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.

 Verviedi wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Find anything in this image that GW does not sell.

So? Oh no, they're making pictures of things that actually have models... how horrible? I really like the first and last picture of those three. Think they look great. The first one of the "art" ones you linked just looks like a mess to me. It's like someone's first attempts at making something grimdark. Find anything in that image that GW DOES sell. Find anything that makes any sense at all.

I would like to minimize things that GW sells being in art. Art is an opportunity to expand the universe, not focus on the parts that have already been shown by the models. If you absolutely must, include Skitarii fighting Orks, but take artistic license with the art, instead of drawing the models fighting the models.
The new art is too technical for me. It, in many cases, looks like The Phantom Menace. I like my twisted nonsensical abominations, drawn with what looks like a pencil, full of gothic weirdness, skulls, and tentacles. I see Xenomorph Servo Skull, I am inspired to make Xenomorph servo skull. Or perhaps Spacesuit Chimera Man.

I would like to maximise things GW sells being in art. I love seeing my models brought to life in art. Sure, I'd love to see them more interlaced with the opponent they're fighting than the display-gunlines that often pop up now, but it's not a huge deal to me.

You mean DeadPool and Cable are uninteresting and the whole 90s comic book style? Hell yes I will compare him to Liefeld.

The introduction of the Primaris Marines markes the end of the dark age and the beginning of the renessaince.
Thus we may see more advanced models and units in the near future.

Ok, lets put another example:

Here you can see how literally nothing is copypasted from a miniature. You can see all the Sisters Repentia, totally gruesome in their mutillation, that ignore the miniatures for them. Even that sister of battle in the righ with the bolter and the hood with a scrool on it. Those little details, artistic freedom that now in most art you don't encounter:


Other example of a NEW piece of art that follows the same. You can see how even the artist had freedom to make his own versions of different demons.:


Now, an example of a new piece of "marketing" (Not art). And let me say first that I actually really like it, but it is what it is. Literally everything in this image is a model. The problem with that is that, models have limitations of the sculpting and producing method, but art shouldn't be restricted by the same. Art should be evocative, push you to new corners of the universe you are looking at:


But to show that this isn't just a problem of the present, Here we have a piece of "old" art that has the same problem, just a marketing tool. Literally every miniature in this box-set is show in this drawing:



And to put more examples of this problem, one related with AoS.

This is marketing (Cool looking marketing, I really like it, but pure marketing). Literally you can buy everything in that image:


This is art. Evocative, it inmerses you in the lore and fluff of the faction, in their society, and maybe other people have forgott that, but in the past Army Books weren't that much "Compendiums of rules to play this army" as "Compendiums of background and lore". This is the kind of art that makes me say "Ok, I need to do a board with this theme. Or said "Wow, I really want a book in this setting"


World of Warcraft has this same problem. You have two kinds of art: The one that is a literall copy of the videogame models, that normally looks VERY bad because you can see how the proportions and limitations of the armours ingame look totally unrealistic and not in a good way, and then you see the art that has freedom to do the changes they need to do to make GOOD art.

Two examples:
"Art" that is a literall copy of ingame models


Art that has freedom to depart from the literall representation of ingame models

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.

Oh no, I like all of the art that I linked too. But just like I can recognise that even if I like McDnald burguers they aren't better than a good hamburguer in a good restaurant, I can see how some art that I like is limited by the marketing departmend, and I can balance that art agaisn't other pieces with more freedom that try to broke the boundaries of the actual product they are "representing".

But you are right, I are no one to say what is Art and what Isn't. Everything I linked is art. I was just making a point for "marketing art" vs "free art".
And obviously is subjetive. Is my opinion, but to say that art has no objetive truths is just post-modernism. There exist schools and techniques of art for a reason.
And I have made my arguments, you can counter argument them, but please, saying they are just "Non-sense" without giving reasons don't contribute anything to this thread.

 Purifier wrote:
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.

You are right, I was wrong in saying that some of that isn't art.

 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.

let's put in this terms, then, extremely practical.
Which one of the art pieces that Galas posted is more likely to INSPIRE sculptors (official or not) and people in the hobby?
I'd say the first piece. That one is more than "models you bought do this". Is a window inside the universe.
Regardless personal tastes, that piece has a FUNCTION (see above the post of Geifer).

"Window inside the universe", thanks Kaiyanwang. Thats literally what the art of the Kharadron Overlords port is. A window to their society. The other don't show you anything more than a cool (Ok, really cool looking) battle between models vs models.

I have no idea what you're trying to convince me of anymore. My problem was with the fact that you refused to call it art, because it was pictures of models that exist. You then admitted that wait maybe it is still art. And then you ask me what about the fact that this specific one can inspire and I'm like I dunno, you figure it out? I was only saying that it was non-sense that you were labelling stuff as not-art for really weird reasons.

