. For vampires or mordheim, Blanches style is awesome, imo.

Greets
Schepp himself

I rolled in here first as a Blanche denouncer, but I find myself disagreeing with both sides to some extent. As long as we are discussing the "Merits of Art" let us try to approach Blanche's work as contributions to an artistic conversation rather than pictures. For the record, I like Andy Warhol, but not for the technical mastery he (didn't) display.



Ok, let us look at what Blanche has done for the Artistic world. What have his paintings stated? What do they express? Is it original?

Well, let's see. Blanche came out of the traditional world of the Vallejos. Does anyone else remember the old Dragonlance or Conan covers?

Those paintings were all rather realistic in scope, but dull. They were "paintings of --" - the subject of the painting takes precedent over the painting itself- style, balance, feel and expression all take second seat against the subject matter of the painting. They are paintings -of- dragons, barbarians with swords, dwarves or elves. The primary obsession of the painting is the subject. Elmore's paintings in particular look very posed. The characters look like people posing for photographs.

Blanche has gone beyond this with fantasy artwork- although he is not the only one. H.R. Giger or Brom also rebelled against this tendency, each in their own ways.

Blanche's paintings are meant to be expressionistic. They are dirty and messy, but they are not literal. The characters are no longer posed like Elmore's paintings. They do not inhabit the perfect world that Elmore has put together.

A lot of Blanche's techniques are deliberately sloppy. He intends to make the painting look like a decaying photograph taken with a dirty lense. This is an expression of life for the characters (portrayed quite a bit like expressionism in film).


If we wanted to rank Blanche as to his contributions to the medium, I think that he has done something for us. He has failed us a number of times, (Cover to 2nd Ed 40k burn...) but I think he has also given us something new and interesting.

That said, it hasn't been new for about twenty years. I honestly would love to see Blanche move on to some new period, but artists rarely do that these days. His work has become a name brand, comodified and sold. If he were to change his style, he might not retain his business.

And that is an unfortunate side-effect that capitalism has on the arts.

No way odin...

The difference between Blanche and Brom or Giger is that Brom and Giger actually have talent. To mention Blanche in the same sentence is an insult to Brom, and especially Giger.

Blanche is a hack with no more talent than, say, Rob Liefeld. Like Liefeld, he's widely published. But that doesn't mean he has actually demonstrated any skill, talent, training, or ability whatsoever.

OTOH, if you can actually show something of Blanche's that isn't a blurry, lazy piece of crap, then I'll reconsider. But Blanche's "work" doesn't demonstrate knowledge of form, anatomy, or composition. For all intents and purposes, he does little more than cartoon pin-up dolls.

I remember someone posting on GW forums why GW gave so much importance to "slung faeces on wax paper over a pale moonlight" - more or less describing Blanche's "art" - but the topic was quickly locked despite this honest approach.

Ahh, those were the days.

(those who believe otherwise are invited to browse again his "contributions" to current CSM codex. Lesser Daemon entry.)

Anyway, as someone told, John Blanche is the Art Director of GW. Considering the general unwillingness of corporation to remove senior managers, no matter how incompetent, I guess Mr. Blanche will continue to wreak havoc in the art department for years.

We can just hope he's too busy frustrating young and promising illustrators to approach a pencil.

Mr. Blanche has been and still is a great influence on the way GW looks today.
He has great vision and is doing a great job as head of the Art department

BUT

He is a conceptual artist and ideas-man and there he should remain. His concept-doodles is a great way of inspiring and setting the tone for the other artists. His work should NOT be included in the books IMO. They are rough drafts and i'd much rather see the final works (made by other artists). It is fine to make a book of his doodles and release that but spare us the agony of having to look at his concept sketches in the finished product.
GW doesn't release the Games Designers ideas for a new rule/race/thingummy jotted down on a used napkin on a saturday night in the local bar either. Or maybe they do.

My point is this; Blanches work is an inspiration (and works superbly as such) but should not be taken for the final product and not peddled by GW as such IMO.

I gotta say that I feel the same as Wehrkind: back in the day, the prevalence of Blanche's style on box art and book covers made me completely ignore 40K for years. As a concept artist, he has merit, but I find his work highly unappealing. I mean, he *can* draw, and has more skill at it than I do, but it's simply that I don't like what he does.

His defining piece for me is (unless I've got the wrong guy) found in Codex Imperialis (IIRC): the depiction of one of the High Lords of Terra (I forget which one) with the friggin' water faucet coming out of his eye.