I've been watching the new releases for a while now, and with the start of the Gathering Storm it has become quite obvious that Games Workshops art studios is changing the aesthetic of the game. When you go to the first GS boxset, you see models that quite frankly are a mess of too many details. Then comes Roboute, with that armor, which is very AoS and cartoony. He looks like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. The primaris all look like knockoffs of the space marines from StarCraft, and the new Deathguard look like something straight out of a MOBA.
Does anyone else out there think that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future, as older models get phased out and new ones take their places? Or is this just happening to these few new armies?
Oh, I agree. It's probably a result of the sculptors on hire, but I can't think of much lately which hasn't looked pretty awful to me. AoS is a huge mess (i.e. they have almost nothing I find attractive) and the new Death Guard releases are nothing short of tragic. The caricature nature of the design aesthetic is hugely off-putting.
Marines will likely stay marines, so that's a plus...and with the exception of the Repulsor - the marine releases are fine.
Elbows wrote: Oh, I agree. It's probably a result of the sculptors on hire, but I can't think of much lately which hasn't looked pretty awful to me. AoS is a huge mess (i.e. they have almost nothing I find attractive) and the new Death Guard releases are nothing short of tragic. The caricature nature of the design aesthetic is hugely off-putting.
Marines will likely stay marines, so that's a plus...and with the exception of the Repulsor - the marine releases are fine.
I thought the new deathguard looked good, is there something actually wrong with the new deathguard models or is this another case of chaos players never being happy?
Elbows wrote: Oh, I agree. It's probably a result of the sculptors on hire, but I can't think of much lately which hasn't looked pretty awful to me. AoS is a huge mess (i.e. they have almost nothing I find attractive) and the new Death Guard releases are nothing short of tragic. The caricature nature of the design aesthetic is hugely off-putting.
Marines will likely stay marines, so that's a plus...and with the exception of the Repulsor - the marine releases are fine.
I thought the new deathguard looked good, is there something actually wrong with the new deathguard models or is this another case of chaos players never being happy?
Comes across more as old farts not able to get over the fact that it's not 1995 anymore.
I agree that the 40K aesthetic has evolved somewhat, but personally I found the old deathguard kits unappealing, they were just short with a bit stomach to my eye. I did however like the forgeworld models. The new kits I like, especially mortarion (not a huge fan of the tank but thats just me). That being said I love the AoS range (fyre slayers a rare miss for me) so maybe I fall within the market theyre targetting with this change.
The old aesthetic was giant melon heads, huge ham fists, and no waists. Space Marines have always looked like gakky toys you get out of a 25 cent vending machine.
The new aesthetic embraces better proportions, and the game as a whole looks much better with Primaris versus traditional Super Deformed Bobblehead Marines.
There are too many details on some models, I will give you that.
But Primaris are just Space Marines with a more refined design. They have a cleaner design. They are stripping away a lot of the unnecessary details. They have sharp lines, better scaling and are all round better. Old marines are very badly proportioned by comparison. There is no contest.
I don't really see what is so cartoony about Gulliman, though I will grant you that the paint schemes for some armies are technically good but stylistically bad. Death guard are a stand out example of this. Gorgeous models, but too pastel.
Elbows wrote: Oh, I agree. It's probably a result of the sculptors on hire
I've seen this going around a lot recently, and it's not true. Utterly false garbage.
Warhammer Community has even had interviews with staff sculptors.
Some of the staff sculptors even post on Facebook (especially on the community-oriented facebook groups, like GBHL)
This has been the aesthetic for Warhammer 40,000 since 1987. Nothing has really changed except the technical abilities to manufacture larger kits.
Space Marines have always been Future Space Fantasy Knight Hero Men.
Chaos Marines have always been Skeletor With A Boltgun. Abaddon is pretty much a cartoon bad guy.
Sisters wear high heels and have nipple spikes.
Orks have a cockney accent.
It's nothing new, dude. It's always been a cartoon. Nothing wrong with that. It's like Gargoyles or the Spawn cartoon. Dark and interesting but still a fething cartoon with a toy line to match.
Well I'm mostly talking about the Deathguard here, but from my own view, they look atrocious. Not a single model in that line looks makes me stop and think "Warhammer 40K."
Eldar, Orks, Marines, Etc. They've not changed much, but on the chaos side there seems to be a new "flamboyant' style being implemented.
I don't mind but I'm not a huge fan of Astartes in any form.
AdMech and GSC are the most recent non-SM models I can remember caring about and they looked great. The AdMech walkers especially.
Togusa wrote: Well I'm mostly talking about the Deathguard here, but from my own view, they look atrocious. Not a single model in that line looks makes me stop and think "Warhammer 40K."
Eldar, Orks, Marines, Etc. They've not changed much, but on the chaos side there seems to be a new "flamboyant' style being implemented.
You're on your own on that one - Death Guard have apparently been selling like hotcakes.
The Primaris are SIGMARINES IN SPACE. The reivers are the guys from Crysis.
The Death Guard came out of Bioshock (no joke. Poxwalkers are splicers and even the plague marines have some elements of the splicers too).
Roboute Guilliman is trying to be sigmar.
And so forth.
I think it's because GW is starting to hire designers from the video game sector, who obviously bring their own designs and experiences to the game (whether intentionally or not).
I've been watching the new releases for a while now, and with the start of the Gathering Storm it has become quite obvious that Games Workshops art studios is changing the aesthetic of the game. When you go to the first GS boxset, you see models that quite frankly are a mess of too many details. Then comes Roboute, with that armor, which is very AoS and cartoony. He looks like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. The primaris all look like knockoffs of the space marines from StarCraft, and the new Deathguard look like something straight out of a MOBA.
Does anyone else out there think that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future, as older models get phased out and new ones take their places? Or is this just happening to these few new armies?
Most of what you've stated as "fact" as well as most of the replies will all really come down to personal taste. That said, in many cases it is only the aesthetics of the actual models that has changed. Guilliman and the new deathguard are good examples imo. The "new" DG models all look exactly the way they have always been depicted in the art. It's a matter of the models catching up to the artwork. I don't care for the new paintjobs they've given to the DG (way to "bright" and clean for my taste), but again, the actual physical look is now closer than ever to the way they've depicted them in the 2d artwork.
Bobby G is the same way. They've always depicted Primarchs as having this crazy/complex looking armor with intricate embellishments and details. This is nothing new. I would also very much disagree that he looks like something out of AoS. Most of the AoS stuff tends to have bigger, more rounded edges almost like it was made for a little kid. There are some detailed models and some models that look detailed but are not that detailed when you really study them. There is, imo, nothing I've seen from that range that would look "correct" sitting next to Bobby G.
Most of the Primaris look pretty much exactly like scaled up "regular" marines, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. With the possible exception of the new Inceptors (with those really silly looking re-entry shields over their helmets), I'm not sure how you get that they look like something from Starcraft. Unless you feel the entire Marine line (which existed well before Starcraft) looke like something from Starcraft?
As for the new DG - again, like I said, they now look in the models the way theyt . have always looked in the fluff.
Regarding some of the other races (like the new Eldar races), their aesthetics do appear to really be changing from their traditional background. I'm not on board yet, but will wait until that range gets more completely shifted before judging it. That said, their "triumvirate" boxed set form 7th DID remind me of something from AoS. Not a fan personally, but to each his own.
Think the new aesthetic is fantastic. It's just a modern take on the wonkyness that 40k models have always displayed. If you think older 40k has a "cooler" look, you're just fooling yourself. Look at any marine, and really look at him. Those ultra thin thighs, stuck into megaman boots, or beaked helmets... Or anything really. They were just primitive versions of the new style.
For Chaos, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
I'm glad it's gone back to gribbly.
Mutations were largely stripped away in 2nd Ed, in favour of 'baroque and spiky'.
Now there's nowt wrong with baroque and spiky, but the aesthetic we've had since then mostly missed out on the body horror of Chaos corruption. The closest we came between then and now was the sadly defunct Chaos Forsaken for Fantasy, which had loads of cool mutations to exploit (still got most of a box somewhere).
So I welcome the new Deathguard, Tentacles and all
I'm just kinda disappointed that the gribblies went to the DG. The last set of Plague Marines were unique because they looked bloated and shriveled at the same time (as diseased, bloated corpses should). The new one turns them into cthulhu marines. It has it's appeal, but I mourn the loss of the more unique style Plague Marines had.
I think tentacles would have been better for noise marines and they should have saved the rest for generic chaos marines (like the monolithic horns and gnashing teeth out of nowhere).
I can't believe how people call new Warhammer miniatures "cartoony" when Warhammer has always been cartoony.
But I suppose that fans of the "oldhammer" style prefer to call it "Heroic proportions"
And yes, FW Death Guards where more realistic because FW has ALWAYS had a more realistic proportion and approach to Warhammer Aesthetics, bot for Fantasy and W40k. But GW style? It is as cartoony has always has been.
GW has been going a long old time. When it started, the sculptors and artists all had similar influences, those of their time.
30 years on? Well, the newer members will inevitably have different influences, ones which just weren't there first time around (anime is one that really springs to mind)
he Death Guard came out of Bioshock (no joke. Poxwalkers are splicers and even the plague marines have some elements of the splicers too).
So wait ... the DG that existed something like 15 years before BIO-Shock actually CAME from Bio-shcok!? Mind blown .... lol/jk
In all seriousness, I get what you're saying to a point, but I only see the most vague similarities between Splicers and Poxwalkers. The truth is, both are based on the classic generic zombie template, so there's bound to be similarities. I don't quite see the Plague Marine comparison at all (it's been a while since I played Bioshock though so maybe I'm forgetting something), but you have to remember that a lot of the people you mention (ie. video game designers) all grew up on 40k. You would be shocked how many gaming companies have small in-house 40k leagues. It's inevitable that 40K would influence some of their designs.
It's also inevitable that there would be cross over in the other direction. Like how the original Hormagaunt heads (and several other 'Nid designs) were inspired by Giger. Of course elements of the "Nids themselves would later inspire large portions of the Zerg in Starcraft. It's perfectly natural and it always kind of urks me when people look at this as laziness on the part of the design team. Especially when it's a design like Splicers or Poxwalkers that are both based on a pretty common archetype.
I can't believe how people call new Warhammer miniatures "cartoony" when Warhammer has always been cartoony.
Yeah, if anything, in a lot of cases it's gotten LESS cartoony over time. The original Noise Marines and Goff Rockers say hi!
I think a big part of the problem is that the look and style of the actual models was generally stagnant for a really long time. Then GW dropped the Dark Vengeance set with those crazy Chosen and the Kranon model and almost over-night you started to see a pretty drastic shift in some of the lines. There wasn;t a lot of time to adjust to the new direction some of the lines took and that can be fairly jarring when you look at the contrast between some of the newer versions of older kits.
Mutations were largely stripped away in 2nd Ed, in favour of 'baroque and spiky'.
Now there's nowt wrong with baroque and spiky, but the aesthetic we've had since then mostly missed out on the body horror of Chaos corruption. The closest we came between then and now was the sadly defunct Chaos Forsaken for Fantasy, which had loads of cool mutations to exploit (still got most of a box somewhere).
So I welcome the new Deathguard, Tentacles and all
Absolutely agreed. But there are a lot of Chaos players who don't want their chaos models looking chaosy.
If you don't like the tentacles, then maybe you should have thought about that before betraying the Emperor, mate!
Theres Chaos players that want their Chaos Models to look like Horus Heresy marines. They are licky because they have 4 very nice kits of Horus Heresy armours to do their armies.
For me, the best Chaos Marine Aesthetic is the DG/Dark Vengeance one: Complicated armour and mutated. Thats why they are CHAOS marines and not "Renegade" marines.
They all look pretty 40K to me. If you don't like the style that's your prerogative, but they ooze the same ooziness that Death guard have for 25+ years!
...the latest guys are really just a remake of these. The old ones are hardly any less busy.
But taste is subjective and you're not wrong to dislike them, just wrong to say they cannot be liked.
Also the Primaris look nothing like the StarCRaft marines...
Similarities? All 'space power armour dudes' have them. The same as? Nope.
Purifier wrote: Think the new aesthetic is fantastic. It's just a modern take on the wonkyness that 40k models have always displayed. If you think older 40k has a "cooler" look, you're just fooling yourself. Look at any marine, and really look at him. Those ultra thin thighs, stuck into megaman boots, or beaked helmets... Or anything really. They were just primitive versions of the new style.
This, so much this.
The new Death Guard is the best thing GW ever produced. Love it.
The DG, I actually kind of love the cartoony style. It reminds me more of 2nd ed classic 40k than any other recent release besides maybe Genestealer Cult (which are the exact spitting image of the old aesthetic and came out amazing) and that's great.
I've liked the admech range with the exception of Kastelans, the Deathwatch range was fine, Harlequins were amazing, Thousand Sons were amazing, really a lot of the new stuff has gone the route of older 2nd ed concept art, all busy details and bold aesthetic without a thought to realism, but without the limitations of old sculpting.
I'll take Death Guard, Admech, Genestealer Cults, and Thousand Sons over the boring, bland low sodium saltine cracker that was the Primaris Marines release every single day. It's just bizarre to me that the Grimdark Super-Srs You Guys club that invaded in 4th-5th ed has set up this strange "fun police" that complains about anything that doesn't adhere to perfectly cookie-cutter hard military practical-ness on the grounds that "it ruins the aesthetic of 40k."
It's like everyone's forgotten that this setting is weird 1980s grimdark fantasy in space. A man in a buzz lightyear space knight costume swinging a lightning sword at a charging space ork with a chainsaw axe is fine, but god forbid a model crack a goofy grin - that would be AGAINST THE AESTHETIC!
Similarities? All 'space power armor dudes' have them. The same as? Nope.