 Galas wrote:
"Window inside the universe", thanks Kaiyanwang. Thats literally what the art of the Kharadron Overlords port is. A window to their society. The other don't show you anything more than a cool (Ok, really cool looking) battle between models vs models.

Is true that the Steamdwarfs one is not bad - at least has composition and dynamic and yes, -it works like a window.
Still, I think that the first one is even better, the technique is superior and it expands the design and concepts - another other function other than the "window".

I say that all of them set the tone of the setting - another important feature but in this case, again, the first one is a clear winner albeit the last one is pretty good.
Also note: the second and third set the tone of the universe, but more than anything else of the GAME. The first one gave us a better look of what the culture of the imperium is.

I agree, I totally love the first image I have posted, as creepy as it is. Is the one I always use to say "Yes, in this universe, THIS are the good guys" to a new person to 40k

There is a distinct problem, and that is that the Imperium is becoming less Grimdark, because of the return of a sensible Primarch, not Russ. I want Russ. Now.

Russ: Grimbark.

On topic of inspiration, you can draw a clear line between some artworks and others. Art that allows the artist freedom allows them to draw something you can't go out and buy, which may be a problem for you or GW. The other side of the coin is that such art has the potential to inspire you to convert a model to look "like that cool artwork from the last codex". All your Sisters wear helmets or feature a bob? Yeah, but not Sister Bertha. She's got that cowl and halo because she's really devout! Or some such. Seeing the same Techpriest Dominus in the same pose among the same minions in half a dozen pictures inspires no one, because you can (and if you have the codex probably did) go out and buy and assemble it. And that's that.

I'm not a fan of the latter, for reasons already mentioned in the discussion. Such art adds nothing. It may look individually cool, and I'm not saying it can't have intrinsic value, but it goes against my expectation of seeing art expand the setting as much as new models and new background text do. The cheap thing about it is that it already exists in miniature form, fulfilling the same function.

 Galas wrote:


Now, an example of a new piece of "marketing" (Not art). And let me say first that I actually really like it, but it is what it is. Literally everything in this image is a model. The problem with that is that, models have limitations of the sculpting and producing method, but art shouldn't be restricted by the same. Art should be evocative, push you to new corners of the universe you are looking at:

Spoiler:

]

It is box art, it is supposed to show the miniatures inside, otherwise it'd bring up false expectations. Sometimes art needs to be marketing (technically, art for 40k is always marketing of some kind). However, I would have liked to see them unleashing their imagination a bit once they depicted the models in the box. A bit more like the Island of Blood box art. That one showcases the units that are in the box, while having some fancy Skaven contraptions in the edges and background.

 Galas wrote:
But to show that this isn't just a problem of the present, Here we have a piece of "old" art that has the same problem, just a marketing tool. Literally every miniature in this box-set is show in this drawing:

Spoiler:

This one yes. You did not look at it well enough. The artwork contains plenty of cool Skaven things that did not come in the box (or did I miss the giant flying rats bearing plague censer bombs?).

 Galas wrote:
This is marketing (Cool looking marketing, I really like it, but pure marketing). Literally you can buy everything in that image:

Spoiler:

Apart from the giant ship and the giant bird thing in the background...
This is a really great, imaginative piece of art. Whether a piece of art faithfully reproduces the models is not the sole qualifier for whether art is good or bad or imaginative. The art is more than just the characters depicted, it is also about the composition, situation and atmosphere in which they are depicted. In this case, the composition and atmosphere of the picture are evocative enough to make up for the lack of imagination in the characters themselves.

Apart from this, I again agree with most of what you say.

In the last image I think that giant bird thing is a Lord of Change, and the Giant Ship, you can buy it. But yes, in the Island of Blood image you are right, theres some artistic freedom besides showing the models in the box.

Tycho wrote:

There is no such thing as "quick-fire" "computer-generated" art. The fact that some even call it "computer generated" in this day and age is surprising. They aren't firing up Poser, hitting the "make cool marine" button and calling it a day. A lot of the art they generate is actual 2D paintings done in Photoshop and Painter (this has been the case since around 3.5 - I'm willing to bet there are some pieces you like that you don't even know were done on a computer). They are for sure also using 3D modeling and animation software (the 4th ed CSM codex cover was done in Max for example), but that doesn't tend to save any time. Since changes can often be made a little faster, art direction often becomes more involved and you end up taking the exact same amount of time as if it was a "traditional" piece. I totally get not liking the new art direction (especially if you grew up on Blanche and actually liked it), but that's down to the art direction. It has nothing to do with the method of creation. IMO that tends to be an elitist "art snob" point of view that probably needs to die.

I'm an elitist art snob and I still agree with you! You can create great art in any medium, just like you can create dull art in any medium.

Also, having worked as a professional illustrator, I'd like to add that art direction has a huge impact. So while I may find the art that just copies the models boring, I would not jump to blame the artists; they were probably told to do it just like that.

 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.

