Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Sorry, but no. .

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).

So... yay?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 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.

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

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:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 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.

 Octopoid wrote:


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.

Ruin wrote:

 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.

 Octopoid wrote:
Art is inherently subjective.

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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Art is inherently subjective.

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?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Art is inherently subjective.

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?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Art is inherently subjective.

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?

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.

The rules are what made me quit AoS/8th edition 40k, but the aesthetic also had a lot to do with it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Art is inherently subjective.

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.

Their models are definitely getting more stylized, maybe even OVER-stylized (im looking at YOU, deathguard lmao)

But comparisons to MOBAS and starcraft? No. The aesthetic in itself, as well as the quality, is still pretty much the same.

I for one, love it. 40k has never really been subtle and has always relished in the over the top.

My only problem is the new models are advertised as really clean and not gritty at all, but that can easily be fixed with a good paint job.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Art is inherently subjective.

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.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


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?

tbh, the first thing I thought when I saw the new 8th ed trailers was 'saturday morning kids cartoon from the 80's'

and I grew up through that, so.... yeah.

I prefer my grimdark grim and dark. I'd can the Orks, for a start, if it was up to me...


Of course, just my opinion, art is subjective, etc etc...

 ajaxcrackmaster wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


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 ...

 Insectum7 wrote:


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.

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

 Melissia wrote:

 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 think I found your problem with him.

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.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 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.