Perfect example. And again, a lot of people are comparing something that's been around in more or less the same form since roughly 1979 (marine power armor), to something that came out in 1998 (Starcraft) and then saying "it's just a ripoff of Starcraft" or something like that. Perfectly fine to not like the style of one or the other, but a lot of these threads seem to exist to take illogical pot-shots at the GW art department. lol
Elbows wrote: Oh, I agree. It's probably a result of the sculptors on hire, but I can't think of much lately which hasn't looked pretty awful to me. AoS is a huge mess (i.e. they have almost nothing I find attractive) and the new Death Guard releases are nothing short of tragic. The caricature nature of the design aesthetic is hugely off-putting.
Marines will likely stay marines, so that's a plus...and with the exception of the Repulsor - the marine releases are fine.
I thought the new deathguard looked good, is there something actually wrong with the new deathguard models or is this another case of chaos players never being happy?
I'm sure there's nothing wrong with the models - I'm sure they're well cast and they'll assemble nicely. I just think they look like gak. I've seen a handful modeled and painted to an acceptable level to where they don't look like filtered baby gak, but overall the aesthetic is really boring and cartoony.
Dial the aesthetic back about 25% and you might have something attractive and useful. As such it screams "I'm bored and have CGI elements I can click and add...so I'll add all of them". Busy does not equate to attractive in many cases. Obviously the target market/audience likes them, so they'll be a success for GW.
he Death Guard came out of Bioshock (no joke. Poxwalkers are splicers and even the plague marines have some elements of the splicers too).
So wait ... the DG that existed something like 15 years before BIO-Shock actually CAME from Bio-shcok!? Mind blown .... lol/jk
In all seriousness, I get what you're saying to a point, but I only see the most vague similarities between Splicers and Poxwalkers. The truth is, both are based on the classic generic zombie template, so there's bound to be similarities. I don't quite see the Plague Marine comparison at all (it's been a while since I played Bioshock though so maybe I'm forgetting something), but you have to remember that a lot of the people you mention (ie. video game designers) all grew up on 40k. You would be shocked how many gaming companies have small in-house 40k leagues. It's inevitable that 40K would influence some of their designs.
It's also inevitable that there would be cross over in the other direction. Like how the original Hormagaunt heads (and several other 'Nid designs) were inspired by Giger. Of course elements of the "Nids themselves would later inspire large portions of the Zerg in Starcraft. It's perfectly natural and it always kind of urks me when people look at this as laziness on the part of the design team. Especially when it's a design like Splicers or Poxwalkers that are both based on a pretty common archetype.
The DG though I think specifically had a Bioshock influence. Ignoring their similarities to the Big Daddies, a lot of the Plague Marines and Blightlord Terminators have elements that were first popularized by the original Bioshock. THe most notable one is the one Blightlord who looks like he's going all insectoid, which is one of the most notable pieces of unused art for Bioshock. In addition, the mutant tentacles, flesh bloating out of armor/fusing to armor and clothes, and makeshift fixes were all things rather unique to bioshock (still is, to a lesser extent) as generic zombies tend to still go towards the "desiccated rotting corpse" side of things rather than "hideously disfiguring mutations). This also applies to the AoS and End Times nurgle figures too (which is where the actual inspiration came from). The brass-looking piping some of the marines have going on also evokes that steampunk feel.
As for the poxwalkers and the splicers, certain sculpts reminds me of certain splicers. Like the guy in the orange jumpsuit and mask reminding me of Spider Splicers and one guy with really fat hands (from the easy to build ones) reminding me of the "Yamhand" guy (also an unused design). The Rictus grin doesn't help either.
Do they aim to please the majority (their target audience), or you?
It's a design process which ultimately produces An Aesthetic.
And when it comes to aesthetics, some will like it, some will love it, some will loathe it. That's just the way of things.
Me? I love the Art Deco look of much of the Heresy stuff. I also think that fits the height of the Imperium. Why? Art Deco also marked the zenith of the British Empire, before the Second World War changed this country for good. What followed of course, once things got back on their feet, was Brutalism....ring any bells?
If you're addressing me Doc, I don't know what you're asking. I didn't say GW had to make something I like. Have they lost a potential customer for a line of models? Sure. This aesthetic they've chosen is garbage to me, but that doesn't matter - I didn't say it did.
I think he's talking about me. I don't think the Bioshock influence is a bad thing, I just think it's out of place with Death Guard and Plague Marines, who in lore are suppose to be rotting and dead from the inside, but look more like fat tentacle mutants. But that's my preference. It also creates a dissonance between the old DG models and the new ones.
Also, on another note, I think people calling the new style "cartoony" actually means it's more stylized. Like, look at the chin on the plastic painboy; his entire expression is very stylized and his facial features sharpened beyond what would be the norm for "realistic". If you look at the old Dok Grotsnik, you'll see he has a more realistic look where things are more runder and leathery. Or just look at things with furs; they use to look like realistic bundles of hair, but now they either look like thick grooves running the length of the model or nachos.
The stylized look is a valid look and it is the way GW is heading, likely because they've basically abandoned GS sculpting and shifted over to digital sculpting (where the vast majority of people are more trained to do stylized sculpting and do not shrink realistically like GS). But it does create a dissonance with existing models. Another thing is the sculpted on smoke effects (or special effects in the case of Ynnead) whereas such things were very rare or nonexistent before.
I think more worrying than the change in aesthetic, which is a personal thing and varies from model to model. To me, Guilliman is a fething abomination, the Death Guard are ok, quite like the Lord Of Change etc etc. I haven't loved anything for a while, but I'm sure I will in time, if the rumoured new Beasts match the art that has been suggested depcits them I'll be very happy, I'm also a fan of the CSM Dinobots when many aren't etc.
More worrying than this, however, is what appears to be a move towards a substantial lack in modularity. Characters have become almost exclusively monopose, and this is beginning to leach its way into the other kits too. As it becomes harder and harder to build the kits with any variation, it will become harder to tailor the aesthetic more to the individual's liking, hence we'll move away from the "if you don't like it you can change it" situation we've had with a lot of kits for so long to "if you don't like it, tough" that mono builds could provoke, meaning people either buy third party, which is no good for GW, or don't buy anything, which is no fun for anybody.
The DG though I think specifically had a Bioshock influence. Ignoring their similarities to the Big Daddies, a lot of the Plague Marines and Blightlord Terminators have elements that were first popularized by the original Bioshock. THe most notable one is the one Blightlord who looks like he's going all insectoid, which is one of the most notable pieces of unused art for Bioshock. In addition, the mutant tentacles, flesh bloating out of armor/fusing to armor and clothes, and makeshift fixes were all things rather unique to bioshock (still is, to a lesser extent) as generic zombies tend to still go towards the "desiccated rotting corpse" side of things rather than "hideously disfiguring mutations). This also applies to the AoS and End Times nurgle figures too (which is where the actual inspiration came from). The brass-looking piping some of the marines have going on also evokes that steampunk feel.
Like I said, all elements that have been found in 40K since the RT days. I'm not trying to say GW is 100% original because by their own admission, the game was originally an amalgam of different tropes they all found "cool". That said, I could pick out a hundred bioware designs that are so derivative that they may as well have been traced. I mean the entire Bioshcok world basically takes place in a Art Deco mansion. Hardly original design. So I'm always thrown for a bit of a loop when people come along and try to say that something GW makes (like Plague Marines) that have existed in essentially the same form since the 80's is somehow derivative of or based off of an IP that did not exist until a decade or two later. I call it the "GW singularity" because it seems to mostly happen when people discuss GW. Almost all of the "new" DG designs (even the Blightlord you mention) have been around for quite a while. Maybe not on the actual table top or as explicit unit entries, but they've been around. I'm willing to bet you can even find Poxwalkers somewhere in the background of one of the illustrations from "the Lost and the Damned" ...
TL/DR:
The GW Singularity - GW is the only company with an Art Department capable of basing it's own designs on the designs of other IP's that won't be out for another 10-15 years.
As for this -
In addition, the mutant tentacles, flesh bloating out of armor/fusing to armor and clothes, and makeshift fixes were all things rather unique to bioshock (still is, to a lesser extent) as generic zombies tend to still go towards the "desiccated rotting corpse" side of things rather than "hideously disfiguring mutations).
This is no way at all unique to Bioshock and wasn't even unique to that game when it was new ...
Togusa wrote: I've been watching the new releases for a while now, and with the start of the Gathering Storm it has become quite obvious that Games Workshops art studios is changing the aesthetic of the game. When you go to the first GS boxset, you see models that quite frankly are a mess of too many details. Then comes Roboute, with that armor, which is very AoS and cartoony. He looks like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. The primaris all look like knockoffs of the space marines from StarCraft, and the new Deathguard look like something straight out of a MOBA.
Does anyone else out there think that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future, as older models get phased out and new ones take their places? Or is this just happening to these few new armies?
Actually, I think older GW models look far more cartoony than the newer ones. Your avatar is a really good example, but also kits like the plastic Cadians. When compared with newer infantry kits such as the GS cultists, the Cadians are much more exaggerated and cartoon-like in proportions.
Elbows wrote: Oh, I agree. It's probably a result of the sculptors on hire
I've seen this going around a lot recently, and it's not true. Utterly false garbage.
Warhammer Community has even had interviews with staff sculptors.
Some of the staff sculptors even post on Facebook (especially on the community-oriented facebook groups, like GBHL)
This has been the aesthetic for Warhammer 40,000 since 1987. Nothing has really changed except the technical abilities to manufacture larger kits.
Space Marines have always been Future Space Fantasy Knight Hero Men.
Chaos Marines have always been Skeletor With A Boltgun. Abaddon is pretty much a cartoon bad guy.
Sisters wear high heels and have nipple spikes.
Orks have a cockney accent.
It's nothing new, dude. It's always been a cartoon. Nothing wrong with that. It's like Gargoyles or the Spawn cartoon. Dark and interesting but still a fething cartoon with a toy line to match.
Well, we don't, but the point stands [to the best of my knowledge, there's only one model in our line with high heels, and it's a new one.] We do have shaped breastplates and the plackart of our armor looks kind of like a corset, though.
The Sisters of Silence have small wedges, and Greyfax has some serious heels.
The GW aesthetic has always been "mixed", probably quite on purpose. That way it can appeal to people with different aesthetics. The new Death Guard might be cartooney, but the basic Primaris are a step towards "realistic" from the normal space marines. The old Land Raider looks more realistic than the Repulsor, imo. It's all just mixed in together, and the studio has it's own phases, often depending on the project they're working on.
Objectively many of the newer models are 'better' but I think the whole CAD thing has led to a lot of far too busy models
I also think some of the old models had a certain charm as they were sculpted to the limits of production, nowadays that isn't a thing and you end up with swirly gak and Yvaines stupid hat infesting the aesthetic
The miniatures look the best they ever have, and even thugs I loved back in 3rd edition and have nostalgia for are showing their age. 2nd edition stuff that's still around looked long in the tooth and out of place by 4th and now looks like it comes from a completely different game, which it basically does. Looking at artwork back in 2nd and 3rd codexes it was always fairly apparent that the tech to manufacture miniatures wasn't enough for sculptors to bring an artist's vision to life.
Objectively many of the newer models are 'better' but I think the whole CAD thing has led to a lot of far too busy models
CAD really hasn't done anything to change the look of the models. It's the advances in injection molding and rapid prototyping that have allowed them to produce models that actually look exactly like the 2D concept art. They've pretty much always been able to sculpt to that level of detail. It's just that you couldn't reproduce that detail at the actual production stage.
I feel like my only complaint is that most the new art seems paint by numbers, everyday commissioned affairs. Not enough stylization and soul. I wish we had more Blanche style work, or stuff that was experimental. You can only have so many "marines standing tall and being stoic" drawn the exact same way with no action or movement until you eventually get bored.
I respect Blanche but his style is not the one I miss more from new Codexes. Jess Godwinn, Paul Daiton (The autor of this beautifull piece of art https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2a/cf/0f/2acf0fb60e928d869f0a87908ccf5e61.jpg ) and Karl Kopinski in the other hand? I want more of them and less of random commisioner artists.
Just look at this work of Kopinski. Art before miniatures, not art based IN the miniatures.
Jaxler wrote: I feel like my only complaint is that most the new art seems paint by numbers, everyday commissioned affairs. Not enough stylization and soul. I wish we had more Blanche style work, or stuff that was experimental. You can only have so many "marines standing tall and being stoic" drawn the exact same way with no action or movement until you eventually get bored.
That is certainly true. A lot of the new art, while technically well executed, seems to be just terribly boring and lack spirit. It is basically just pictures of the existing miniatures in art form, it really adds nothing.
I really enjoy the new aesthetic. If anything I think in general it becoming less cartoon like. Looking back at the 2nd edition static posed plastics that I started playing with in the 90s, thing have really moved on. Of course that was when video games were in their infancy, and the models and fantastic background art allowed you to project your imagination. The dark vengeance set was what got me back into the hobby - a real positive step change in aesthetics. Also the painting techniques have moved on in leaps and bounds. Far darker and more detailed. Only recent thing for me is wondering where the thousands of loyal space marines will end up now their primaris brothers have shown up...
Just look at this work of Kopinski. Art before miniatures, not art based IN the miniatures.
Spoiler:
I agree very strongly with this. Some of the newer commissioned art is also pretty neat, but it just never lives up to the work of great concept artists like Kopinski. GW should hire people like them instead of just random guys on DeviantArt. Their books are expensive enough for it.
I also don't mind it if artworks look like exactly the miniatures (to a degree, that is what they should look like), but artists should also have some artistic freedom to deviate of the exact look of the kits. That Kopinski plague marine and renegade enforcer are perfect examples. You can clearly see that they are based off the miniature kits that FW sells, but they aren't exactly the same thing. It triggers the imagination and inspires conversion ideas.
