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.
E.g. Apply the ointment liberally to the affected areas.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I used to love the way you'd be able to tell what medium had been used in each image. I still look at my old 2nd ed Codex Chaos and love the black and white drawings by Mark Gibbons and the like. Or the sketches from the 2nd ed Codex Eldar of the inside of craftworlds and spaceships.
Now that everything is done with computer software it really does nothing for me. They might as well just take oodles and oodles of photos of the minis
There's a certain amount of ignorance here when it comes to the method by which a lot the art was created. Like I said before, they actually started using digital art towards the middle/late end of 3.5 and really kicked it off in 4th. I can pretty much garauntee there are several pieces that you really love because you think they evoke the feel of a certain medium, but were actually done digitally. A lot of the more "sterile" marketing type images we see now, while done digitally, could be done with the exact same look in a traditional medium. The tool has nothing to do with the look. It's all about the art direction. As far as that goes, while I still like a lot of the new stuff, I can absolutely agree that the art direction has been pushed in a more sterile, marketing direction than ever before.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Theres an argument to be made that even today aesthetics and books have some really nice images, evocatives ones, and less derivative from the miniatures. The same can be said about old books, theres pretty examples of old and crappy art that for example Elbows has posted.
Spoiler:
But even recognising this, I think that past GW books had some artist that were such at a higher level that the ones they are hiring and using in general now.
Can any artist GW has used in the last 6-7 years really compared with this man?
https://www.artstation.com/adrian-smith And like him, many others great names. And yes ERJAK, I know you tried very hard to diminish this artists like they are nothing, but sorry. His talent is right there.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
But even recognising this, I think that past GW books had some artist that were such at a higher level that the ones they are hiring and using in general now.
Can any artist GW has used in the last 6-7 years really compared with this man?
https://www.artstation.com/adrian-smith And like him, many others great names. And yes ERJAK, I know you tried very hard to diminish this artists like they are nothing, but sorry. His talent is right there.
B-b-but his work! So much of it is done with those filthy computers! He CAN'T be good!
Seriously though ... it's tough to argue against him being one of the top talents to ever work on the GW line.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Galas wrote: Theres an argument to be made that even today aesthetics and books have some really nice images, evocatives ones, and less derivative from the miniatures. The same can be said about old books, theres pretty examples of old and crappy art that for example Elbows has posted.
Spoiler:
I like this one. It gives scope and shows the characters in a different scene compared to the usual fight. Also it gives depth to the Lords of Change. They are big scary angry bird evil daemons, but they are too smart, knowledgeable and from a point of view wise. Ask them stuff or just bargaining is dangerous, but not nonsensical.
It gives too to the whole scene sort of a RPG vibe.
But even recognising this, I think that past GW books had some artist that were such at a higher level that the ones they are hiring and using in general now.
Can any artist GW has used in the last 6-7 years really compared with this man?
https://www.artstation.com/adrian-smith And like him, many others great names. And yes ERJAK, I know you tried very hard to diminish this artists like they are nothing, but sorry. His talent is right there.
B-b-but his work! So much of it is done with those filthy computers! He CAN'T be good!
Seriously though ... it's tough to argue against him being one of the top talents to ever work on the GW line.
I think when people, at least myself, talk about "bad computer art" is because of artists that look like they got a degree yesterday and can be hired for cheap because they can splat colours on a screen after using GW models almost as they are.
In the hand of Adrian Smith things probably are different.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 17:21:40
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
I think when people, at least myself, talk about "bad computer art" is because of artists that look like they got a degree yesterday and can be hired for cheap because they can splat colours on a screen after using GW models almost as they are.
