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.

People fail to see the point COMPLETELY!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree 100%!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

glad I could help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those people are called "morons with no taste."

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

:-P

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

Some of Ian Miller's GW stuff here.

Mark Gibbons does do concept work.

And it's very good.

BYE

Ｉ’ｖｅ　ａｌｗａｙｓ　ｈａｔｅｄ　Ｊｏｈｎ　Ｂｌａｎｃｈｅ’ｓ　ｓｔｕｆｆ．

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

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

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

(oh, yeah, right

I forgot)

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

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

:S

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

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

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

two_heads_talking wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Eric

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers
jah

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

John Blanche is a good artist.

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

I think the discontinuity is what sets people off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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