I love the new Deathguard models and I'm sure I'll be able to use bitz from the new Plague Marine box somehow, but that's it. I don't like bling period. I don't even like the Aquila on the current Marines. Burning Of Prospero was a godsend to me as someone that wants to create their own Marine army but hates bling and only wanted certain stuff from FW, not the entire Marine.
I dont necessarily think it's the aesthetic I dont like about the new DG it's the over abundance of detail especially on typhus or mortarion that I think detracts from the model. nurglings, flies, tentacles, etc. while they all have their place smashing them all together on a model just makes it look sloppy? with no real focal point?
That being said I think the new Thousand sons and space marines look great!
I dont necessarily think it's the aesthetic I dont like about the new DG it's the over abundance of detail especially on typhus or mortarion that I think detracts from the model. nurglings, flies, tentacles, etc. while they all have their place smashing them all together on a model just makes it look sloppy? with no real focal point?
That being said I think the new Thousand sons and space marines look great!
Couldn't agree more about the 1K sons! IMO they look great! I'm with you on the new Typhus too. To me, his pose looks like he's just hitting the "high note" in a high-school musical. Jazz hands and all. I also don't like the nurgling on his stomach area. IMO, the previous model was a closer match to the source material, but I don't think either model does the illustrations/background any real justice.
JohnnyHell wrote: They all look pretty 40K to me. If you don't like the style that's your prerogative, but they ooze the same ooziness that Death guard have for 25+ years!
...the latest guys are really just a remake of these. The old ones are hardly any less busy.
But taste is subjective and you're not wrong to dislike them, just wrong to say they cannot be liked.
Also the Primaris look nothing like the StarCRaft marines...
Similarities? All 'space power armour dudes' have them. The same as? Nope.
They've elongated the rifle to look more like that of the SC marine. They've given the power armor a slimmer look, with longer legs and a more appropriate torso. It looks a lot like a cheap copy to me in terms of SC, which is ironic. To me at least.
They've elongated the rifle to look more like that of the SC marine. They've given the power armor a slimmer look, with longer legs and a more appropriate torso. It looks a lot like a cheap copy to me in terms of SC, which is ironic. To me at least.
That's a pretty large stretch IMO. The base Primaris models (particularly when seen in person) really do look like scaled up versions of the original marines. So if anything, what you're saying is that the Primaris look like the "iconic" Starcraft marines which, themselves bear a striking resemblance to Space Marines that existed for nearly two decades before that game came out .... and that's if you're REALLY trying to stretch things.
Now, if you want to say that the Inceptor Primaris models look similar to that SC design, well then you might have a case, but again, it's much more likely that the SC marines were originally based on GW marines so it's still kind of a moot point. It's pretty common knowledge that the Zerg were inspired in part by elements of the 'Nids so it wouldn't surprise me if other parts of the game were also inspired by 40K.
supreme overlord wrote: I dont necessarily think it's the aesthetic I dont like about the new DG it's the over abundance of detail especially on typhus or mortarion that I think detracts from the model. nurglings, flies, tentacles, etc. while they all have their place smashing them all together on a model just makes it look sloppy? with no real focal point?
That being said I think the new Thousand sons and space marines look great!
They think that just because they CAN add a given detail now, they automatically SHOULD.
I had recently a chance to work with sculpts of the new Death Guard, models that I criticized heavily when I have seen them the first time. The new plague marines are actually fine models in their essence, and clearly a work of passion: I don't think that the usual sloppiness of the design team is present into the sculptor team - at least not in the same, severe extent. To demonstrate this, think about the fact that each one is a reference to a given plague marine of a past edition (you can see in them stuff from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even FW - the same FW that has the best balance, generally speaking, between detail and restraint). Furthermore, they have inserted appropriate references to pop culture like Cronenberg's The Fly for the termies and Carpenter's The Thing for an easy to build champion. That's nice to see. I think it shows they cared.
The problem is that the enthusiasm in the design was not restrained. One bell or tentacle here and there are fantastic, but to show off the SUPERB QUALITY of their sculpt, GW kept adding details so you have marines that have more tentacles than an hentai and the bell character (I will not remember the copyright friendly names, I call it the "Campanaro*") ends up with less bells that one of the guys of the basic Plague Marines team. Is cool to have exausts on the armor, but 1 or 2 short are enough, 3 long ones put the model off-balance, visually speaking. This is incredibly naive and unprofessional.
I sat down with a cutter trimming when possible and I found in ebay Blightkings weapons to convert some of them (the effect I want to obtain is more "Rusty Ancient Warriors" than "the Thing: Space Marine Edition") like the easy to build Plague Launcher guy, that now has a small axe on his right hand that holds lazily. Overall I am happy for the results but I am not sure I will buy as many models as planned, especially if the rules are like the ones of the Deathshroud. Also the Plague Brethren make me really, really mad at GW.
I am having a blast painting my Plagues (I am using on top of 50 shades of green, 3 technicals, in moderation) but I am painting the models one at time or in small groups because you cannot repeat many things automatically, each one is subtly different and requires attention. This is not bad per se, but building up the team I forced myself to tone down the painting of many details or the final squad would look too different in shape AND colour, ruining the overall sense of coherency that a 40k infantry squad should have (yes, even a chaos one). In other words, each plague looks like a mini-character that is easy to the eyes when observed alone, but does not fit necessarily with the rest of the squad.
I'm just gonna shake my head sadly and hold my tongue here; suffice it to say, not everyone likes his "art".
His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul than 90% of anything made for AOS. Nothing about the new 40k art direction or anything new for AOS screams interest, novelty or style. It's got no stylization, we've seen it before and it's boring.
At least when you see a Blanche painting it's 'interesting'.
I'm just gonna shake my head sadly and hold my tongue here; suffice it to say, not everyone likes his "art".
His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul than 90% of anything made for AOS. Nothing about the new 40k art direction or anything new for AOS screams interest, novelty or style. It's got no stylization, we've seen it before and it's boring.
At least when you see a Blanche painting it's 'interesting'.
I'm just gonna shake my head sadly and hold my tongue here; suffice it to say, not everyone likes his "art".
His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul than 90% of anything made for AOS. Nothing about the new 40k art direction or anything new for AOS screams interest, novelty or style. It's got no stylization, we've seen it before and it's boring.
At least when you see a Blanche painting it's 'interesting'.
How are you measuring soul?
When what is shown in the picture is not a repurposed faithful representation of an existing model, it's a good start.
I'm just gonna shake my head sadly and hold my tongue here; suffice it to say, not everyone likes his "art".
His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul than 90% of anything made for AOS. Nothing about the new 40k art direction or anything new for AOS screams interest, novelty or style. It's got no stylization, we've seen it before and it's boring.
At least when you see a Blanche painting it's 'interesting'.
How are you measuring soul?
When what is shown in the picture is not a repurposed faithful representation of an existing model, it's a good start.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Star Craft was originally based on 40k. Terrans were Space Marines, zerg were Tyranids, and protoss were Eldar but GW wouldn't have it and it was changed.
On topic however imo Primaris marines are what I always wanted my marines to be. I pretty much retired my old marines putting them behind glass and ordered and painted up a new army as all primaris. I love the new and old aesthetic ( I like the look of DG as enemies, but I only play Imperium so I'd never buy them).
I'm just gonna shake my head sadly and hold my tongue here; suffice it to say, not everyone likes his "art".
His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul than 90% of anything made for AOS. Nothing about the new 40k art direction or anything new for AOS screams interest, novelty or style. It's got no stylization, we've seen it before and it's boring.
At least when you see a Blanche painting it's 'interesting'.
Actually the Stormcast Eternals where designed by Blanche:
I'm just gonna shake my head sadly and hold my tongue here; suffice it to say, not everyone likes his "art".
His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul than 90% of anything made for AOS. Nothing about the new 40k art direction or anything new for AOS screams interest, novelty or style. It's got no stylization, we've seen it before and it's boring.
At least when you see a Blanche painting it's 'interesting'.
How are you measuring soul?
When what is shown in the picture is not a repurposed faithful representation of an existing model, it's a good start.
I'm just gonna shake my head sadly and hold my tongue here; suffice it to say, not everyone likes his "art".
His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul than 90% of anything made for AOS. Nothing about the new 40k art direction or anything new for AOS screams interest, novelty or style. It's got no stylization, we've seen it before and it's boring.
At least when you see a Blanche painting it's 'interesting'.
How are you measuring soul?
When what is shown in the picture is not a repurposed faithful representation of an existing model, it's a good start.
And why is that?
Originality
Except originality doesn't equate to soul. So what really gives soul?
Is a mix of good technique (you can "feel" the artist, and what depicted grants immersion) and what you see is somewhat comunicative (remember the chaos marine of Wayne England, in the 3rd edition codex? one look and you have a grasp of what that guy is, his story and mental state)
Look what Galas posted about the Stormcast. Look at what Blanche did with that concept, and what the Deviantart-tier artists of AoS do.
I don't know if I can explain myself correctly, I have a science background, perhaps a person with greater knowledge and vocabulary in humanities could help me.
The biggest change for me was when they started doing monopose multipart plastics. Cant remember which was the first miniatures that had it? was it dark vengeance? Alot of restrictions disappeared and the miniatures now became alot more 3d. They also became abit bigger with more details elements but softer in them.
It also feels like now that they are not limited as much in how they have to sculpt and with being able to sculpt in 3d software, it seems like every other miniature they make must out to the other, kinda like a aestethic power creep. More details, more swirly stuff etc.While a regular soldier now looks like a captain of old, the captains are the size of daemon princes. And that means we cant have daemon princes that small anymore, so they turned into massive primarch/greater daemon of tzeentch.
And now there is no place for the humble footsoldier no more.:( Its like we are overloading on sugar, i mean it taste good for a while, But when is too much too much?
I suspect they will keep pushing the limit for a while and we will see where we land.
Where a piece of art loses any "soul" to me is when it appears to be trying too hard to advertise. There is a large amount of quick-fire computer-generated "paintings" which adorn a lot of the modern 40K books.
This is probably necessary due to the amount of "filler" crap artwork they need to match the huge amount of books and material they pump out. You see this with a lot of games - I don't think I've ever stumbled upon a game from any manufacturer that matched the feel of say, Mordheim...which is renowned for its creepy/ink-spilt art. Most of its art is simple corner placards or headings, but that is "soul" for sure.
There have been a handful of truly skilled artists working for GW. They come and go, but by and large the majority of filler art is "meh". I think the quality of some artists can be judged by the older artwork which in turn...pushed the aesthetic of the game. There are lots of older art pieces which ended up generating miniatures because they were so damn cool. The opposite rarely works (a piece of art compiled to push a model line).
Sometimes even the very worst art still gets picked for the codex cover which is kinda mind-blowing. This...arguably one of the worst pieces of art ever to grace a GW product was a codex cover for Christ's sake!
I'm just gonna shake my head sadly and hold my tongue here; suffice it to say, not everyone likes his "art".
His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul than 90% of anything made for AOS. Nothing about the new 40k art direction or anything new for AOS screams interest, novelty or style. It's got no stylization, we've seen it before and it's boring.
At least when you see a Blanche painting it's 'interesting'.
How are you measuring soul?
When what is shown in the picture is not a repurposed faithful representation of an existing model, it's a good start.
And why is that?
Originality
Except originality doesn't equate to soul. So what really gives soul?
Originality isn't needed, but if it's a carbon copy of a model, don't Ye think there's a bit of a limit on the creative Liberty and such? Originality =\= soul 100% of the time, but novelty is something all the GW art is lacking. What makes new art stand out when every fantasy franchise is drowning in quality art? Saying originality isn't needed is rather pointless when the art is something we've seen before if you've seen the models.
Just look at this work of Kopinski. Art before miniatures, not art based IN the miniatures.
Spoiler:
Two of those look exactly like models we already have, 1 of them is just a normal grim reaper with some chaos baubles on him, the 4th one is the most generic 'leatherface' type murder guy I've ever seen. You could of told me that was a drawing of any of the male killers in dead by daylight and I wouldn't of been able to tell the difference.
I sometimes get out my collection of stripped-of-paint early edition warhammer stuff. Its nostalgia and a feeling of "everything used to be better" - old greater daemons, daemon princes, character models, old fantasy high elf and wood elf stuff, flimsy boobed daemonettes, chaos marines that were part metal and part plastic, etc. - but always quickly realise new stuff is a hundred times better.
I think the new death guard esthetic is absolutely amazing.
Love the new models miss the older style of art. I would love to see at least one or two commissions per book of the old style art. It gives a much more vivid picture of 40k than the cartoony art style does.
Those art styles are what got me interested in the games and rpg. If I seen the newer cartoony style art before the older style I'm not sure if I would have been interested in 40k. In a game like this striking visuals are the first way to get peoples attention.
Let me just say that the extreme horror vacui found on GW models has put me off them completely.
They don't paint well and they don't look well on the tabletop. Once fully painted, from a couple of feet away they look like shapeless blobs of random colors.
They've also traded body horror for goofball kookiness, evidently going after the 10-year old demographic. It's just not something I'm interested in and so I've taken my business elsewhere.
-DE- wrote: evidently going after the 10-year old demographic.
Evidently not, as there are a lot of full fledged adults in this thread alone that quite like them, but do continue throwing insults against anyone that doesn't agree with your subjective opinions. That's real productive.
Is a mix of good technique (you can "feel" the artist, and what depicted grants immersion) and what you see is somewhat comunicative (remember the chaos marine of Wayne England, in the 3rd edition codex? one look and you have a grasp of what that guy is, his story and mental state)
Look what Galas posted about the Stormcast. Look at what Blanche did with that concept, and what the Deviantart-tier artists of AoS do.
I don't know if I can explain myself correctly, I have a science background, perhaps a person with greater knowledge and vocabulary in humanities could help me.
I think you got it. I agree. When you do something creative, especially something artistic like sculpting by hand. You add small details and touches that tell a story, communicate a character but at the same time you're limited by your medium so you need to convey the maximum amount of information with a very limited amount of detail.
