I'm not a fan of that Oba art. I always thought of her as more Conan-esk and less african.
Well considering that "Oba" is a west African term describing rulers...
The lore and few pieces of art about Gulg indicated black people, African-like. Only the Baxa art in one of the adventures depicts her as white with flowing red hair. I personally disliked that piece.
I fell in love with the Oba in that Baxa picture. This one, I'm not a fan of. She's supposed to be sexay -- at least in my conceptual headspace -- and I do not find that Oba sexay.
The lore and few pieces of art about Gulg indicated black people, African-like. Only the Baxa art in one of the adventures depicts her as white with flowing red hair. I personally disliked that piece.
I fell in love with the Oba in that Baxa picture. This one, I'm not a fan of. She's supposed to be sexay -- at least in my conceptual headspace -- and I do not find that Oba sexay.
Agreed. Not sexay, as you put it. I'll stick with my Frazetta version of her.
The lore and few pieces of art about Gulg indicated black people, African-like. Only the Baxa art in one of the adventures depicts her as white with flowing red hair. I personally disliked that piece.
I fell in love with the Oba in that Baxa picture. This one, I'm not a fan of. She's supposed to be sexay -- at least in my conceptual headspace -- and I do not find that Oba sexay.
Agreed. Not sexay, as you put it. I'll stick with my Frazetta version of her.
Is there a Frazetta version, or you just refer to the Baxa artwork's sexed up style?
EDIT: Also, if "Oba" is just a title and the "Gulg" is the name of the people, then maybe the Gulg have a new Oba?
EDIT: Also, if "Oba" is just a title and the "Gulg" is the name of the people, then maybe the Gulg have a new Oba?
I'm not sure about how familiar you're with the SK lore, but unless something radical happened, that would require some sort of huge plot device.
Making the first batch of SKs almost destroyed the solar system; a new one would be quite hard to slip by.
As a side note, I much prefer the new art. Gone is the sillyness of the "this is an african inspired city but I'm a hot redhead valkyr" Oba of old.
I'm not sure about how familiar you're with the SK lore, but unless something radical happened, that would require some sort of huge plot device.
Making the first batch of SKs almost destroyed the solar system; a new one would be quite hard to slip by.
I don't even know what "SK" stands for.
As a side note, I much prefer the new art. Gone is the sillyness of the "this is an african inspired city but I'm a hot redhead valkyr" Oba of old.
Yeah, that does sound pretty stupid. But whatever, I just came in to say that I think that I like this piece of artwork. I think that she looks like an attractive and believabe leader over yet another stereotypical red hot valkyrie queen.
I don't even know what "SK" stands for.As a side note, I much prefer the new art. Gone is the sillyness of the "this is an african inspired city but I'm a hot redhead valkyr" Oba of old.
Yeah, that does sound pretty stupid. But whatever, I just came in to say that I think that I like this piece of artwork. I think that she looks like an attractive and believabe leader over yet another stereotypical red hot valkyrie queen.
"SK" = Sorcerer King. It took me a moment to figure it out. Still learning about Dark Sun, hehe. :P
As for the artwork, I'd need to see this other white skinned, red headed version to judge. Link? But I agree that for an African jungle themed culture with dark-skinned peoples, a matching ruler sounds appropriate, not some Red Sonja wannabe.
Unless they're like the American Indians who thought the white-skinned were gods from another land; and Oba is really from a different city-state who conquered Gulg ong ago. OR she could be one of those rare children born white (not albino) with black parents. (ie there's a blond, blue eyed white baby born to pure Nigerian parents).
Unless they're like the American Indians who thought the white-skinned were gods from another land; and Oba is really from a different city-state who conquered Gulg ong ago.
I don't want that **** promoted in my D&D.
OR she could be one of those rare children born white (not albino) with black parents. (ie there's a blond, blue eyed white baby born to pure Nigerian parents).
Yeah, but they still have African features.