Yeah that Overlord ship is the biggest one on the table. There are some you cannot buy but those are quite literally near city ship size.

Also that one with the Repentia is.. odd to me because one can barely tell the difference between the repentia and Arco-flaggalents. Why does one have her tongue replaced with a parchment scroll!? They aren't allowed to self-mutilate themselves.

All the art is fine to me, though I dislike Blanche's odd orange backgrounds and off colors.

This definition of art, in which depicting the actual models is not art, is ridiculous.

Here is the actual definition of art.

"Anything created in any medium with the intent to evoke an emotional response."

A kids finger painting to his parents is art. It has bad technique (probably) and probably doesn't convey what they intended (so it's bad art) but it's still art.

Resident Evil games (particularly the horror ones) are art.

Pictures made to get people to go "That looks bad ass! I want that guy right there as a toy I can play with!" is art. That excitement for the product is the emotional response they intend and the point of putting the actual models in the piece is to the credit of the intent of the artists and those who commission them to make the art.

Saying it's not art simply because the artist didn't go off book to add in odd little details for things that players cannot get is nuts. Art is always art. And a artist who follows the criteria of their commission is an artist who gets paid.

 Lance845 wrote:
This definition of art, in which depicting the actual models is not art, is ridiculous.

Here is the actual definition of art.

"Anything created in any medium with the intent to evoke an emotion response."

A kids finger painting to his parents is art. It has bad technique (probably) and probably doesn't convey what they intended (so it's bad art) but it's still art.

Resident Evil games (particularly the horror ones) are art.

Pictures made to get people to go "That looks bad ass! I want that guy right there as a toy I can play with!" is art. That excitement for the product is the emotional response they intend and the point of putting the actual models in the piece is to the credit of the intent of the artists and those who commission them to make the art.

Saying it's not art simply because the artist didn't go off book to add in odd little details for things that players cannot get is nuts. Art is always art. And a artist who follows the criteria of their commission is an artist who gets paid.

Semantics. The point people are making is that you can feel the lack of skill, creativity and the intention of representing the product without crossing boundaries, hence, by your same definition, the emotional response from the viewer is diminished.
Maybe it remains "art", technically speaking - but is bad one.

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.

 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.

That would make it good art.

By your metric, that would make it good advertising.

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.

The point people are making is that you can feel the lack of skill ...

I get what you're saying about crossing boundaries and all that, but define "lack of skill". Because while there are a few pieces done in the last few years that look hurried to me, I have yet to see anything from GW that truly represents a "lack of skill" ...

Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you here, but if not, you're coming very close to being like the other two posters who accused GW of ripping off IPs that came out 20 years AFTER 40K ...

Tycho wrote:

The point people are making is that you can feel the lack of skill ...

I get what you're saying about crossing boundaries and all that, but define "lack of skill". Because while there are a few pieces done in the last few years that look hurried to me, I have yet to see anything from GW that truly represents a "lack of skill" ...

Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you here, but if not, you're coming very close to being like the other two posters who accused GW of ripping off IPs that came out 20 years AFTER 40K ...

I am not going to explain why Adrian Smith, Wayne England or Kopinski karl operate on another level compared to the new art.
This is what I meant and I refute to discuss it, frankly.

 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.

That would make it good art.

By your metric, that would make it good advertising.

Advertising is 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.

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 am not going to explain why Adrian Smith, Wayne England or Kopinski karl operate on another level compared to the new art.

Ah - so comparitively less skilled was your point. I can actually see where you're coming form on that (to a point).

This is what I meant and I refute to discuss it, frankly.

Good thing you're on a discussion forum ...

Tycho wrote:


Good thing you're on a discussion forum ...

Not everything is worthy of discussion. Discuss wether Karl Kopinski is better than the new deviantart-tier art is discussing wether the water is wet, and I am not going to do that. Have a nice day.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Tycho wrote:


Good thing you're on a discussion forum ...

Not everything is worthy of discussion. Discuss wether Karl Kopinski is better than the new deviantart-tier art is discussing wether the water is wet, and I am not going to do that. Have a nice day.

GOD has spoken. Let the meager plebians debate among themselves the lesser, unworthy merits of lesser, unworthy artists, but GOD's opinion remains unassailable FACT.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Tycho wrote:


Good thing you're on a discussion forum ...

Not everything is worthy of discussion. Discuss wether Karl Kopinski is better than the new deviantart-tier art is discussing wether the water is wet, and I am not going to do that. Have a nice day.

GOD has spoken. Let the meager plebians debate among themselves the lesser, unworthy merits of lesser, unworthy artists, but GOD's opinion remains unassailable FACT.

Sorry, but no. Galas pointed out intelligently the merit of an AoS piece because of its execution, dinamics, and composition. THAT can be discussed.
Wheter such pieces is better executed technically cannot be discussed. There are people better or worse at a specific task. I do not play guitar like Brian May.