The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the old Archaon model compared to the new one. The old Archaon is simple, intimidating and has a very distinct feel to it. If you looked at it without knowing who or what it was you can discern a lot from it. The newer model is a mess of textures with a dude who is difficult to seperare from everything else around him and he looks secondary to his mount. Look at the older models mounted on dragons. Engrimm Van Horstman or Azhag The Slaughter. The mounts were sculpted with their heads down and backs arched, to emphasis the riders who are in general the highest point of the model and the focal point of the model as a whole.
I suppose my point is that the CAD process is weighed down in the fact that detail is much easier to sculpt and the temptation to grow more and more elaborate and complex isn't hampered by the medium. The artistic side of things is lost because stuff like focal points, silhouettes and showing-without-telling is less important because you can just jam a bunch of details on there with much less effort.
For reference I've done both 3D sculpting and I'm trained in darkroom photography as well as digital and I always felt more of a connection and pride in my film photography and pictures I developed myself than most of my digital work. I'm sure CAD sculpture vs hand sculpted would feel similarly.
There is a large amount of quick-fire computer-generated "paintings" which adorn a lot of the modern 40K books.
This is probably necessary due to the amount of "filler" crap artwork they need to match the huge amount of books and material they pump out. You see this with a lot of games - I don't think I've ever stumbled upon a game from any manufacturer that matched the feel of say, Mordheim...which is renowned for its creepy/ink-spilt art. Most of its art is simple corner placards or headings, but that is "soul" for sure.
There have been a handful of truly skilled artists working for GW. They come and go, but by and large the majority of filler art is "meh". I think the quality of some artists can be judged by the older artwork which in turn...pushed the aesthetic of the game. There are lots of older art pieces which ended up generating miniatures because they were so damn cool. The opposite rarely works (a piece of art compiled to push a model line).
There is no such thing as "quick-fire" "computer-generated" art. The fact that some even call it "computer generated" in this day and age is surprising. They aren't firing up Poser, hitting the "make cool marine" button and calling it a day. A lot of the art they generate is actual 2D paintings done in Photoshop and Painter (this has been the case since around 3.5 - I'm willing to bet there are some pieces you like that you don't even know were done on a computer). They are for sure also using 3D modeling and animation software (the 4th ed CSM codex cover was done in Max for example), but that doesn't tend to save any time. Since changes can often be made a little faster, art direction often becomes more involved and you end up taking the exact same amount of time as if it was a "traditional" piece. I totally get not liking the new art direction (especially if you grew up on Blanche and actually liked it), but that's down to the art direction. It has nothing to do with the method of creation. IMO that tends to be an elitist "art snob" point of view that probably needs to die.
As far as what gives a piece "soul", anecdotally, I've found that (at least in terms of GW gamers) it tends to be a combination of nostalgia, along with a model that was just slightly to the left or right of "center" at the time of it's creation. While there are exceptions, I'm willing to bet that if I put down an old second ed. model that I feel has this "soul" in front of a younger gamer who has just started the hobby, they're not going to agree with me. IMO things like the GOff Rockers, original Noise Marines and Squats riding Harleys all have "soul". I'm also willing to bet that if you're a newer gamer, you probably think they're kind of stupid. I can't necessarily blame you for that opinion either. lol
Is a mix of good technique (you can "feel" the artist, and what depicted grants immersion) and what you see is somewhat comunicative (remember the chaos marine of Wayne England, in the 3rd edition codex? one look and you have a grasp of what that guy is, his story and mental state)
Look what Galas posted about the Stormcast. Look at what Blanche did with that concept, and what the Deviantart-tier artists of AoS do.
I don't know if I can explain myself correctly, I have a science background, perhaps a person with greater knowledge and vocabulary in humanities could help me.
"Soul" of an art piece is not unlike this text, a means of conveying meaning using commonly understood symbols composed to hold specific information.
It's fine to dismiss metaphysical terminology, I wouldn't resort to associating a picture's content with "soul" or "spirit" or what have you. Others do.
But the fact remains that a picture conveys meaning, like a text, and its composition matters. Brevity in text as in picture format (aka limitation in physical size) limits the amount of information that it can hold. It's hardly far-fetched to claim that an art piece whose main message it is to tell you how much alike your models it looks loses space that could be used for something else. Since many modern pieces do just that, it's easy to criticize them for not having as much "soul" as older artworks that were freer in their depictions.
Wow, people calling contemporary GW lineup "cartoony" hasn't obviously been around in the 90's (or before). I'm not missing 90's models, like at all. Even when I take a near lethal dose of nostalgia-gas.
Current lineup is mostly fine and I argue that you cannot find better quality plastics anywhere. If you find them cartoony or whatever just paint them more grimdark.
Weazel wrote: Wow, people calling contemporary GW lineup "cartoony" hasn't obviously been around in the 90's (or before). I'm not missing 90's models, like at all. Even when I take a near lethal dose of nostalgia-gas.
Current lineup is mostly fine and I argue that you cannot find better quality plastics anywhere. If you find them cartoony or whatever just paint them more grimdark.
The old goofy art had its charm and looked more genuine to me. Modern wow-esque proportions can be cool on some model but are often "off".
I believe John Blanche is one of the creators of the best of 40k art. My feelings for a piece of art generally get higher as the art gets further from soullessly depicting the models IN NEW MARKETING ART FORM.
In my opinion, this is art.
Spoiler:
This is soulless marketing image pretending to be art. Find anything in this image that GW does not sell.
Spoiler:
The new model aesthetic is mixed. I like Primaris. I find most Death Guard with the exception of beautiful bloat drone and blighthauler to be overly detailed and busy blobs of too much clashy color. The paint on the studio models does not help.
Verviedi wrote: Find anything in this image that GW does not sell.
So? Oh no, they're making pictures of things that actually have models... how horrible? I really like the first and last picture of those three. Think they look great. The first one of the "art" ones you linked just looks like a mess to me. It's like someone's first attempts at making something grimdark. Find anything in that image that GW DOES sell. Find anything that makes any sense at all.
Verviedi wrote: Find anything in this image that GW does not sell.
So? Oh no, they're making pictures of things that actually have models... how horrible? I really like the first and last picture of those three. Think they look great. The first one of the "art" ones you linked just looks like a mess to me. It's like someone's first attempts at making something grimdark. Find anything in that image that GW DOES sell. Find anything that makes any sense at all.
The first one looks like someone threw up on it and it happened to be somewhat orange.
Verviedi wrote: Find anything in this image that GW does not sell.
So? Oh no, they're making pictures of things that actually have models... how horrible? I really like the first and last picture of those three. Think they look great. The first one of the "art" ones you linked just looks like a mess to me. It's like someone's first attempts at making something grimdark. Find anything in that image that GW DOES sell. Find anything that makes any sense at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of "Blanchitsu"
Blanche's work might have been relevant at one point but now it just seems like a mess that tries to be 80s inspired and fails miserably at times.
Verviedi wrote: Find anything in this image that GW does not sell.
So? Oh no, they're making pictures of things that actually have models... how horrible? I really like the first and last picture of those three. Think they look great. The first one of the "art" ones you linked just looks like a mess to me. It's like someone's first attempts at making something grimdark. Find anything in that image that GW DOES sell. Find anything that makes any sense at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of "Blanchitsu"
Blanche's work might have been relevant at one point but now it just seems like a mess that tries to be 80s inspired and fails miserably at times.
Yea...
Amazes me that people are complaining about busy models, that first damned pic is probably the most busiest thing I've seen in some time and that's what, from 80s?
Verviedi wrote: Find anything in this image that GW does not sell.
So? Oh no, they're making pictures of things that actually have models... how horrible? I really like the first and last picture of those three. Think they look great. The first one of the "art" ones you linked just looks like a mess to me. It's like someone's first attempts at making something grimdark. Find anything in that image that GW DOES sell. Find anything that makes any sense at all.
I would like to minimize things that GW sells being in art. Art is an opportunity to expand the universe, not focus on the parts that have already been shown by the models. If you absolutely must, include Skitarii fighting Orks, but take artistic license with the art, instead of drawing the models fighting the models.
The new art is too technical for me. It, in many cases, looks like The Phantom Menace. I like my twisted nonsensical abominations, drawn with what looks like a pencil, full of gothic weirdness, skulls, and tentacles. I see Xenomorph Servo Skull, I am inspired to make Xenomorph servo skull. Or perhaps Spacesuit Chimera Man.
I also hate on Liefeld, don't compare him to Blanche. Liefeld is producer of uninteresting abominations who cannot draw feet and hands, or female anatomy.
Verviedi wrote: Find anything in this image that GW does not sell.
So? Oh no, they're making pictures of things that actually have models... how horrible? I really like the first and last picture of those three. Think they look great. The first one of the "art" ones you linked just looks like a mess to me. It's like someone's first attempts at making something grimdark. Find anything in that image that GW DOES sell. Find anything that makes any sense at all.
I would like to minimize things that GW sells being in art. Art is an opportunity to expand the universe, not focus on the parts that have already been shown by the models. If you absolutely must, include Skitarii fighting Orks, but take artistic license with the art, instead of drawing the models fighting the models.
The new art is too technical for me. It, in many cases, looks like The Phantom Menace. I like my twisted nonsensical abominations, drawn with what looks like a pencil, full of gothic weirdness, skulls, and tentacles. I see Xenomorph Servo Skull, I am inspired to make Xenomorph servo skull. Or perhaps Spacesuit Chimera Man.
I would like to maximise things GW sells being in art. I love seeing my models brought to life in art. Sure, I'd love to see them more interlaced with the opponent they're fighting than the display-gunlines that often pop up now, but it's not a huge deal to me.
The introduction of the Primaris Marines markes the end of the dark age and the beginning of the renessaince.
Thus we may see more advanced models and units in the near future.
Here you can see how literally nothing is copypasted from a miniature. You can see all the Sisters Repentia, totally gruesome in their mutillation, that ignore the miniatures for them. Even that sister of battle in the righ with the bolter and the hood with a scrool on it. Those little details, artistic freedom that now in most art you don't encounter:
Spoiler:
Other example of a NEW piece of art that follows the same. You can see how even the artist had freedom to make his own versions of different demons.:
Spoiler:
Now, an example of a new piece of "marketing" (Not art). And let me say first that I actually really like it, but it is what it is. Literally everything in this image is a model. The problem with that is that, models have limitations of the sculpting and producing method, but art shouldn't be restricted by the same. Art should be evocative, push you to new corners of the universe you are looking at:
Spoiler:
]
But to show that this isn't just a problem of the present, Here we have a piece of "old" art that has the same problem, just a marketing tool. Literally every miniature in this box-set is show in this drawing:
Spoiler:
And to put more examples of this problem, one related with AoS.
This is marketing (Cool looking marketing, I really like it, but pure marketing). Literally you can buy everything in that image:
Spoiler:
This is art. Evocative, it inmerses you in the lore and fluff of the faction, in their society, and maybe other people have forgott that, but in the past Army Books weren't that much "Compendiums of rules to play this army" as "Compendiums of background and lore". This is the kind of art that makes me say "Ok, I need to do a board with this theme. Or said "Wow, I really want a book in this setting"
Spoiler:
World of Warcraft has this same problem. You have two kinds of art: The one that is a literall copy of the videogame models, that normally looks VERY bad because you can see how the proportions and limitations of the armours ingame look totally unrealistic and not in a good way, and then you see the art that has freedom to do the changes they need to do to make GOOD art.
Two examples:
"Art" that is a literall copy of ingame models
Spoiler:
Art that has freedom to depart from the literall representation of ingame models
Oh no, I like all of the art that I linked too. But just like I can recognise that even if I like McDnald burguers they aren't better than a good hamburguer in a good restaurant, I can see how some art that I like is limited by the marketing departmend, and I can balance that art agaisn't other pieces with more freedom that try to broke the boundaries of the actual product they are "representing".
But you are right, I are no one to say what is Art and what Isn't. Everything I linked is art. I was just making a point for "marketing art" vs "free art".
And obviously is subjetive. Is my opinion, but to say that art has no objetive truths is just post-modernism. There exist schools and techniques of art for a reason.
And I have made my arguments, you can counter argument them, but please, saying they are just "Non-sense" without giving reasons don't contribute anything to this thread.
Purifier wrote: By that logic, the Mona Lisa isn't art, because it accurately depicts a person as she was, and is not some flight of fancy.
You are right, I was wrong in saying that some of that isn't art.
Purifier wrote: I love every single picture you linked. I think your subjective definition of what is and what isn't art is complete non-sense.
By that logic, the Mona Lisa isn't art, because it accurately depicts a person as she was, and is not some flight of fancy.
let's put in this terms, then, extremely practical. Which one of the art pieces that Galas posted is more likely to INSPIRE sculptors (official or not) and people in the hobby? I'd say the first piece. That one is more than "models you bought do this". Is a window inside the universe. Regardless personal tastes, that piece has a FUNCTION (see above the post of Geifer).
"Window inside the universe", thanks Kaiyanwang. Thats literally what the art of the Kharadron Overlords port is. A window to their society. The other don't show you anything more than a cool (Ok, really cool looking) battle between models vs models.
I have no idea what you're trying to convince me of anymore. My problem was with the fact that you refused to call it art, because it was pictures of models that exist. You then admitted that wait maybe it is still art. And then you ask me what about the fact that this specific one can inspire and I'm like I dunno, you figure it out? I was only saying that it was non-sense that you were labelling stuff as not-art for really weird reasons.
Galas wrote: "Window inside the universe", thanks Kaiyanwang. Thats literally what the art of the Kharadron Overlords port is. A window to their society. The other don't show you anything more than a cool (Ok, really cool looking) battle between models vs models.
Is true that the Steamdwarfs one is not bad - at least has composition and dynamic and yes, -it works like a window. Still, I think that the first one is even better, the technique is superior and it expands the design and concepts - another other function other than the "window".
