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.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

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.

What he said is what drbored said to me and thay are very right in the extent that is true that without being an "initiate" you cannot grasp why many things are done.
But I argue that the situation is more nuanced because:
- there are different degrees of skill and assessment
- there are elements, like the aforementioned "copypasted" reproduction of the minis that can be evaluated with few doubts.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

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.
.

If it helps, I didn't get a degree.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

drbored wrote:


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?

You're not an illustrator so you can chill out about 'wrong poses'.

It's called 'composition' and 'anatomy'. And the point is that you can talk all day, but nobody's gotta listen to you if you got nothing to back it up. It's like me telling people about how awesome the engine in a pickup truck is. If I'm not a mechanic or engineer, then I'm just another guy with an opinion.

So, in this realm of opinions, I think that a lot of the artwork that's been coming out of 40k has been gorgeous. The illustrators are doing their best to capture the essence of 'grimdark' and they're being very faithful to the material that Games Workshop has provided them with.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
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.

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.

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?

Absolutely valid. If you know the intent of the artist was to create sadness in the viewer, and the work does not illicit sadness in you, then the intent of the work has failed, for you. Knowing you're supposed to feel sad because that's what the artist intended does not, and never will, invalidate your reaction of not being sad.

Which once again brings everything back to the "art" of the work being entirely subjective and the only things that can be dealt with objectively are the technical details of its creation. The former being something that anyone can have an equally valuable opinion on, the latter being something better served with expert knowledge or experience.

drbored wrote:


It's called 'composition' and 'anatomy'. And the point is that you can talk all day, but nobody's gotta listen to you if you got nothing to back it up. It's like me telling people about how awesome the engine in a pickup truck is. If I'm not a mechanic or engineer, then I'm just another guy with an opinion. ·

.

You can see that stuff. Is in front of your eyes. Look at the picture posted above.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

But Tactical Squads are about as good as John Blanche art!

But yes I see that, but people can still interpret things like that. Text doesnt always conve the right thing.

And from my previous post I'm not directing the "wasted" degree at anyone. It's a generalized statement.

Respectively in order:

Heh. Now we're talking!

Forums are not always the best forum for communication. That said, the stakes are probably not very high either. This is playful snobbery, please take with a grain of salt.

If you're worried about any offense taken, none was. It's all good.

 Azreal13 wrote:

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?

Absolutely valid. If you know the intent of the artist was to create sadness in the viewer, and the work does not illicit sadness in you, then the intent of the work has failed, for you. Knowing you're supposed to feel sad because that's what the artist intended does not, and never will, invalidate your reaction of not being sad.

In that case your opinion is valid. True.

But if the artist is using cultural symbols that you're unfamiliar with to elicit a response, and you have no response because you aren't privvy to knowledge about those symbols, is your opinion still valid?

My 2c on the art:

I miss having the artwork in the codecies. The photos of the models just doesn't have the same flair.

All of it is for marketing anyway, and I don't see a problem with that, because art for advertising is pretty.



With regard to the actual aesthetic of 40k, I think it still pretty much has the same aesthetic is always does. The only striking change for me is the newfound theme that things can actually get better.

But if the artist is using cultural symbols that you're unfamiliar with to elicit a response, and you have no response because you aren't privvy to knowledge about those symbols, is your opinion still valid?

Yes, you need to stop using the word invalid. Nothing in this context invalidates an opinion. In this instance, you're referring to something that could elude a so-called expert as well, as there's no definite reason why an expert on art is going to be familiar with those symbols either. One could also frame this as a failure on behalf of the artist by citing references that elude his audience.

But to try and wrap this up, let me quote you back to yourself

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.

I ask you this, who is better qualified to make a judgement call about ones own opinion and reaction than oneself?

In the end, it's all for a damned rich pre teen childrens anyway.

 Azreal13 wrote:

But if the artist is using cultural symbols that you're unfamiliar with to elicit a response, and you have no response because you aren't privvy to knowledge about those symbols, is your opinion still valid?

