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.

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

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

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

Maybe Blanche represents GW more than we actually realise.

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

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

BYE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am really really enjoying this thread by the way.

I'm liking it too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all of them are technical masterpieces.

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

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



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

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

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

Amen Brother.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers
jah

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

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

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

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

BYE

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

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

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

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

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

PS. everyone.

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

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

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

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

Or, to put it another way:

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

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

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

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

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

cheers
jah

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

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

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

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

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

Phyrxis:

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

I see what you did there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greets
Schepp himself

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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