I say that all of them set the tone of the setting - another important feature but in this case, again, the first one is a clear winner albeit the last one is pretty good. Also note: the second and third set the tone of the universe, but more than anything else of the GAME. The first one gave us a better look of what the culture of the imperium is.
I agree, I totally love the first image I have posted, as creepy as it is. Is the one I always use to say "Yes, in this universe, THIS are the good guys" to a new person to 40k
There is a distinct problem, and that is that the Imperium is becoming less Grimdark, because of the return of a sensible Primarch, not Russ. I want Russ. Now.
On topic of inspiration, you can draw a clear line between some artworks and others. Art that allows the artist freedom allows them to draw something you can't go out and buy, which may be a problem for you or GW. The other side of the coin is that such art has the potential to inspire you to convert a model to look "like that cool artwork from the last codex". All your Sisters wear helmets or feature a bob? Yeah, but not Sister Bertha. She's got that cowl and halo because she's really devout! Or some such. Seeing the same Techpriest Dominus in the same pose among the same minions in half a dozen pictures inspires no one, because you can (and if you have the codex probably did) go out and buy and assemble it. And that's that.
I'm not a fan of the latter, for reasons already mentioned in the discussion. Such art adds nothing. It may look individually cool, and I'm not saying it can't have intrinsic value, but it goes against my expectation of seeing art expand the setting as much as new models and new background text do. The cheap thing about it is that it already exists in miniature form, fulfilling the same function.
Now, an example of a new piece of "marketing" (Not art). And let me say first that I actually really like it, but it is what it is. Literally everything in this image is a model. The problem with that is that, models have limitations of the sculpting and producing method, but art shouldn't be restricted by the same. Art should be evocative, push you to new corners of the universe you are looking at:
Spoiler:
]
It is box art, it is supposed to show the miniatures inside, otherwise it'd bring up false expectations. Sometimes art needs to be marketing (technically, art for 40k is always marketing of some kind). However, I would have liked to see them unleashing their imagination a bit once they depicted the models in the box. A bit more like the Island of Blood box art. That one showcases the units that are in the box, while having some fancy Skaven contraptions in the edges and background.
Galas wrote: But to show that this isn't just a problem of the present, Here we have a piece of "old" art that has the same problem, just a marketing tool. Literally every miniature in this box-set is show in this drawing:
Spoiler:
This one yes. You did not look at it well enough. The artwork contains plenty of cool Skaven things that did not come in the box (or did I miss the giant flying rats bearing plague censer bombs?).
Galas wrote: This is marketing (Cool looking marketing, I really like it, but pure marketing). Literally you can buy everything in that image:
Spoiler:
Apart from the giant ship and the giant bird thing in the background... This is a really great, imaginative piece of art. Whether a piece of art faithfully reproduces the models is not the sole qualifier for whether art is good or bad or imaginative. The art is more than just the characters depicted, it is also about the composition, situation and atmosphere in which they are depicted. In this case, the composition and atmosphere of the picture are evocative enough to make up for the lack of imagination in the characters themselves.
Apart from this, I again agree with most of what you say.
In the last image I think that giant bird thing is a Lord of Change, and the Giant Ship, you can buy it. But yes, in the Island of Blood image you are right, theres some artistic freedom besides showing the models in the box.
There is no such thing as "quick-fire" "computer-generated" art. The fact that some even call it "computer generated" in this day and age is surprising. They aren't firing up Poser, hitting the "make cool marine" button and calling it a day. A lot of the art they generate is actual 2D paintings done in Photoshop and Painter (this has been the case since around 3.5 - I'm willing to bet there are some pieces you like that you don't even know were done on a computer). They are for sure also using 3D modeling and animation software (the 4th ed CSM codex cover was done in Max for example), but that doesn't tend to save any time. Since changes can often be made a little faster, art direction often becomes more involved and you end up taking the exact same amount of time as if it was a "traditional" piece. I totally get not liking the new art direction (especially if you grew up on Blanche and actually liked it), but that's down to the art direction. It has nothing to do with the method of creation. IMO that tends to be an elitist "art snob" point of view that probably needs to die.
I'm an elitist art snob and I still agree with you! You can create great art in any medium, just like you can create dull art in any medium.
Also, having worked as a professional illustrator, I'd like to add that art direction has a huge impact. So while I may find the art that just copies the models boring, I would not jump to blame the artists; they were probably told to do it just like that.
Purifier wrote: I love every single picture you linked. I think your subjective definition of what is and what isn't art is complete non-sense.
By that logic, the Mona Lisa isn't art, because it accurately depicts a person as she was, and is not some flight of fancy.
And you know this how? Have you seen the real person who posed for the Mona Lisa, and what expression was on her face whilst posing? Because if you have then you need to give up you secrets to immortality or your time machine plans.
Yeah that Overlord ship is the biggest one on the table. There are some you cannot buy but those are quite literally near city ship size.
Also that one with the Repentia is.. odd to me because one can barely tell the difference between the repentia and Arco-flaggalents. Why does one have her tongue replaced with a parchment scroll!? They aren't allowed to self-mutilate themselves.
All the art is fine to me, though I dislike Blanche's odd orange backgrounds and off colors.
This definition of art, in which depicting the actual models is not art, is ridiculous.
Here is the actual definition of art.
"Anything created in any medium with the intent to evoke an emotional response."
A kids finger painting to his parents is art. It has bad technique (probably) and probably doesn't convey what they intended (so it's bad art) but it's still art.
Resident Evil games (particularly the horror ones) are art.
Pictures made to get people to go "That looks bad ass! I want that guy right there as a toy I can play with!" is art. That excitement for the product is the emotional response they intend and the point of putting the actual models in the piece is to the credit of the intent of the artists and those who commission them to make the art.
Saying it's not art simply because the artist didn't go off book to add in odd little details for things that players cannot get is nuts. Art is always art. And a artist who follows the criteria of their commission is an artist who gets paid.
Lance845 wrote: This definition of art, in which depicting the actual models is not art, is ridiculous.
Here is the actual definition of art.
"Anything created in any medium with the intent to evoke an emotion response."
A kids finger painting to his parents is art. It has bad technique (probably) and probably doesn't convey what they intended (so it's bad art) but it's still art.
Resident Evil games (particularly the horror ones) are art.
Pictures made to get people to go "That looks bad ass! I want that guy right there as a toy I can play with!" is art. That excitement for the product is the emotional response they intend and the point of putting the actual models in the piece is to the credit of the intent of the artists and those who commission them to make the art.
Saying it's not art simply because the artist didn't go off book to add in odd little details for things that players cannot get is nuts. Art is always art. And a artist who follows the criteria of their commission is an artist who gets paid.
Semantics. The point people are making is that you can feel the lack of skill, creativity and the intention of representing the product without crossing boundaries, hence, by your same definition, the emotional response from the viewer is diminished. Maybe it remains "art", technically speaking - but is bad one.
Except sales are up and this forum (which only represents a very small portion of the people who buy the game and get online let alone just buy the game and never go looking for a 3rd party forum to talk about it) has a bunch of new people posting all the time talking about how they are just getting into the game.
YOU might not feel particularly inspired by the piece but YOU are not it's market. The new blood they are bringing in for the new edition are. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's working.
That would make it good art. It's crafted with obvious technical skill and it's doing the job they made it for. Getting people to look further into the product and start buying the game. YOU don't have to like it (subjective) but it seems to be effective in it's contribution to the marketing of the product (objective) and that is it's intent and purpose.
Lance845 wrote: Except sales are up and this forum (which only represents a very small portion of the people who buy the game and get online let alone just buy the game and never go looking for a 3rd party forum to talk about it) has a bunch of new people posting all the time talking about how they are just getting into the game.
YOU might not feel particularly inspired by the piece but YOU are not it's market. The new blood they are bringing in for the new edition are. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's working.
This is a huge leap with absolutely no evidence to support any connection between a new art style and increased sales.
That would make it good art.
By your metric, that would make it good advertising.
It's crafted with obvious technical skill and it's doing the job they made it for. Getting people to look further into the product and start buying the game. YOU don't have to like it (subjective) but it seems to be effective in it's contribution to the marketing of the product (objective) and that is it's intent and purpose.
I'm sorry, but technical skill isn't art, people with limited technical skill can create art, the reverse isn't necessarily true, and again you've made a massive supposition about the art and its contribution to financial performance. Even assuming there is a quantifiable impact, I'd bu surprised if it wasn't anything other than tiny, especially when the new style originates from the time when they were contracting.
The point people are making is that you can feel the lack of skill ...
I get what you're saying about crossing boundaries and all that, but define "lack of skill". Because while there are a few pieces done in the last few years that look hurried to me, I have yet to see anything from GW that truly represents a "lack of skill" ...
Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you here, but if not, you're coming very close to being like the other two posters who accused GW of ripping off IPs that came out 20 years AFTER 40K ...
The point people are making is that you can feel the lack of skill ...
I get what you're saying about crossing boundaries and all that, but define "lack of skill". Because while there are a few pieces done in the last few years that look hurried to me, I have yet to see anything from GW that truly represents a "lack of skill" ...
Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you here, but if not, you're coming very close to being like the other two posters who accused GW of ripping off IPs that came out 20 years AFTER 40K ...
I am not going to explain why Adrian Smith, Wayne England or Kopinski karl operate on another level compared to the new art.
This is what I meant and I refute to discuss it, frankly.
Lance845 wrote: Except sales are up and this forum (which only represents a very small portion of the people who buy the game and get online let alone just buy the game and never go looking for a 3rd party forum to talk about it) has a bunch of new people posting all the time talking about how they are just getting into the game.
YOU might not feel particularly inspired by the piece but YOU are not it's market. The new blood they are bringing in for the new edition are. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's working.
This is a huge leap with absolutely no evidence to support any connection between a new art style and increased sales.
I didn't say the art style was the only factor. Obviously many factors contribute. But I guarantee you new players walking into a store and seeing the standee with the JUST LIKE THE MODELS primaris marine with all the boxed games is an eye catcher that gets people going "What is this" and looking at the boxes. It's not a huge leap. It's obvious marketing.
That would make it good art.
By your metric, that would make it good advertising.
Advertising is art.
It's crafted with obvious technical skill and it's doing the job they made it for. Getting people to look further into the product and start buying the game. YOU don't have to like it (subjective) but it seems to be effective in it's contribution to the marketing of the product (objective) and that is it's intent and purpose.
I'm sorry, but technical skill isn't art, people with limited technical skill can create art, the reverse isn't necessarily true, and again you've made a massive supposition about the art and its contribution to financial performance. Even assuming there is a quantifiable impact, I'd bu surprised if it wasn't anything other than tiny, especially when the new style originates from the time when they were contracting.
I agree technical skill does not = art. Art is intent. Go into you LFGS, look at that primaris standee i mentioned. Pretend your 11 years old. 13 years old. 17 years old. Look at the other displays around. Really consider which one is going to catch your eye and get you to give it a second look.
Not everything is worthy of discussion. Discuss wether Karl Kopinski is better than the new deviantart-tier art is discussing wether the water is wet, and I am not going to do that. Have a nice day.
Not everything is worthy of discussion. Discuss wether Karl Kopinski is better than the new deviantart-tier art is discussing wether the water is wet, and I am not going to do that. Have a nice day.
GOD has spoken. Let the meager plebians debate among themselves the lesser, unworthy merits of lesser, unworthy artists, but GOD's opinion remains unassailable FACT.
Lance845 wrote: Except sales are up and this forum (which only represents a very small portion of the people who buy the game and get online let alone just buy the game and never go looking for a 3rd party forum to talk about it) has a bunch of new people posting all the time talking about how they are just getting into the game.
YOU might not feel particularly inspired by the piece but YOU are not it's market. The new blood they are bringing in for the new edition are. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's working.
That would make it good art. It's crafted with obvious technical skill and it's doing the job they made it for. Getting people to look further into the product and start buying the game. YOU don't have to like it (subjective) but it seems to be effective in it's contribution to the marketing of the product (objective) and that is it's intent and purpose.
Not everything is worthy of discussion. Discuss wether Karl Kopinski is better than the new deviantart-tier art is discussing wether the water is wet, and I am not going to do that. Have a nice day.
GOD has spoken. Let the meager plebians debate among themselves the lesser, unworthy merits of lesser, unworthy artists, but GOD's opinion remains unassailable FACT.
Sorry, but no. Galas pointed out intelligently the merit of an AoS piece because of its execution, dinamics, and composition. THAT can be discussed. Wheter such pieces is better executed technically cannot be discussed. There are people better or worse at a specific task. I do not play guitar like Brian May.
Sorry, but yes. You're waving your opinion around like it's divine FACT, when all it is is an opinion. Who the hell are you to determine who is a better artist? Art is inherently subjective.
All you've accomplished is to make sure I never listen to anything you ever say ever again under any circumstances (not that I expect you care).
Lance845 wrote: Except sales are up and this forum (which only represents a very small portion of the people who buy the game and get online let alone just buy the game and never go looking for a 3rd party forum to talk about it) has a bunch of new people posting all the time talking about how they are just getting into the game.
YOU might not feel particularly inspired by the piece but YOU are not it's market. The new blood they are bringing in for the new edition are. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's working.
That would make it good art. It's crafted with obvious technical skill and it's doing the job they made it for. Getting people to look further into the product and start buying the game. YOU don't have to like it (subjective) but it seems to be effective in it's contribution to the marketing of the product (objective) and that is it's intent and purpose.
"is popular, so is good"
No.
Works. So is effective. So is good.
It's not GREAT art. It's not ground breaking or high art. Nobody is going to study a piece of 40k art and be bought to tears. Nobody is going to be studying it 100 years from now and wonder at the artists technique and intent. But it does what it sets out to do. It draws people in and builds interest. The direct correlation between the people in the imagines and the models you buy is clearly intentional and effective.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why the hell would all of you argue with someone who does not want to discuss it? If he doesn't want to respond he won't and your all just typing into the void at nothing. The moment he says he won't discuss it, dismiss him and carry on.