I think you give people too much credit here. I think most people don't know nearly as much as they think they do about art and design. One of my college teachers was famous for saying that being a designer was a difficult job because everyone you were ever going to work with/for knew two things. They knew their job AND art. I think that fits well here. A lot of people who casually throw around "computer generated" and "cg", etc etc, have absolutely no idea about art, design, or the actual differences between a traditional piece and a digital one and just fall back on "Oh, that's that crappy CG that's taking over everything" when they don't like a piece. They don't generally know enough to say why they don't like it, so "crappy CG" becomes a comfortable fall-back - even if the piece in question was actually done traditionally.
Agree with you 100% on Smith though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 17:27:29
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
I think when people, at least myself, talk about "bad computer art" is because of artists that look like they got a degree yesterday and can be hired for cheap because they can splat colours on a screen after using GW models almost as they are.
I think you give people too much credit here. I think most people don't know nearly as much as they think they do about art and design. One of my college teachers was famous for saying that being a designer was a difficult job because everyone you were ever going to work with/for knew two things. They knew their job AND art. I think that fits well here. A lot of people who casually throw around "computer generated" and "cg", etc etc, have absolutely no idea about art, design, or the actual differences between a traditional piece and a digital one and just fall back on "Oh, that's that crappy CG that's taking over everything" when they don't like a piece. They don't generally know enough to say why they don't like it, so "crappy CG" becomes a comfortable fall-back - even if the piece in question was actually done traditionally.
Agree with you 100% on Smith though.
Well one could look at the case of Raymond Swanland. I am not fan of his covers: the focus on the character* and the technique appeal me less. Bu you cannot say he is "bad" . You really cannot. There is attention, dynamism, light, actual concept and design. I mean you could make the same case for Wayne Reynolds, the two have "something" in common that some peopel find unappealing, but Wayne Reynolds looks more "classic".
*compared to, say, older covers showing the army but this is probably GW choice
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 17:56:36
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
Well one could look at the case of Raymond Swanland. I am not fan of his covers: the focus on the character* and the technique appeal me less. Bu you cannot say he is "bad" . You really cannot. There is attention, dynamism, light, actual concept and design.
I mean you could make the same case for Wayne Reynolds, the two have "something" in common that some peopel find unappealing, but Wayne Reynolds looks more "classic".
*compared to, say, older covers showing the army but this is probably GW choice
Oh, I agree with you on that completely. My only point with that was that the actual medium has zero to do with the look. One can make a terrible oil painting just as easily as one can make a terrible digital painting or botch a digital sculpt, or improperly light a 3D render. I was just saying that a lot of people seem to say things like "It all went downhill with that darn CG they started using in ought 12!" Meanwhile, they had been using digital art for significantly longer AND the fact that a piece may or may not have been done digitally has zero things at all to do with the quality of the completed product.
The whole thing just has that "Get off my lawn!" feel to it. Makes me crazy. lol
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
This is an example of the insanely ho-hum, nothing-special kind of art that I could do without in 40K publications. Regardless of how it's generated. Most generations have had their artists who did this kind of piddly mediocrity.
Most generations have had their artists who did this kind of piddly mediocrity.
Harsh words. To say you don't like it is one thing, but piddling mediocrity? The salt is strong!
To me, that looks like it was on it's way to being a pretty good piece but for whatever reason, was never completed. When you're training to become a professional, you're taught to work on things in stages so that no matter when the AD or PM snags the piece away form you, it could be considered "done". I don't like this piece very much either as it's very "static", but looking at it, I feel like that's coming less from a "piddling mediocre artist" and more from a piece that got published before it was actually done.
It has strong lines and decent composition, so I don't think this is from a bad artist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 19:39:05
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Not that I would know, as I have no formal training, and I don't know you personally, but it looks a lot like you're making an absolute art of sounding like a douche canoe.
Haha, indeed! I'm putting my stake down on the extreme side of things. But the notion "art is all subjective" would mean that when determining whether or not a piece is "good" that an uninformed opinion is just as good as an informed one. Do you realize how arrogant that is?
This is wrong. Art is far more contextual than subjective. A piece of art may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make your judgement of it valid.
