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.

More on: http://wellofeternitypl.blogspot.com/2016/07/age-of-sigmar-artworks-x-sylvaneth.html

Wow, really nice stuff.

At first glance it's "WOW great job" but just like any other artwork when it's scrutinized, it's really is just nice or good. After all computer generated. I almost call it fake art or performance enhancing art. To me art is always done with the hand. No enhancements at all.

Perfect example why this is not a good piece of art work is look at the face. Look how bland and characterless it is. It shows no emotion and can barely draw in the mouth eyes and nose. Not very well done at all. I don't see a goddess here just a person with tree wings. Ah the wings. They don't come alive as they should. Unless the idea was to be a bit withered and ready for Autumn the feeling, I believe you are suppose to get, I don't feel it. Maybe I am old school. Maybe being old school is a good thing. You appreciate more of the little stuff. Look at the feet, again, not much detail that this drawing or I should have said Painting should have been. Now if this was drawn by hand by someone who knew how to draw and or paint, then it would have been awesome. But in my opinion this is nothing great. Just good fan art. I guess it's "You get what you pay for" since GW doesn't want to pay real artists and going the cheap route by outsourcing from people who use computers.

That said, I am curious. People get in an uproar for "Best Painted" and then someone finds out the person didn't do it. This is how I see this. It's not real. It's like drugs being used in sports. Someone lacks the ability to do an actual drawing and uses performance enhancing tools to get the job done.

That said, AoS art style is not that great and could have been so much better.

Then again this is art. Art is subjective to the individual. Is this better than Picasso? I would say yes. Now I just pissed a bunch of people off didn't I?

Like Davor says, "Art is subjective to the individual."
I like it.

For me these are way better than older stuff from AoS (first battletomes).

 wellofeternity wrote:
For me these are way better than older stuff from AoS (first battletomes).

They really improve with the art.

 Nova_Impero wrote:

 wellofeternity wrote:
For me these are way better than older stuff from AoS (first battletomes).

They really improve with the art.

Not every one. This one is a mistake (as for me):

I like this one of old school Alarielle:



And this one of Greywater Fastness:

 wellofeternity wrote:

 Nova_Impero wrote:

 wellofeternity wrote:
For me these are way better than older stuff from AoS (first battletomes).

They really improve with the art.

Not every one. This one is a mistake (as for me):

I think that's alright. There's certainly been worse art from GW.

I like that one of old school Alarielle. She's having one hell of a bad hair day.

awwww.....yeah, that Drycha-nought pic is just not doing it for me. Like one of the cover not final-but-actually-final Primarch books.

Davor wrote:
After all computer generated. I almost call it fake art or performance enhancing art. To me art is always done with the hand. No enhancements at all.

You made some specific points about the picture itself which are worth discussing, but I really disagree with this.

Art justifies its own existence by existing, its value is intrinsic. Whether it's painted digitally or by hand isn't really relevant, whether it's good or bad isn't even relevant; art that utterly fails in every metric it can be judged by is still art, it's no less real, it's just bad.

And the implication that someone painting digitally is somehow not an artist or cruise-controlling through important steps in the process just because they don't have to adhere to the same rules as a painter does misses the point of it being a different medium entirely. A sculptor doesn't need to worry about frame composition, a painter doesn't need to paint the other side of the subject. I wouldn't expect the artist who did that first pic to be able to spraypaint its exact likeness on the hood of a (electric?) car, but neither would I expect an accomplished artist who could to be able to do the same on a wacom tablet in front of a workstation.

All that jazz aside, I disagree with your assessment of the figure, the wings I have my own problems with because of the saturation the leaves look like they're bleeding together on the right side, but it gets better closer to the body. The face is not emotionless, it's tilted upwards and projecting a look of scorn or judgement at a figure above and to the right of the perspective (which is probably the exact phrasing GW used when they commissioned it). The detail on the body is drowned out by the saturation and soft shadows which is conveying multiple glowy light sources, but it looks fine to me presuming the image as-is isn't supposed to be blown up any bigger than, say, the size of a battletome.

She reminds me a lot of the sphinx gate from Neverending Story. And those dudes crawling around under the beetle look so cool I think I'll try converting my dryads. Would seriously consider buying a print.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the Drycha pic, that's clearly a smaller part of a larger image that I'd honestly like to see before passing judgement. Her face looks like a Halloween mask.

I'm probably giving it the benefit of the doubt because she's crushing a lizardman.

 wellofeternity wrote:

 Nova_Impero wrote:

 wellofeternity wrote:
For me these are way better than older stuff from AoS (first battletomes).

They really improve with the art.

Not every one. This one is a mistake (as for me):

this, this is awful, the drycha-nought....the only model in that line I think sux hard. the rest are really neat.

I love the Drycha model and artwork. IMHO the Drycha model is the best thing the GW sculptors have put out in years.

I love the honey-comb dreadnought too. The Sylvaneth have always had a slightly techy aspect on the big units and this one is very cleverly done with the symmetrical hexagons (which look quite futuristic) being a naturally occurring phenomenon in bee-hives. It has great flavourful rules too!

Honey flavoured.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Art justifies its own existence by existing, its value is intrinsic. Whether it's painted digitally or by hand isn't really relevant, whether it's good or bad isn't even relevant; art that utterly fails in every metric it can be judged by is still art, it's no less real, it's just bad.

You are correct, I should be viewing computer generated art as a different form of medium like some use paints, others, pencils, some crayons and others inks. I guess I will take back my statement about performance enhancing. Good point you have made.

Davor wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Art justifies its own existence by existing, its value is intrinsic. Whether it's painted digitally or by hand isn't really relevant, whether it's good or bad isn't even relevant; art that utterly fails in every metric it can be judged by is still art, it's no less real, it's just bad.

You are correct, I should be viewing computer generated art as a different form of medium like some use paints, others, pencils, some crayons and others inks. I guess I will take back my statement about performance enhancing. Good point you have made.

... did we just see a reasonable exchange on the internet?

Longstrider wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Art justifies its own existence by existing, its value is intrinsic. Whether it's painted digitally or by hand isn't really relevant, whether it's good or bad isn't even relevant; art that utterly fails in every metric it can be judged by is still art, it's no less real, it's just bad.

You are correct, I should be viewing computer generated art as a different form of medium like some use paints, others, pencils, some crayons and others inks. I guess I will take back my statement about performance enhancing. Good point you have made.

... did we just see a reasonable exchange on the internet?

I think so! Impossible is nothing

 wellofeternity wrote:

 Nova_Impero wrote:

 wellofeternity wrote:
For me these are way better than older stuff from AoS (first battletomes).

They really improve with the art.

Not every one. This one is a mistake (as for me):

Is that a Saurus riding a flying dinosaur/bird? Possible hint towards a new Seraphon unit?

Don't they already have a flying unit? Ripperdactyls or something like that?

Yeah that's a Skink on Ripperdactyl.

Personally I love the HiveDreadnought and the composition on this art is great. I wish I could say the same about the colors... It looks unfinished.

pm713 wrote:
Don't they already have a flying unit? Ripperdactyls or something like that?

Yes, but skinks ride those. As far as I know, there are no flying units with Saurus riders.

That's not a Saurus. Also it's bearing exactly the weapon and shield skinks have in the kit.

 Haechi wrote:
That's not a Saurus. Also it's bearing exactly the weapon and shield skinks have in the kit.

Sorry, hadn't seen your first post and hadn't closely inspected the Ripperdactyl models ever. You're right! Nevermind, false alarm from me. Sorry y'all..