It's not GREAT art. It's not ground breaking or high art. Nobody is going to study a piece of 40k art and be bought to tears. Nobody is going to be studying it 100 years from now and wonder at the artists technique and intent. But it does what it sets out to do. It draws people in and builds interest. The direct correlation between the people in the imagines and the models you buy is clearly intentional and effective.
I am not saying that is an insult to reason and tastes and the books should be burned. But compared to what we GENERALLY (good points have been made that the situation is not so black-and-white) had, I think that a sort of creative spark have been lost in this GW cutting corners that led to a somewhat flashier but less inspired and less inspiring product.
Also, I discuss with you because you rise a point about functionality. I do not agree but makes sense. I am not going to discuss "LOL DEVIANTART IS LIKE WAYNE ENGLAND IS SUBJECTIVE, BRO". That is something I cannot respect.
Lance845 wrote: Except sales are up and this forum (which only represents a very small portion of the people who buy the game and get online let alone just buy the game and never go looking for a 3rd party forum to talk about it) has a bunch of new people posting all the time talking about how they are just getting into the game.
YOU might not feel particularly inspired by the piece but YOU are not it's market. The new blood they are bringing in for the new edition are. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's working.
This is a huge leap with absolutely no evidence to support any connection between a new art style and increased sales.
I didn't say the art style was the only factor. Obviously many factors contribute. But I guarantee you new players walking into a store and seeing the standee with the JUST LIKE THE MODELS primaris marine with all the boxed games is an eye catcher that gets people going "What is this" and looking at the boxes. It's not a huge leap. It's obvious marketing.
A 6 foot tall piece of bright yellow cardboard would also be eye catching, that wouldn't make it art. "Being eye catching" is not the same as illiciting an emotional reaction.
That would make it good art.
By your metric, that would make it good advertising.
Advertising is art.
No, art is sometimes used in advertising. They are not synonymous.
It's crafted with obvious technical skill and it's doing the job they made it for. Getting people to look further into the product and start buying the game. YOU don't have to like it (subjective) but it seems to be effective in it's contribution to the marketing of the product (objective) and that is it's intent and purpose.
I'm sorry, but technical skill isn't art, people with limited technical skill can create art, the reverse isn't necessarily true, and again you've made a massive supposition about the art and its contribution to financial performance. Even assuming there is a quantifiable impact, I'd bu surprised if it wasn't anything other than tiny, especially when the new style originates from the time when they were contracting.
I agree technical skill does not = art. Art is intent. Go into you LFGS, look at that primaris standee i mentioned. Pretend your 11 years old. 13 years old. 17 years old. Look at the other displays around. Really consider which one is going to catch your eye and get you to give it a second look.
I grew up alongside Rogue Trader, Slaves To Darkness and The Lost And The Damned. Every store I go into has some standee for something in it, frequently with some franchise based character attached to it. I feel that teenage me would have become so normalized to it, were they as common a thing back then, that the only impact it would likely have had was because they must be irritatingly obstructive in the tiny shops GW tends to have. Teenage me would then have gone home and been inspired by the first and second generation art created by the people who were instrumental in the creation of the 40K universe that you got in books back then.
Modern GW books are certainly extensively illustrated, but very little of it grabs me like some of the older images. Some of that is undoubtedly nostalgia, but not enough to explain it in entirety.
All you've accomplished is to make sure I never listen to anything you ever say ever again under any circumstances (not that I expect you care).
So... yay?
I am afraid is pretty reciprocal buddy, especially if you cannot get the point of the post.
Is not true because I say it, Is true because Karl Kopinsky or Brian May.
Reread what I wrote, I am not going to make further attempt with you.
Purifier wrote: I love every single picture you linked. I think your subjective definition of what is and what isn't art is complete non-sense.
By that logic, the Mona Lisa isn't art, because it accurately depicts a person as she was, and is not some flight of fancy.
And you know this how? Have you seen the real person who posed for the Mona Lisa, and what expression was on her face whilst posing? Because if you have then you need to give up you secrets to immortality or your time machine plans.
Snarky comment that completely misses the point. It doesn't matter one way or the other, because as we don't know if it's an exact representation or not, would you then say that it is not art if it happens to be an accurate depiction? Of course you can't say that. It would be as ridiculous as your whole comment. It is art, whether it was an exact picture of what she looked like or not.
Art is not subjetive, please, stop saying that. Thats post-modernism and is just absurd. You are basically saying that 2800 years of art history, art disciplines, art schools, be it art decó, rococó, Gothic art, Cubism, Puntillism, Baroque, all the studies that have been made about art, are basically just all useless because "Well, art is just subjetive"
Art is a science, it can be studied, it can be measured, and it HAS been.
TASTES are subjetive. You can like something that is BAD. I like many things that are BAD, be it food, videogames,movies, comics, art, etc... but they are objetively BAD.
Not all art is good. Good art is good because the right people say it is. Thats all there is to it. The whole art industry is just a money laundering scheme for rich people anyway.
Trying to debate wether or not your fantasy drawings of one elf is better than another is a really silly way to spend your time.
Sim-Life wrote: Not all art is good. Good art is good because the right people say it is. Thats all there is to it. The whole art industry is just a money laundering scheme for rich people anyway.
Trying to debate wether or not your fantasy drawings of one elf is better than another is a really silly way to spend your time.
So it is playing with toy soldiers - but here we are.
This is wrong. Art is far more contextual than subjective. A piece of art may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make your judgement of it valid.
Why not? How can you determine it someone's opinion is allowed to be "valid" or not, especially when it is just opinion?
How valid is your opinion of someone you dont know?
How does that answer my question?
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
This is wrong. Art is far more contextual than subjective. A piece of art may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make your judgement of it valid.
Why not? How can you determine it someone's opinion is allowed to be "valid" or not, especially when it is just opinion?
How valid is your opinion of someone you dont know?
How does that answer my question?
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Your definition of knowledgeable? To what level? Does that apply to everything - ie, I can't criticize a company because I don't own a company or didn't study business, or I can't criticize a politician, because I have no qualifications in it?
Or maybe art doesn't need knowledge, because it's all subjective. I mean, art elicits reactions in children - are those reactions invalid, because they're not knowledgeable?
I'm sorry, but I really beg to differ on this point.
The old goofy art had its charm and looked more genuine to me. Modern wow-esque proportions can be cool on some model but are often "off".
You mean the proportions that 40k practically invented?
I have to concede here - you are right, after all WoW was intende to be WHFB. Nonetheless, aestethic changed during the years and both franchises went very far and beyond the original concepts. Just think how much the orcs/orks changed for GW.
We have an example of "circular influence" too - think about the Zerg/Tyranids.
Furthermore, there is "something" in the geometry of many models that is "off". Almost polygonal when is not supposed to be the case, at least not necessarily.
thekingofkings wrote: The rules are what made me quit AoS/8th edition 40k, but the aesthetic also had a lot to do with it.
While I dabbled in Warhammer Fantasy (enjoyed the lore, the aesthetic, Mordheim etc.) AoS is terrible looking to me, and would keep me away from any future projects they do.
Furthermore, there is "something" in the geometry of many models that is "off". Almost polygonal when is not supposed to be the case, at least not necessarily.
I see this in the AoS models for sure. They're a little "off" to me and I can't quite put my finger on it. That's what I was saying when I mentioned the "rounded edges" on those models. Especially the Sigmarines. It's almost like if Fisher-Price made miniatures or something like that. I don't really see it in the 40K models though ...
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Not that I would know, as I have no formal training, and I don't know you personally, but it looks a lot like you're making an absolute art of sounding like a douche canoe.
Jaxler wrote: His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul
Blanche's work is soulless, lifeless, talentless garbage, created more to fulfill his fetishes than to be good art. I'd say he's a third-rate Giger wannabe, except that's giving him too much credit.
Jaxler wrote: His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul
Blanche's work is soulless, lifeless, talentless garbage, created more to fulfill his fetishes than to be good art. I'd say he's a third-rate Giger wannabe, except that's giving him too much credit.
Just bear in mind that much of this "soulless, lifeless, talentless garbage" is the basis for MANY of the models in GW's range that you will no doubt have bought at some point.
Jaxler wrote: His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul
Blanche's work is soulless, lifeless, talentless garbage, created more to fulfill his fetishes than to be good art. I'd say he's a third-rate Giger wannabe, except that's giving him too much credit.
I used to love the way you'd be able to tell what medium had been used in each image. I still look at my old 2nd ed Codex Chaos and love the black and white drawings by Mark Gibbons and the like. Or the sketches from the 2nd ed Codex Eldar of the inside of craftworlds and spaceships.
Now that everything is done with computer software it really does nothing for me. They might as well just take oodles and oodles of photos of the minis
flyingthruwater wrote: I used to love the way you'd be able to tell what medium had been used in each image. I still look at my old 2nd ed Codex Chaos and love the black and white drawings by Mark Gibbons and the like. Or the sketches from the 2nd ed Codex Eldar of the inside of craftworlds and spaceships.
Now that everything is done with computer software it really does nothing for me. They might as well just take oodles and oodles of photos of the minis
Yeah that's what ended in 7th and it was just completely awful.
Jaxler wrote: His art may be messy and red but it's still got more soul
Blanche's work is soulless, lifeless, talentless garbage, created more to fulfill his fetishes than to be good art. I'd say he's a third-rate Giger wannabe, except that's giving him too much credit.
Just bear in mind that much of this "soulless, lifeless, talentless garbage" is the basis for MANY of the models in GW's range that you will no doubt have bought at some point.
So much in this thread.
It may have inspired models that many of us have bought, but that doesnt make it great, or even good. While I may not dislike it to the degree that Melissia does, I do share a similar opinion that his work is overrated and not very good.
I was watching a program about a Renoir painting earlier this week, and one of the experts interviewed essentially said, of Renoir, "he was a genius, but he produced a lot of crap."
I think, with perhaps slightly less liberal application of genius, this applies to Blanche too. I'm probably at the "not a fan" end of the spectrum, but his body of work is substantial and buried in it are some iconic Warhammer images and the inspirations for some iconic models, so it is very difficult to dismiss everything he's done in entirety.
I used to love the way you'd be able to tell what medium had been used in each image. I still look at my old 2nd ed Codex Chaos and love the black and white drawings by Mark Gibbons and the like. Or the sketches from the 2nd ed Codex Eldar of the inside of craftworlds and spaceships.
Now that everything is done with computer software it really does nothing for me. They might as well just take oodles and oodles of photos of the minis
There's a certain amount of ignorance here when it comes to the method by which a lot the art was created. Like I said before, they actually started using digital art towards the middle/late end of 3.5 and really kicked it off in 4th. I can pretty much garauntee there are several pieces that you really love because you think they evoke the feel of a certain medium, but were actually done digitally. A lot of the more "sterile" marketing type images we see now, while done digitally, could be done with the exact same look in a traditional medium. The tool has nothing to do with the look. It's all about the art direction. As far as that goes, while I still like a lot of the new stuff, I can absolutely agree that the art direction has been pushed in a more sterile, marketing direction than ever before.
Theres an argument to be made that even today aesthetics and books have some really nice images, evocatives ones, and less derivative from the miniatures. The same can be said about old books, theres pretty examples of old and crappy art that for example Elbows has posted.
Spoiler:
But even recognising this, I think that past GW books had some artist that were such at a higher level that the ones they are hiring and using in general now.
Can any artist GW has used in the last 6-7 years really compared with this man?
https://www.artstation.com/adrian-smith And like him, many others great names. And yes ERJAK, I know you tried very hard to diminish this artists like they are nothing, but sorry. His talent is right there.
But even recognising this, I think that past GW books had some artist that were such at a higher level that the ones they are hiring and using in general now.
Can any artist GW has used in the last 6-7 years really compared with this man?
https://www.artstation.com/adrian-smith And like him, many others great names. And yes ERJAK, I know you tried very hard to diminish this artists like they are nothing, but sorry. His talent is right there.
B-b-but his work! So much of it is done with those filthy computers! He CAN'T be good!
Seriously though ... it's tough to argue against him being one of the top talents to ever work on the GW line.
Galas wrote: Theres an argument to be made that even today aesthetics and books have some really nice images, evocatives ones, and less derivative from the miniatures. The same can be said about old books, theres pretty examples of old and crappy art that for example Elbows has posted.
Spoiler:
I like this one. It gives scope and shows the characters in a different scene compared to the usual fight. Also it gives depth to the Lords of Change. They are big scary angry bird evil daemons, but they are too smart, knowledgeable and from a point of view wise. Ask them stuff or just bargaining is dangerous, but not nonsensical.
It gives too to the whole scene sort of a RPG vibe.
But even recognising this, I think that past GW books had some artist that were such at a higher level that the ones they are hiring and using in general now.
Can any artist GW has used in the last 6-7 years really compared with this man?
https://www.artstation.com/adrian-smith And like him, many others great names. And yes ERJAK, I know you tried very hard to diminish this artists like they are nothing, but sorry. His talent is right there.
B-b-but his work! So much of it is done with those filthy computers! He CAN'T be good!
Seriously though ... it's tough to argue against him being one of the top talents to ever work on the GW line.
I think when people, at least myself, talk about "bad computer art" is because of artists that look like they got a degree yesterday and can be hired for cheap because they can splat colours on a screen after using GW models almost as they are.
In the hand of Adrian Smith things probably are different.
I think when people, at least myself, talk about "bad computer art" is because of artists that look like they got a degree yesterday and can be hired for cheap because they can splat colours on a screen after using GW models almost as they are.