Why not? How can you determine it someone's opinion is allowed to be "valid" or not, especially when it is just opinion?
How valid is your opinion of someone you dont know?
How does that answer my question?
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Your definition of knowledgeable? To what level? Does that apply to everything - ie, I can't criticize a company because I don't own a company or didn't study business, or I can't criticize a politician, because I have no qualifications in it?
Or maybe art doesn't need knowledge, because it's all subjective. I mean, art elicits reactions in children - are those reactions invalid, because they're not knowledgeable?
I'm sorry, but I really beg to differ on this point.
That's fair, and I'm happy to have the conversation because I think it's an important one.
I'm taking the entire arena of art into account here, which can get pretty esoteric. You have to realize that some art is made for particular purposes, in particular times and places, and can be for specific audiences. Lots of art doesn't fall into this category, and there are plenty of works made in which an uninformed opinion still has validity. But you have to understand that there is some very good, but also pretty unaccessible art out there, oftentimes this is art by artists for other artists, which can be really incredible, but is pretty oblique if you're not ready for it. But someone trying to "objectively" judge the value of work like that would be like me judging a sentence in a language I don't understand. Completely over their head.
Anyone can rightfully say "this isn't for me." But when it comes to any sort of academic or objective judgement of value, it's very possible that their opinion can mean absolutely nothing.
This is not the case for our beloved 40K. These are illustrations made for a popular product which is aimed at crafty hobbyists and perhaps less-crafty gamers, or people who like a meaty setting to sink their teeth into or whatever. As we are all part of the intended audience, our opinions are all much more valid here. The problem I have is when people start to try and make "objective" statement about what is good and bad, without really delving into it with any sort of rigor. I try to stay out of it because, frankly I'm shorter on time these days and it's just an internet forum that I frequent because it's normally about toy soldiers that I can get passionate about, but ultimately is not that serious.
"Art" I take more seriously, and I try to avoid "serious" topics online But the statement "art is all subjective" really, really grates on me.
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Not that I would know, as I have no formal training, and I don't know you personally, but it looks a lot like you're making an absolute art of sounding like a douche canoe.
Haha, indeed! I'm putting my stake down on the extreme side of things. But the notion "art is all subjective" would mean that when determining whether or not a piece is "good" that an uninformed opinion is just as good as an informed one. Do you realize how arrogant that is?.
There's no arrogance involved, you've just chosen to express yourself with imprecise language.
Nobody's opinion is invalid when it comes to a subjective topic, but you can ascribe greater value to those who have some element of knowledge, experience or training in that topic.
That said, a superior knowledge of the subject at hand makes feth all difference whether an individual finds an art piece pleasing or evocative, and no amount of technical explanation or historical detail from a so called expert should affect that, one may find a greater appreciation for elements of the work as a consequence, but it's deeply unlikely that the initial visceral reaction will be altered.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I saw 40k for the first time when stuff like this was badass
Than a lot of time passed and i checked on again when this was just arrived
First thought: " WTF this is not Warhammer... it is not even bulky!"
Second thought: "It's so cool though..."
Now I totally see how Ad Mech is 40K and how the aesthetic is an evolution of the old stuff.
And I totally see how some people see a shifting in the design of the new stuff. There is some sort of change. In AoS I think it is very clear. For Fantasy I think is a lot stronger than in 40K, aiming towards a less gritty and violent imagery. Obviously... I prefer the old stuff.
In 40K is more balanced. Some may like more, others may like less the new Death Guard... but I think none can say there is a lack of quality. May be the new stuff is more on the page of the new generations taste. More standard videogames designs? May be... Still a good design.
I think a lot of people who are dubious now will grow to like some of the new stuff. Needs time to adapt.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 20:12:44
If you look at someone, can you make a qualified judgement call about that person? You don't know where they come from, what they're about, what their goals are. Any opinion you form about them comes from a place of ignorannce.
