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.

Wow.. just goes to show how subjective stuff is! I absolutely love that piece of art, aside from all the technical stuff.

Can I ask if you disliked it before you realised it was based on Al Pacino?

To be honest i wasn't aware of it before it was in the white dwarf that explained the 'inspiration'.

Perkustin wrote:As you can see from my selections i am by no means a hater of the old art but i have to admit that the 'scarface dark angels' is one of the worst pictures from the past. It is completely artless, not only does he have to plagerise an iconic image but the proportions and perspective are atrocious and inconsistant with the hyper-real airbrush work. It is an example of how in the early days of 40k, blanche aside, the artists had no real idea of the setting and were just doing it (as tony montana would say) 'Forr de Maohnee'.

I think you're wrong there.

What the artists were doing, was the style of the period.

Art evolves and styles change.

What they were doing was a lot closer to fantasy art, and I think more focused on the individual than on the greater picture.

That said, the perspectives were definitely off on a lit of things.

And one other big thing, is that while the old art made the universe seem gritty and dark, the newer art makes it feel GRITTY and dark in a completely different way. The old stuff had a note of light-heartedness to it and was brighter and almost cleaner. And the color was a lot more saturated. The new stuff really evokes the harshness of the universe and makes it all seem rather serious.

Not say one is better than the other, just interesting to see how its changed.

Just to be be clear i do indeed like the style of the old art and the minaitures i just dislike that piece.

Here's a GYRINX to move things on.

Perkustin wrote:Here's a GYRINX to move things on.

It's a kitty!

NO! Tis a mighty Gyrinx!

alexwars1 wrote:ROCKIT LAWN CHAIR.

with added melta!

reds8n wrote:

Another picture that makes me want to play an army. Just awesome.

Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

The imperial army/Marines picture is awesome! Plus i dig the 2000ad style rhino charge pic.

whatwhat wrote:

ph34r wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ph34r wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:How does it feel to be wrong all the time?

Art is subjective. However, if you honestly think that old 40k art is better in any way other than comedy value, your art opinion does not hold much weight.

If it is subjective, which i agree entirely that it is, then no one person's opinion holds more weight than any other.

Though how much worth you attribute to a piece of art can be entirely subjective, you can say things like "I think this 5 year old's sketch is technically superior to this professional artwork" and be just wrong. There is some room for objectivity in art.

No. If someone thinks a 5 year old's sketch is better than a piece of professional artwork they are not wrong, as it is judged from their own perspective. The fact that you find their opinions awkward doesn't mean they are wrong.

Did I say "better"? No, I didn't. I said technically superior. As in, using advanced techniques, accurately portraying the subject, scale, shadows, etc. Please read more carefully next time!

You did however imply it by saying old art is worse for all but 'comedy value'. It's in your own multiquote.... You only took up the 'technically superior' argument AFTER being challenged.... Note: it is absolutely fine if that is not what you initially meant....

Perkustin wrote:You did however imply it by saying old art is worse for all but 'comedy value'. It's in your own multiquote.... You only took up the 'technically superior' argument AFTER being challenged.... Note: it is absolutely fine if that is not what you initially meant....

It's not what I meant. Some old pieces are pretty thematic. If you read my other posts this would be obvious. Most old art, however, is straight up hilariously bad. Really, just read through one of your old books. Don't cherry pick. Imagine how you would feel if a piece of art of that quality was in a modern warhammer book.

Sure perhaps I did misread that, but then it's a completely different point to what you were making before and doesn't really do much to defend your earlier statement.

I Like both, but what the old stuff lacks in granduer it gains in depth , the old pics told stories of nearly every kind of creature, Now the illustrations , as i wouldnt call it art , is technically immpresive to be sure , but its job now is not to create anything new just make the models look good and add abit of depth to the miniature range. The old stuff is not just illustrations for cash , its born out out pure love, its ART in the sense that its creating something absolutely pure and creative. Its job was to not just be DRAMATIC! like nearly every single bloody boring piece i see these days , it was themeatic, it created a universe , and its arguably one of the reason 40k is still around today, john blanche more than anyone created 40k with his Thousands of little drawings that went on to become actual charters or chapters or stories , then miniatures and more miniatures. Now when i see the hyper real pictures i think wow i wish i could draw like that, but not really , i prefer substance over style , and even though people like the kopinsky guys work is Amazing , its still a league behind , what blanche was doing, and maybe thats becuase he was artistic director and had more creaive freedom , but still , i think if i had to choose it would be the tiny cartoons preferably grimdark for the most part , with a few huge dramatice Paintings. and even though lots of the old art was not technically as acurate at anatomy or whatever , it was good enough for me .

I dont think white dwarf should replace their art with the ones shown here, but going back to the odd black and white\comical style from the odd page here or there couldnt hurt. Im sure they would use high quality artists to do it too.

Simon Bizley is well known to add that hardcore\awesome sci-fi with a mix of funny.

Black and white can look cool:

I think the consistancy and technical quality of the art has improved as GW has matured and become a more professional entity.

Thing is, thought, the old art was about stuff being made up right there and then. It wasn't yet decided that marines had only a thousand chapters of a thousand men each, they were just the guys in power armour, and artists drew things about that as the ideas took them. 40K developed, and they gave it greater consistancy and that was needed, you can't just keep making up new ideas and throwing them in there, at some point you have make the whole thing make some level of sense, you have to make good on the ideas you've already got. Otherwise you get Rifts.

But goddamn I remember studying every detail of those old pictures, prizing out every clue for what the 40K universe was really like. It's quite something to see an incredibly detailed world be invented right in front of your eyes. Sad really, but you can't ever go home again.