I think you give people too much credit here. I think most people don't know nearly as much as they think they do about art and design. One of my college teachers was famous for saying that being a designer was a difficult job because everyone you were ever going to work with/for knew two things. They knew their job AND art. I think that fits well here. A lot of people who casually throw around "computer generated" and "cg", etc etc, have absolutely no idea about art, design, or the actual differences between a traditional piece and a digital one and just fall back on "Oh, that's that crappy CG that's taking over everything" when they don't like a piece. They don't generally know enough to say why they don't like it, so "crappy CG" becomes a comfortable fall-back - even if the piece in question was actually done traditionally.
I think when people, at least myself, talk about "bad computer art" is because of artists that look like they got a degree yesterday and can be hired for cheap because they can splat colours on a screen after using GW models almost as they are.
I think you give people too much credit here. I think most people don't know nearly as much as they think they do about art and design. One of my college teachers was famous for saying that being a designer was a difficult job because everyone you were ever going to work with/for knew two things. They knew their job AND art. I think that fits well here. A lot of people who casually throw around "computer generated" and "cg", etc etc, have absolutely no idea about art, design, or the actual differences between a traditional piece and a digital one and just fall back on "Oh, that's that crappy CG that's taking over everything" when they don't like a piece. They don't generally know enough to say why they don't like it, so "crappy CG" becomes a comfortable fall-back - even if the piece in question was actually done traditionally.
Agree with you 100% on Smith though.
Well one could look at the case of Raymond Swanland. I am not fan of his covers: the focus on the character* and the technique appeal me less. Bu you cannot say he is "bad" . You really cannot. There is attention, dynamism, light, actual concept and design. I mean you could make the same case for Wayne Reynolds, the two have "something" in common that some peopel find unappealing, but Wayne Reynolds looks more "classic".
*compared to, say, older covers showing the army but this is probably GW choice
Well one could look at the case of Raymond Swanland. I am not fan of his covers: the focus on the character* and the technique appeal me less. Bu you cannot say he is "bad" . You really cannot. There is attention, dynamism, light, actual concept and design.
I mean you could make the same case for Wayne Reynolds, the two have "something" in common that some peopel find unappealing, but Wayne Reynolds looks more "classic".
*compared to, say, older covers showing the army but this is probably GW choice
Oh, I agree with you on that completely. My only point with that was that the actual medium has zero to do with the look. One can make a terrible oil painting just as easily as one can make a terrible digital painting or botch a digital sculpt, or improperly light a 3D render. I was just saying that a lot of people seem to say things like "It all went downhill with that darn CG they started using in ought 12!" Meanwhile, they had been using digital art for significantly longer AND the fact that a piece may or may not have been done digitally has zero things at all to do with the quality of the completed product.
The whole thing just has that "Get off my lawn!" feel to it. Makes me crazy. lol
This is an example of the insanely ho-hum, nothing-special kind of art that I could do without in 40K publications. Regardless of how it's generated. Most generations have had their artists who did this kind of piddly mediocrity.
Most generations have had their artists who did this kind of piddly mediocrity.
Harsh words. To say you don't like it is one thing, but piddling mediocrity? The salt is strong!
To me, that looks like it was on it's way to being a pretty good piece but for whatever reason, was never completed. When you're training to become a professional, you're taught to work on things in stages so that no matter when the AD or PM snags the piece away form you, it could be considered "done". I don't like this piece very much either as it's very "static", but looking at it, I feel like that's coming less from a "piddling mediocre artist" and more from a piece that got published before it was actually done.
It has strong lines and decent composition, so I don't think this is from a bad artist.
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Not that I would know, as I have no formal training, and I don't know you personally, but it looks a lot like you're making an absolute art of sounding like a douche canoe.
Haha, indeed! I'm putting my stake down on the extreme side of things. But the notion "art is all subjective" would mean that when determining whether or not a piece is "good" that an uninformed opinion is just as good as an informed one. Do you realize how arrogant that is?
This is wrong. Art is far more contextual than subjective. A piece of art may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make your judgement of it valid.
Why not? How can you determine it someone's opinion is allowed to be "valid" or not, especially when it is just opinion?
How valid is your opinion of someone you dont know?
How does that answer my question?
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Your definition of knowledgeable? To what level? Does that apply to everything - ie, I can't criticize a company because I don't own a company or didn't study business, or I can't criticize a politician, because I have no qualifications in it?
Or maybe art doesn't need knowledge, because it's all subjective. I mean, art elicits reactions in children - are those reactions invalid, because they're not knowledgeable?
I'm sorry, but I really beg to differ on this point.
That's fair, and I'm happy to have the conversation because I think it's an important one.
I'm taking the entire arena of art into account here, which can get pretty esoteric. You have to realize that some art is made for particular purposes, in particular times and places, and can be for specific audiences. Lots of art doesn't fall into this category, and there are plenty of works made in which an uninformed opinion still has validity. But you have to understand that there is some very good, but also pretty unaccessible art out there, oftentimes this is art by artists for other artists, which can be really incredible, but is pretty oblique if you're not ready for it. But someone trying to "objectively" judge the value of work like that would be like me judging a sentence in a language I don't understand. Completely over their head.
Anyone can rightfully say "this isn't for me." But when it comes to any sort of academic or objective judgement of value, it's very possible that their opinion can mean absolutely nothing.
This is not the case for our beloved 40K. These are illustrations made for a popular product which is aimed at crafty hobbyists and perhaps less-crafty gamers, or people who like a meaty setting to sink their teeth into or whatever. As we are all part of the intended audience, our opinions are all much more valid here. The problem I have is when people start to try and make "objective" statement about what is good and bad, without really delving into it with any sort of rigor. I try to stay out of it because, frankly I'm shorter on time these days and it's just an internet forum that I frequent because it's normally about toy soldiers that I can get passionate about, but ultimately is not that serious.
"Art" I take more seriously, and I try to avoid "serious" topics online But the statement "art is all subjective" really, really grates on me.
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Not that I would know, as I have no formal training, and I don't know you personally, but it looks a lot like you're making an absolute art of sounding like a douche canoe.
Haha, indeed! I'm putting my stake down on the extreme side of things. But the notion "art is all subjective" would mean that when determining whether or not a piece is "good" that an uninformed opinion is just as good as an informed one. Do you realize how arrogant that is?.
There's no arrogance involved, you've just chosen to express yourself with imprecise language.
Nobody's opinion is invalid when it comes to a subjective topic, but you can ascribe greater value to those who have some element of knowledge, experience or training in that topic.
That said, a superior knowledge of the subject at hand makes feth all difference whether an individual finds an art piece pleasing or evocative, and no amount of technical explanation or historical detail from a so called expert should affect that, one may find a greater appreciation for elements of the work as a consequence, but it's deeply unlikely that the initial visceral reaction will be altered.
I saw 40k for the first time when stuff like this was badass
Than a lot of time passed and i checked on again when this was just arrived
First thought: " WTF this is not Warhammer... it is not even bulky!"
Second thought: "It's so cool though..."
Now I totally see how Ad Mech is 40K and how the aesthetic is an evolution of the old stuff.
And I totally see how some people see a shifting in the design of the new stuff. There is some sort of change. In AoS I think it is very clear. For Fantasy I think is a lot stronger than in 40K, aiming towards a less gritty and violent imagery. Obviously... I prefer the old stuff.
In 40K is more balanced. Some may like more, others may like less the new Death Guard... but I think none can say there is a lack of quality. May be the new stuff is more on the page of the new generations taste. More standard videogames designs? May be... Still a good design.
I think a lot of people who are dubious now will grow to like some of the new stuff. Needs time to adapt.
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Not that I would know, as I have no formal training, and I don't know you personally, but it looks a lot like you're making an absolute art of sounding like a douche canoe.
Haha, indeed! I'm putting my stake down on the extreme side of things. But the notion "art is all subjective" would mean that when determining whether or not a piece is "good" that an uninformed opinion is just as good as an informed one. Do you realize how arrogant that is?.
There's no arrogance involved, you've just chosen to express yourself with imprecise language.
Nobody's opinion is invalid when it comes to a subjective topic, but you can ascribe greater value to those who have some element of knowledge, experience or training in that topic.
That said, a superior knowledge of the subject at hand makes feth all difference whether an individual finds an art piece pleasing or evocative, and no amount of technical explanation or historical detail from a so called expert should affect that, one may find a greater appreciation for elements of the work as a consequence, but it's deeply unlikely that the initial visceral reaction will be altered.
I get what you're saying, and I'll give it a "kinda-sorta". I tried giving more nuance in my previous post. "Invalid" is a strong word, it's true, but this is specifically in regards to the judgement call by which a work is deemed "good" or not.
In other words, you are free to like or dislike whatever you want, that's the subjective nature of it. But subjectivity is limited, as a work can be good without you liking it. That statement seems obvious, right? But there are a lot of opinions that amount to "I do not like this therefore it is bad." then un-nuanced reasons are given ("proportions are all off!"), which are then excused by: "Art is all subjective, man." This is what I argue against.
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
Except that outside of liking a work or not, the only metric we're left with to judge it is technical proficiency, an area where an expert eye is certainly at an advantage, but as has already been covered, a work can be technically proficient without being "good art" and vice versa.
Ultimately you can only judge a work as good on the basis of if someone likes it or if the artist feels it achieves whatever their objective was in creating it. Neither of these things can be objectively quantified, there aren't 2 Monets to a Van Gogh, a Rembrandt isn't worth 2/3 of a Michelangelo, and experts, outside of those who present technical knowledge in an aim to separate a genuine work from a forgery for instance, are only ever offering their opinion. The value of that opinion is inherently no more valuable than anyone else's, except where the observer chooses to imbue it with such.
Having witnessed some of the pretentious bull offered as opinion by these experts, I've concluded much of it is just Emperors New Clothes syndrome, and they're often just making gak up on the spot anyway.
GW art direction changed, regardless how amusing you can find specific opinions.
Myself, I find more amusing people jumping into a thread they have clearly no interest into and stating that is hilarious.
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
This is the second time I read this.
Are people such delicate and sensitive nowadays?
People ragging on artwork, though I dare them to make something better.
People ragging on paint style, though it's a complete matter of opinion.
Then you got people ragging on the models changing, and there's no particular reason other than "I don't like change."
Since I got into the hobby back in 2006 the Plague Marines have been a head shorter than regular marines. It's about TIME they got updated, and gorgeously so.
Yes, things change. Is it bad? Is it good? It all comes down to personal opinion, and if you really hate the direction the company is going, vote with your dollars by not spending them on the hobby that you apparently despise now.
GW art direction changed, regardless how amusing you can find specific opinions.
Myself, I find more amusing people jumping into a thread they have clearly no interest into and stating that is hilarious.
I call it "meta-hilarious".
Eh, I posted in it page 1 or 2 when there was some sense then the thread boarded the Crazy Train. So, I was interested. Now, not so much.
People ragging on artwork, though I dare them to make something better.
People ragging on paint style, though it's a complete matter of opinion.
Then you got people ragging on the models changing, and there's no particular reason other than "I don't like change."
Since I got into the hobby back in 2006 the Plague Marines have been a head shorter than regular marines. It's about TIME they got updated, and gorgeously so.
Yes, things change. Is it bad? Is it good? It all comes down to personal opinion, and if you really hate the direction the company is going, vote with your dollars by not spending them on the hobby that you apparently despise now.
I am sorry but I read a lot of nonsense here.
You can judge something without being in the industry. Do you think you cannot tell if you liked a movie without being a director?
I can understand an argument like "you have to have knowledge certain nuances and techniques, you must be trained to understand X" but here you are plain implying we should be all illustrator or miniature makers to discuss the art.
Stating that people preferred old models or don't like change are pure strawmen. I see makes sense have bigger marines, but this does not justify many needless details that lower the quality of a good miniature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: What's hilarious is trying to quantify 'soul' or how good artwork definitively is.
Honestly, humanity has never managed that. It certainly won't be achieved on DakkaDakka.
Except that at least for the definition used by some people here, we can directly evaluate if the subjects of an art piece are copypasted from the models or there is some sort of design and creative process involved.
Just as an example but this would mean criticize GW, so...
People ragging on artwork, though I dare them to make something better.
People ragging on paint style, though it's a complete matter of opinion.
Then you got people ragging on the models changing, and there's no particular reason other than "I don't like change."
Since I got into the hobby back in 2006 the Plague Marines have been a head shorter than regular marines. It's about TIME they got updated, and gorgeously so.
Yes, things change. Is it bad? Is it good? It all comes down to personal opinion, and if you really hate the direction the company is going, vote with your dollars by not spending them on the hobby that you apparently despise now.
I am sorry but I read a lot of nonsense here.
You can judge something without being in the industry. Do you think you cannot tell if you liked a movie without being a director?
I can understand an argument like "you have to have knowledge certain nuances and techniques, you must be trained to understand X" but here you are plain implying we should be all illustrator or miniature makers to discuss the art.
Stating that people preferred old models or don't like change are pure strawmen. I see makes sense have bigger marines, but this does not justify many needless details that lower the quality of a good miniature.
A. You can dislike a piece of art, but when you talk as if you know that the art is rubbish from its foundations, show me your art degree. Show me your illustrations. If nothing else, name a book on art you've read. Oh, you don't have any of that? Then don't pretend like you know what you're talking about when it comes to composition, artistic skill, color theory, value, etc. If it isn't 'grimdark' enough for you, that's fine, but that's just opinion and I can disagree with you all day.
B. IMO, the new Plague Marines are a breath of fresh air (ironically). We're FINALLY getting some gorgeous new miniatures for a line that was starting to look more like squats just based on their size and stature standing next to the new Primaris marines. The new detail isn't 'needless' to me. It's characterful. It's satisfying to build and paint. There's a lot going on, and there should be. Leave the clean lines, solid colors, and mechanical detail to the Ultrasmurfs. Death Guard are about plague, disease, and monstrosities, and finally now they look like what they represent.