Yes, you need to stop using the word invalid. Nothing in this context invalidates an opinion. In this instance, you're referring to something that could elude a so-called expert as well, as there's no definite reason why an expert on art is going to be familiar with those symbols either. One could also frame this as a failure on behalf of the artist by citing references that elude his audience.

"Yes" why exactly? Neither of those examples work.

If something about the art is eluding an expert, than the expert isn't an expert, by definition. An expert doesn't simply say "I am an expert therefore I am right." And expert would try to learn the meaning and context of the piece before forming a judgement, in this case, figure out what the symbols mean. Ideally, they understand their opinion has gaping holes in it until they do the research.

The second bit "One could frame. . ." is also easily countered. If the art wasn't meant for you, but doesn't speak to you, this is not a failure of the artist. It's also not a failure of you, btw.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But to try and wrap this up, let me quote you back to yourself

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.

I ask you this, who is better qualified to make a judgement call about ones own opinion and reaction than oneself?

Are you saying no one else can rightfully judge your opinion? What if your opinion is that vaccines are, I dunno, depleting the viability of our precious fluids? I quote to you your own sig:
"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"

Getting back on topic....

I honestly love the more futuristic sci-fi advanced and scaled models. That's me personally, the steampunk part of 40k I disliked.

drbored wrote:
This thread really is hilarious.

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've said it once and I'll say it again- you don't need to eat dog gak to know it tastes bad.

I wouldn't recommend eating the models or the art in that case then.

I think there was a thread much like this one not so long ago...

The consensus beeing that bright and colorful models make for far better eye-catchers and marketing pictures than dirty and gritty models. The aesthetics of GW models was never too realistic or gritty. The models always were more of a comic representation than true realism. The new models have more details - as they damn well should, casting equipment did improve since the 80's. But to call that a new aesthetic is a bit of a strech.

But plaque marines used to be gritty and filthy. Also I am a firm believer that a knight in shining armor has never been tested.

macluvin wrote:
But plaque marines used to be gritty and filthy. Also I am a firm believer that a knight in shining armor has never been tested.

Which is why the cracks in their armor reveals pus and tentacles and stuff.

So, to the naysaysers in this thread, wanna see a perfect example truly soulless piece of artwork that we're harping on about?

Turn to page 51 of your DG codex and see the pic for the Plagueburst Crawler, now the main subject of this piece is not really the problem. Lets take a look at the Plague Marines surrounding it. They're all just simply drawings of the miniatures, and as if this wasn't bad enough; one of them has his exact clone standing behind him. Same backpack, same shoulder decoration, almost as if he's a copy of the DV guy because he is!
The artist could've at least used some variety (hey there were seven to choose from buddy!), but no, we've got the twin PMs Tomax and Xamot running around in the 41st millennium.

Conversely, the combined Plaguebearer/Nurgling artwork on the following page is the exact opposite. It has "things" in the background that have no analog in miniature form, such as the giant bell being pulled along by something (there's some fuel for the imagination right there. Wanna make it, grab a Screaming Bell kit and go nuts!), the daemon behind the Nurglings, what is he? Is he a Beast? (side note, the Beast entry looks excellent. If the minis look even a little like that I'll be very happy) A Herald? A GUO? Who knows, but the fact is he only exists in this picture and is brimming with personality and just waiting to be kitbashed onto the tabletop.

And this is what we're getting at. The artwork should inspire you to want to bring these things to life in 3D, not the other way around.

 Elbows wrote:
Russ: Grimbark.

I like that. It's as good as the "Hairy Sues" joke.

Ruin wrote:


Turn to page 51 of your DG codex and see the pic for the Plagueburst Crawler, now the main subject of this piece is not really the problem. Lets take a look at the Plague Marines surrounding it. They're all just simply drawings of the miniatures, and as if this wasn't bad enough; one of them has his exact clone standing behind him. Same backpack, same shoulder decoration, almost as if he's a copy of the DV guy because he is!
The artist could've at

Maybe the artists just don't have the amount of time they used to, maybe the artist wanted to show the starter minis in art, to make them feel cooler, like the Sister of Battle from the blanche artwork. No one ever complains when a mini design is inspired by art, but the reverse is heresy. Hell, that mini might have been created from the design in the artwork.