People who form opinions about art without being knowledgeable about it, do so from a place of ignorance. Their opinions are invalid.
Not that I would know, as I have no formal training, and I don't know you personally, but it looks a lot like you're making an absolute art of sounding like a douche canoe.
Haha, indeed! I'm putting my stake down on the extreme side of things. But the notion "art is all subjective" would mean that when determining whether or not a piece is "good" that an uninformed opinion is just as good as an informed one. Do you realize how arrogant that is?.
There's no arrogance involved, you've just chosen to express yourself with imprecise language.
Nobody's opinion is invalid when it comes to a subjective topic, but you can ascribe greater value to those who have some element of knowledge, experience or training in that topic.
That said, a superior knowledge of the subject at hand makes feth all difference whether an individual finds an art piece pleasing or evocative, and no amount of technical explanation or historical detail from a so called expert should affect that, one may find a greater appreciation for elements of the work as a consequence, but it's deeply unlikely that the initial visceral reaction will be altered.
I get what you're saying, and I'll give it a "kinda-sorta". I tried giving more nuance in my previous post. "Invalid" is a strong word, it's true, but this is specifically in regards to the judgement call by which a work is deemed "good" or not.
In other words, you are free to like or dislike whatever you want, that's the subjective nature of it. But subjectivity is limited, as a work can be good without you liking it. That statement seems obvious, right? But there are a lot of opinions that amount to "I do not like this therefore it is bad." then un-nuanced reasons are given ("proportions are all off!"), which are then excused by: "Art is all subjective, man." This is what I argue against.
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
Except that outside of liking a work or not, the only metric we're left with to judge it is technical proficiency, an area where an expert eye is certainly at an advantage, but as has already been covered, a work can be technically proficient without being "good art" and vice versa.
Ultimately you can only judge a work as good on the basis of if someone likes it or if the artist feels it achieves whatever their objective was in creating it. Neither of these things can be objectively quantified, there aren't 2 Monets to a Van Gogh, a Rembrandt isn't worth 2/3 of a Michelangelo, and experts, outside of those who present technical knowledge in an aim to separate a genuine work from a forgery for instance, are only ever offering their opinion. The value of that opinion is inherently no more valuable than anyone else's, except where the observer chooses to imbue it with such.
Having witnessed some of the pretentious bull offered as opinion by these experts, I've concluded much of it is just Emperors New Clothes syndrome, and they're often just making gak up on the spot anyway.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
GW art direction changed, regardless how amusing you can find specific opinions.
Myself, I find more amusing people jumping into a thread they have clearly no interest into and stating that is hilarious.
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
This is the second time I read this.
Are people such delicate and sensitive nowadays?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 23:16:09
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
People ragging on artwork, though I dare them to make something better.
People ragging on paint style, though it's a complete matter of opinion.
Then you got people ragging on the models changing, and there's no particular reason other than "I don't like change."
Since I got into the hobby back in 2006 the Plague Marines have been a head shorter than regular marines. It's about TIME they got updated, and gorgeously so.
Yes, things change. Is it bad? Is it good? It all comes down to personal opinion, and if you really hate the direction the company is going, vote with your dollars by not spending them on the hobby that you apparently despise now.
GW art direction changed, regardless how amusing you can find specific opinions.
Myself, I find more amusing people jumping into a thread they have clearly no interest into and stating that is hilarious.
I call it "meta-hilarious".
Eh, I posted in it page 1 or 2 when there was some sense then the thread boarded the Crazy Train. So, I was interested. Now, not so much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 23:31:57
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
People ragging on artwork, though I dare them to make something better.
People ragging on paint style, though it's a complete matter of opinion.
Then you got people ragging on the models changing, and there's no particular reason other than "I don't like change."
Since I got into the hobby back in 2006 the Plague Marines have been a head shorter than regular marines. It's about TIME they got updated, and gorgeously so.