I'm in the group of talking about the difference in art, but personally I love the new direction in the miniatures department (You aren't gonna see me saying that oldhammer is the best oldhammer. I even prefer the new daemonettes to Juan Diaz's ones! ), and even if I think the old art direction of GW had virtues that now have been lost to pure and esterile marketing, I can appreciate and even like the new art.
But I suppose than if you dare to critizise something with arguments thatts mean that you hate everything (?)
I suppose that all the people that is saying that art is totally subjetive and is absurd to discuss the differences between art pieces and the art direction of old-GW vs new-GW believe the same about movies or books?
Man, movies are subjetive, how dare you say that Lord of the Rings are a much better product than the Twilight saga! And to be honest, The DaVinci Code can't be put in a lower tier than The Divine Comedy from Dante! Literature as a form of art is totally subjetive!
A. You can dislike a piece of art, but when you talk as if you know that the art is rubbish from its foundations, show me your art degree. Show me your illustrations. If nothing else, name a book on art you've read. Oh, you don't have any of that? Then don't pretend like you know what you're talking about when it comes to composition, artistic skill, color theory, value, etc. If it isn't 'grimdark' enough for you, that's fine, but that's just opinion and I can disagree with you all day.
Assume for a moment I am an illustrator. How god should I be to discuss? Decent? Mediocre? I scribble talking at the telephone. I am an illustrator? You talk about degrees and I am fine with that. If I have none and I am a good one I cannot discuss? Can I? Plase set the boundaries. So what I can and cannot say? I cannot notice that an illustration is a fething unfocused mess with wrong poses unless I am Leonardo Da Vinci?
B. IMO, the new Plague Marines are a breath of fresh air (ironically). We're FINALLY getting some gorgeous new miniatures for a line that was starting to look more like squats just based on their size and stature standing next to the new Primaris marines. The new detail isn't 'needless' to me. It's characterful. It's satisfying to build and paint. There's a lot going on, and there should be. Leave the clean lines, solid colors, and mechanical detail to the Ultrasmurfs. Death Guard are about plague, disease, and monstrosities, and finally now they look like what they represent.
In my opinion.
At their core, the models are absolutely gorgeous and a love letter to the older series from the plastic guy JohnnyHell posted at page 1 or 2 to the FW ones. And they are indeed very good for the painting, especially with *LOOKS AT CAMERA* the GW technicals and similar products. Point being that there was no restraint and they put additional stuff that made the unit less homogeneous to a degree and on a singular level too "heavy" at the point that IMHO need trimming. If trimmed, is the best thing ever. And one can use some of the trimmed stuff to convert "doubles".
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
This is the second time I read this.
Are people such delicate and sensitive nowadays?
I'm not incredibly bothered by the discussion, it just strikes me as someone desperate to defend a wasted degree and that is off putting.
But I imagine for some people they aren't ok being told their opinion doesn't matter.
Azreal13 wrote: Except that outside of liking a work or not, the only metric we're left with to judge it is technical proficiency, an area where an expert eye is certainly at an advantage, but as has already been covered, a work can be technically proficient without being "good art" and vice versa.
Ultimately you can only judge a work as good on the basis of if someone likes it or if the artist feels it achieves whatever their objective was in creating it. Neither of these things can be objectively quantified, there aren't 2 Monets to a Van Gogh, a Rembrandt isn't worth 2/3 of a Michelangelo, and experts, outside of those who present technical knowledge in an aim to separate a genuine work from a forgery for instance, are only ever offering their opinion. The value of that opinion is inherently no more valuable than anyone else's, except where the observer chooses to imbue it with such.
Having witnessed some of the pretentious bull offered as opinion by these experts, I've concluded much of it is just Emperors New Clothes syndrome, and they're often just making gak up on the spot anyway.
Bolded what I think is the important bit, and others have raised this one already. Intent is something that can often be objectively known, as is context. If you don't know the intent, or the context, which can be known, how valid can your judgement be? Being able to put things in the right context really important.. A lot like the Tactics forum where people say "I'm bringing unit X, what do you think?" and the responses are "what's the rest of your list?".
Your bit about "pretentious bull" is another issue altogether, and for many cases I'm inclined to agree. It's not that "art-speak" (or whatever you want to call it) is inherently meaningless, but it's really easy to be lazy with, and create statements that amount to incoherent garbage. A lot of it is put together to sound fancy to make sales or sound intelligent, sad but true. I will say that some of it is 100% legit, but man, there's a bunch of crap to wade through. Thinking it's all pretentious crap is completely understandable because unfortunately lot of it kinda is.
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
It's true! I could be arguing about the validity of Tactical Squads in a UM list.
I started off with something pretty adversarial, it's true. I hope you can see that I've attempted to treat the responses respectfully though.
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
This is the second time I read this.
Are people such delicate and sensitive nowadays?
I'm not incredibly bothered by the discussion, it just strikes me as someone desperate to defend a wasted degree and that is off putting.
But I imagine for some people they aren't ok being told their opinion doesn't matter.
What he said is what drbored said to me and thay are very right in the extent that is true that without being an "initiate" you cannot grasp why many things are done.
But I argue that the situation is more nuanced because:
- there are different degrees of skill and assessment
- there are elements, like the aforementioned "copypasted" reproduction of the minis that can be evaluated with few doubts.
A. You can dislike a piece of art, but when you talk as if you know that the art is rubbish from its foundations, show me your art degree. Show me your illustrations. If nothing else, name a book on art you've read. Oh, you don't have any of that? Then don't pretend like you know what you're talking about when it comes to composition, artistic skill, color theory, value, etc. If it isn't 'grimdark' enough for you, that's fine, but that's just opinion and I can disagree with you all day.
Assume for a moment I am an illustrator. How god should I be to discuss? Decent? Mediocre? I scribble talking at the telephone. I am an illustrator? You talk about degrees and I am fine with that. If I have none and I am a good one I cannot discuss? Can I? Plase set the boundaries.
So what I can and cannot say?
I cannot notice that an illustration is a fething unfocused mess with wrong poses unless I am Leonardo Da Vinci?
You're not an illustrator so you can chill out about 'wrong poses'.
It's called 'composition' and 'anatomy'. And the point is that you can talk all day, but nobody's gotta listen to you if you got nothing to back it up. It's like me telling people about how awesome the engine in a pickup truck is. If I'm not a mechanic or engineer, then I'm just another guy with an opinion.
So, in this realm of opinions, I think that a lot of the artwork that's been coming out of 40k has been gorgeous. The illustrators are doing their best to capture the essence of 'grimdark' and they're being very faithful to the material that Games Workshop has provided them with.
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
It's true! I could be arguing about the validity of Tactical Squads in a UM list.
I started off with something pretty adversarial, it's true. I hope you can see that I've attempted to treat the responses respectfully though.
But Tactical Squads are about as good as John Blanche art!
But yes I see that, but people can still interpret things like that. Text doesnt always conve the right thing.
And from my previous post I'm not directing the "wasted" degree at anyone. It's a generalized statement.
Intent is something that can often be objectively known, as is context. If you don't know the intent, or the context, which can be known, how valid can your judgement be?
Absolutely valid. If you know the intent of the artist was to create sadness in the viewer, and the work does not illicit sadness in you, then the intent of the work has failed, for you. Knowing you're supposed to feel sad because that's what the artist intended does not, and never will, invalidate your reaction of not being sad.
Which once again brings everything back to the "art" of the work being entirely subjective and the only things that can be dealt with objectively are the technical details of its creation. The former being something that anyone can have an equally valuable opinion on, the latter being something better served with expert knowledge or experience.
It's called 'composition' and 'anatomy'. And the point is that you can talk all day, but nobody's gotta listen to you if you got nothing to back it up. It's like me telling people about how awesome the engine in a pickup truck is. If I'm not a mechanic or engineer, then I'm just another guy with an opinion. ·
.
You can see that stuff. Is in front of your eyes. Look at the picture posted above.
But Tactical Squads are about as good as John Blanche art!
But yes I see that, but people can still interpret things like that. Text doesnt always conve the right thing.
And from my previous post I'm not directing the "wasted" degree at anyone. It's a generalized statement.
Respectively in order:
Heh. Now we're talking!
Forums are not always the best forum for communication. That said, the stakes are probably not very high either. This is playful snobbery, please take with a grain of salt.
If you're worried about any offense taken, none was. It's all good.
Intent is something that can often be objectively known, as is context. If you don't know the intent, or the context, which can be known, how valid can your judgement be?
Absolutely valid. If you know the intent of the artist was to create sadness in the viewer, and the work does not illicit sadness in you, then the intent of the work has failed, for you. Knowing you're supposed to feel sad because that's what the artist intended does not, and never will, invalidate your reaction of not being sad.
In that case your opinion is valid. True.
But if the artist is using cultural symbols that you're unfamiliar with to elicit a response, and you have no response because you aren't privvy to knowledge about those symbols, is your opinion still valid?
I miss having the artwork in the codecies. The photos of the models just doesn't have the same flair.
All of it is for marketing anyway, and I don't see a problem with that, because art for advertising is pretty.
With regard to the actual aesthetic of 40k, I think it still pretty much has the same aesthetic is always does. The only striking change for me is the newfound theme that things can actually get better.
But if the artist is using cultural symbols that you're unfamiliar with to elicit a response, and you have no response because you aren't privvy to knowledge about those symbols, is your opinion still valid?
Yes, you need to stop using the word invalid. Nothing in this context invalidates an opinion. In this instance, you're referring to something that could elude a so-called expert as well, as there's no definite reason why an expert on art is going to be familiar with those symbols either. One could also frame this as a failure on behalf of the artist by citing references that elude his audience.
But to try and wrap this up, let me quote you back to yourself
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
I ask you this, who is better qualified to make a judgement call about ones own opinion and reaction than oneself?
But if the artist is using cultural symbols that you're unfamiliar with to elicit a response, and you have no response because you aren't privvy to knowledge about those symbols, is your opinion still valid?
Yes, you need to stop using the word invalid. Nothing in this context invalidates an opinion. In this instance, you're referring to something that could elude a so-called expert as well, as there's no definite reason why an expert on art is going to be familiar with those symbols either. One could also frame this as a failure on behalf of the artist by citing references that elude his audience.
"Yes" why exactly? Neither of those examples work.
If something about the art is eluding an expert, than the expert isn't an expert, by definition. An expert doesn't simply say "I am an expert therefore I am right." And expert would try to learn the meaning and context of the piece before forming a judgement, in this case, figure out what the symbols mean. Ideally, they understand their opinion has gaping holes in it until they do the research.
The second bit "One could frame. . ." is also easily countered. If the art wasn't meant for you, but doesn't speak to you, this is not a failure of the artist. It's also not a failure of you, btw.
Azreal13 wrote: But to try and wrap this up, let me quote you back to yourself
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
I ask you this, who is better qualified to make a judgement call about ones own opinion and reaction than oneself?
Are you saying no one else can rightfully judge your opinion? What if your opinion is that vaccines are, I dunno, depleting the viability of our precious fluids? I quote to you your own sig:
"The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox"
People ragging on artwork, though I dare them to make something better.
People ragging on paint style, though it's a complete matter of opinion.
Then you got people ragging on the models changing, and there's no particular reason other than "I don't like change."
Since I got into the hobby back in 2006 the Plague Marines have been a head shorter than regular marines. It's about TIME they got updated, and gorgeously so.
Yes, things change. Is it bad? Is it good? It all comes down to personal opinion, and if you really hate the direction the company is going, vote with your dollars by not spending them on the hobby that you apparently despise now.
I've said it once and I'll say it again- you don't need to eat dog gak to know it tastes bad.
I think there was a thread much like this one not so long ago...
The consensus beeing that bright and colorful models make for far better eye-catchers and marketing pictures than dirty and gritty models. The aesthetics of GW models was never too realistic or gritty. The models always were more of a comic representation than true realism. The new models have more details - as they damn well should, casting equipment did improve since the 80's. But to call that a new aesthetic is a bit of a strech.
So, to the naysaysers in this thread, wanna see a perfect example truly soulless piece of artwork that we're harping on about?
Turn to page 51 of your DG codex and see the pic for the Plagueburst Crawler, now the main subject of this piece is not really the problem. Lets take a look at the Plague Marines surrounding it. They're all just simply drawings of the miniatures, and as if this wasn't bad enough; one of them has his exact clone standing behind him. Same backpack, same shoulder decoration, almost as if he's a copy of the DV guy because he is!
The artist could've at least used some variety (hey there were seven to choose from buddy!), but no, we've got the twin PMs Tomax and Xamot running around in the 41st millennium.
Conversely, the combined Plaguebearer/Nurgling artwork on the following page is the exact opposite. It has "things" in the background that have no analog in miniature form, such as the giant bell being pulled along by something (there's some fuel for the imagination right there. Wanna make it, grab a Screaming Bell kit and go nuts!), the daemon behind the Nurglings, what is he? Is he a Beast? (side note, the Beast entry looks excellent. If the minis look even a little like that I'll be very happy) A Herald? A GUO? Who knows, but the fact is he only exists in this picture and is brimming with personality and just waiting to be kitbashed onto the tabletop.
And this is what we're getting at. The artwork should inspire you to want to bring these things to life in 3D, not the other way around.
Turn to page 51 of your DG codex and see the pic for the Plagueburst Crawler, now the main subject of this piece is not really the problem. Lets take a look at the Plague Marines surrounding it. They're all just simply drawings of the miniatures, and as if this wasn't bad enough; one of them has his exact clone standing behind him. Same backpack, same shoulder decoration, almost as if he's a copy of the DV guy because he is!
The artist could've at
Maybe the artists just don't have the amount of time they used to, maybe the artist wanted to show the starter minis in art, to make them feel cooler, like the Sister of Battle from the blanche artwork. No one ever complains when a mini design is inspired by art, but the reverse is heresy. Hell, that mini might have been created from the design in the artwork.
]
in this thread.