Some of that old stuff is fantastic. Some of it is awful. But I still love quite a bit of the RT and RoC era material.

There is a depth of character and atmosphere in the original w years of 40k art that many new pieces lack. They make up for that to some extent with superior composition and a consistent vision.

So it is a tradeoff. That said, the current crop of artists are phenomenally gifted, and new art is by far my favorite thing about new Codicies and Army Books.

As for Blanche...suck it. His Epic 40K and Sisters covers alone are worth every less detailed doodle. And some of those doodles are awesome. I was pretty stunned by his sketchbook this year at GD Baltimore. If being able to appreciate the frenetic detail and character of his art means I have no taste, then so be it. I have a feeling, based on anecdotal evidence, that actual artists are frequently impressed by what he does. If the cheap seats can't or won't see it, too bad for them.

whatwhat wrote:Sure perhaps I did misread that, but then it's a completely different point to what you were making before and doesn't really do much to defend your earlier statement.

My saying that they were *only* good for comedy value was a misrepresentation of my posts. That is why my next post reflects differently. Is that a problem?

Old 40k art had some character. Some of it was funny. Some of it was cool. Almost all of it was poorly composed, and a large amount of it was just overall awful.

If the character they were portraying had down syndrome then yeah, they had a lot of character.

Funny, I've always loved the way the old Marines were depicted. I love all the individualism they had. I was just looking at John Blanche stuff today I'm inspired to start a Marine army where there is a theme, but no 2 are painted the same. I'm really glad I found this post.

I like where the art started as well as where it's been developed to today. I'm an old school comic book fan (That's Kev O'Neil art OoieGoie, one of my faves along with The Biz!) and kinda getting old so I remember and appreciate that style. I'm lucky enough to come from an area that was a Comics Mecca at the time, The Words and Pictures Museum was 10 minutes away and I used to be a volunteer there So I got to meet a lot of people and just be surrounded by the art, it was great. I'm sure that's why I like the old style so much.

Ah I love that picture. It's worth pointing out as well to the younger viewers on here that some of these scans have lost a lot of their original resolution.

Here are a few more:








This one, from GW's own site, many will recognise as the cover to the Deathwing expansion for the original Space Hulk game. The two above are both Christopher Fangorn (he was also well known for doing the 'Redwall' fantasy series book covers). Deathwing also featured, IMO, the best short story ever written for 40k! It was republished in the 40k anthology of the same name several times, I'm not sure if it's available now?





Finally, Thrudd was always one of my favorite parts of WD when I was a kid. Not sure if it's possible to read this properly, you may need to zoom.

I cam in during 40K 2nd Edition so my art nostalgia is for that, especially anything painted by Mark Gibbons (still my favorite ever GW-associated artist).

The older stuff certainly had more character it, but the newer art is better quality. I like some of the quirkiness, and some of the technical detailing, but I feel that 2nd Edition was when they hit just about the right balance. (there's an image of a Blood Angel in the old Codex Imperialis that just scremed GW/40K tome)

Found it!


And later in the same book there was an Eldar Warlock with the 'MG" signature that all the best 40K art had


And while we're on the subject of art, I just want to say I've never understood the attraction of John Blanche's style. Sure, the subjects he depicts are inspiring and diverse and the very inspiration for many gw sculptors and artists, but the style is just a bunch of messy scribbles. I'd much rather have tighter and more focused art, as can be seen by my two examples above.

John Blance is an acquired taste I think. I used to hate his illustrations in my earlier years. But then something happened, I think I hit my head really hard or just realized what a great artist he is. I think it's the latter, since it was a couple of years ago and I realized that most JB-stuff were way more telling than the "show space marine doing something"-generic-art that was out there at the same time. John Blanche's artwork stood up to so much more analyzing than much other "technically good" 40K/Warhammer art during the late 90s.

My favorites; Spoilertagged for being big.

Whoever posted those pics of horus and the emperor has a good point. The older one, the characters are posed to give a sense of confrontation and danger, in the newer one they're just fronting the picture, posed so you can see all their bling. Also, you guys notice that the backgrounds of the bigger pictures are all super-busy? There's very little empty space. Sometimes I think they over-do it a little.

Now, a selection of work from one of my favorite artists, Les Edwards. There is a ton more of his stuff at his website, see here http://www.lesedwards.com/index.php
I used to have a book with his art in, GW released one with a selection of everything, not just the GW art (as well as another artist, I forget his name) but I left it in the store I used to work in but the dullard manager they had there later lost it :(

I love the style of this guy, you can tell it's late 80's from the use of oils, but it doesn't detract anything from the style.

Enjoy


Cover from an old WD.


As above, you can see how the conception of a marine has changed since this painting.


He did a selection of the Dark Future artwork.


This one was the actual cover from the game.


This one will be close to many hearts, the cover from the Realms of Chaos book.


The 'Heroquest' box game, another favorite of many people.


A cover from WD, I'm not sure if it was used on anything else?


And finally a cover from the expansion pack.

I won't get into the believable representation vs. emotive expression argument... the art world has been inconclusively battling that one out for at least 2000 years.

I will say though that one thing I like about the older art that seems to have been lost (for at least 40K) is the way the old art wasn't afraid to poke fun at the "heroes" of the game. When you see Space Marines busting mohawked punks and Eldar as skinny glam rocker fans with stupid hair, that warms something deep in my crusty heart. These days, it seems that GW is so focused on making the enemies of Chaos so Mary Sue that they can't ever be less than the ultimate godlike saviors of the galaxy. Which is an odd way to portray factions that would readily commit genocide if it was convenient for them.