Yes, things change. Is it bad? Is it good? It all comes down to personal opinion, and if you really hate the direction the company is going, vote with your dollars by not spending them on the hobby that you apparently despise now.
I am sorry but I read a lot of nonsense here.
You can judge something without being in the industry. Do you think you cannot tell if you liked a movie without being a director?
I can understand an argument like "you have to have knowledge certain nuances and techniques, you must be trained to understand X" but here you are plain implying we should be all illustrator or miniature makers to discuss the art.
Stating that people preferred old models or don't like change are pure strawmen. I see makes sense have bigger marines, but this does not justify many needless details that lower the quality of a good miniature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: What's hilarious is trying to quantify 'soul' or how good artwork definitively is.
Honestly, humanity has never managed that. It certainly won't be achieved on DakkaDakka.
Except that at least for the definition used by some people here, we can directly evaluate if the subjects of an art piece are copypasted from the models or there is some sort of design and creative process involved.
Just as an example but this would mean criticize GW, so...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 23:42:34
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
People ragging on artwork, though I dare them to make something better.
People ragging on paint style, though it's a complete matter of opinion.
Then you got people ragging on the models changing, and there's no particular reason other than "I don't like change."
Since I got into the hobby back in 2006 the Plague Marines have been a head shorter than regular marines. It's about TIME they got updated, and gorgeously so.
Yes, things change. Is it bad? Is it good? It all comes down to personal opinion, and if you really hate the direction the company is going, vote with your dollars by not spending them on the hobby that you apparently despise now.
I am sorry but I read a lot of nonsense here.
You can judge something without being in the industry. Do you think you cannot tell if you liked a movie without being a director?
I can understand an argument like "you have to have knowledge certain nuances and techniques, you must be trained to understand X" but here you are plain implying we should be all illustrator or miniature makers to discuss the art.
Stating that people preferred old models or don't like change are pure strawmen. I see makes sense have bigger marines, but this does not justify many needless details that lower the quality of a good miniature.
A. You can dislike a piece of art, but when you talk as if you know that the art is rubbish from its foundations, show me your art degree. Show me your illustrations. If nothing else, name a book on art you've read. Oh, you don't have any of that? Then don't pretend like you know what you're talking about when it comes to composition, artistic skill, color theory, value, etc. If it isn't 'grimdark' enough for you, that's fine, but that's just opinion and I can disagree with you all day.
B. IMO, the new Plague Marines are a breath of fresh air (ironically). We're FINALLY getting some gorgeous new miniatures for a line that was starting to look more like squats just based on their size and stature standing next to the new Primaris marines. The new detail isn't 'needless' to me. It's characterful. It's satisfying to build and paint. There's a lot going on, and there should be. Leave the clean lines, solid colors, and mechanical detail to the Ultrasmurfs. Death Guard are about plague, disease, and monstrosities, and finally now they look like what they represent.
I'm in the group of talking about the difference in art, but personally I love the new direction in the miniatures department (You aren't gonna see me saying that oldhammer is the best oldhammer. I even prefer the new daemonettes to Juan Diaz's ones! ), and even if I think the old art direction of GW had virtues that now have been lost to pure and esterile marketing, I can appreciate and even like the new art.
But I suppose than if you dare to critizise something with arguments thatts mean that you hate everything (?)
I suppose that all the people that is saying that art is totally subjetive and is absurd to discuss the differences between art pieces and the art direction of old-GW vs new-GW believe the same about movies or books?
Man, movies are subjetive, how dare you say that Lord of the Rings are a much better product than the Twilight saga! And to be honest, The DaVinci Code can't be put in a lower tier than The Divine Comedy from Dante! Literature as a form of art is totally subjetive!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 23:58:42
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
A. You can dislike a piece of art, but when you talk as if you know that the art is rubbish from its foundations, show me your art degree. Show me your illustrations. If nothing else, name a book on art you've read. Oh, you don't have any of that? Then don't pretend like you know what you're talking about when it comes to composition, artistic skill, color theory, value, etc. If it isn't 'grimdark' enough for you, that's fine, but that's just opinion and I can disagree with you all day.
Assume for a moment I am an illustrator. How god should I be to discuss? Decent? Mediocre? I scribble talking at the telephone. I am an illustrator? You talk about degrees and I am fine with that. If I have none and I am a good one I cannot discuss? Can I? Plase set the boundaries. So what I can and cannot say? I cannot notice that an illustration is a fething unfocused mess with wrong poses unless I am Leonardo Da Vinci?
B. IMO, the new Plague Marines are a breath of fresh air (ironically). We're FINALLY getting some gorgeous new miniatures for a line that was starting to look more like squats just based on their size and stature standing next to the new Primaris marines. The new detail isn't 'needless' to me. It's characterful. It's satisfying to build and paint. There's a lot going on, and there should be. Leave the clean lines, solid colors, and mechanical detail to the Ultrasmurfs. Death Guard are about plague, disease, and monstrosities, and finally now they look like what they represent.
In my opinion.
At their core, the models are absolutely gorgeous and a love letter to the older series from the plastic guy JohnnyHell posted at page 1 or 2 to the FW ones. And they are indeed very good for the painting, especially with *LOOKS AT CAMERA* the GW technicals and similar products. Point being that there was no restraint and they put additional stuff that made the unit less homogeneous to a degree and on a singular level too "heavy" at the point that IMHO need trimming. If trimmed, is the best thing ever. And one can use some of the trimmed stuff to convert "doubles".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 23:57:07
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
This is the second time I read this.
Are people such delicate and sensitive nowadays?
I'm not incredibly bothered by the discussion, it just strikes me as someone desperate to defend a wasted degree and that is off putting.
But I imagine for some people they aren't ok being told their opinion doesn't matter.
Azreal13 wrote: Except that outside of liking a work or not, the only metric we're left with to judge it is technical proficiency, an area where an expert eye is certainly at an advantage, but as has already been covered, a work can be technically proficient without being "good art" and vice versa.
Ultimately you can only judge a work as good on the basis of if someone likes it or if the artist feels it achieves whatever their objective was in creating it. Neither of these things can be objectively quantified, there aren't 2 Monets to a Van Gogh, a Rembrandt isn't worth 2/3 of a Michelangelo, and experts, outside of those who present technical knowledge in an aim to separate a genuine work from a forgery for instance, are only ever offering their opinion. The value of that opinion is inherently no more valuable than anyone else's, except where the observer chooses to imbue it with such.
Having witnessed some of the pretentious bull offered as opinion by these experts, I've concluded much of it is just Emperors New Clothes syndrome, and they're often just making gak up on the spot anyway.
Bolded what I think is the important bit, and others have raised this one already. Intent is something that can often be objectively known, as is context. If you don't know the intent, or the context, which can be known, how valid can your judgement be? Being able to put things in the right context really important.. A lot like the Tactics forum where people say "I'm bringing unit X, what do you think?" and the responses are "what's the rest of your list?".
Your bit about "pretentious bull" is another issue altogether, and for many cases I'm inclined to agree. It's not that "art-speak" (or whatever you want to call it) is inherently meaningless, but it's really easy to be lazy with, and create statements that amount to incoherent garbage. A lot of it is put together to sound fancy to make sales or sound intelligent, sad but true. I will say that some of it is 100% legit, but man, there's a bunch of crap to wade through. Thinking it's all pretentious crap is completely understandable because unfortunately lot of it kinda is.
I think you have better things you could be arguing against. The manner in which you approach things seems to me like it would drive more people away from your line of thought than it would pull them towards.
It's true! I could be arguing about the validity of Tactical Squads in a UM list.
I started off with something pretty adversarial, it's true. I hope you can see that I've attempted to treat the responses respectfully though.
But the statement "art is all subjective" really, really grates on me.
2000+