As a side note, I much prefer the new art. Gone is the sillyness of the "this is an african inspired city but I'm a hot redhead valkyr" Oba of old.
Unfortunate implications aside, it did sort of work on a conceptual level. The sorcerer-kings are not supposed to be just members of their respective cultures who have risen to the top. They're ancient warlords who gathered totally unrelated people to themselves as followers when the previous world order went belly-up. There's no real reason why they should be ethnically similar to their subjects.
That said, I do like the new art.
For DDi subscribers, you can see all the SKs here. They start on page 2, row 4, 2nd picture, and are, in order as far as I can tell, Ablach-Re (purple hood, sexy back, less sexy face), Andropinis (help! help! my hand is on fire!), Hamanu (fear my glowing eyes of doom!), Lalali-Puy, Nibenay (purple dragon dude), Tectuktitlay (whose heart is this and why is it on my desk?) and Dregoth (hey, I thought Ablach-Re was supposed to be the faux-Egyptian one?).
I think the only trait every humanoid would have is a nice tan.
Now, as varied as the populations of the cities are, the SKs are not. The Sorcerer Kings are the paragons of their culture and must exhibit that culture extensively. They are the creators of that culture and it flows from them down to the worshiping masses. Therefore, an African-type culture would be extended down by someone who looks, thinks, and most importantly ACTS as something we would consider African. I have to agree with the comments on the earlier art being waaaay out of character and I really like the way they made her for 4th ED.
Not that bad IMHO, though Nibenays artwork sucked horribly.
Lalali-puy just looks... naked.
I went through my 2nd edition boxed set books. It's amazing how far D&D art got in the last edition. People don't credit 4e for the quality of its art.
Honestly I don't mind Nibenay as much - it was a time where art was very close to being comicbook art. Yeah, he looks ridicolous, but in a Spiderman-is-ridicolous-and-awesome way.
Lalali-puy just looks... naked.
I went through my 2nd edition boxed set books. It's amazing how far D&D art got in the last edition. People don't credit 4e for the quality of its art.
The 4E art ist really awesome, that's true.
Though Brom is still better ;)
Honestly I don't mind Nibenay as much - it was a time where art was very close to being comicbook art. Yeah, he looks ridicolous, but in a Spiderman-is-ridicolous-and-awesome way.
Lalali-puy just looks... naked.
I went through my 2nd edition boxed set books. It's amazing how far D&D art got in the last edition. People don't credit 4e for the quality of its art.
The 4E art ist really awesome, that's true.
Though Brom is still better ;)
I was sort of gonna say that - Brom really stood out among those 2nd edition horrors. I've yet to have the books in my hands, but while I think some of the stuff I've seen surpasses even his versions, there's some things he did that will never be undone. He captures the alien nature of the DS creatures like nobody can. His version of the Dragon is better than anything I've seen in 4e so far.
However, I feel his design of humans was completely unfit for the setting. In this regard, the new art is better for me.
I didn't remember the picture was that bad :P . I mean, a part of me doesn't mind it at all,
Yeah, I think we can guess which part.
Anyway, Lalai-Puy reminds me of somebody else in that pic...
Now, though, I take inspiration from Gina Torres. She plays awesome warrior women.
I always pictured her like Auntie from Thunderdome.
Ah yes, Tina Turner. Definitely a good one.
any art is better than baxa's old material. in the old edition his art next to brom's was a joke. he's gotten better with age...but his DS stuff is some of the worst.
To be honest, his work in "Dark Sun Monstrous Compendium II, Terrors Beyond Tyr" was great. Some pics, like the athasian Aarakocra or the athasian Dwarf and many others, are superior to even those from the 4E Creature Catalogue.
completely disagree. there are a lot of fundamental flaws in his work at the time...foreshortening and anatomy are two of the big ones, let alone his poor rendering. he has improved since then, as i said, but at that time his work was passable at best and slightly less than amateur at worst. though i must say that there is a problem with the left arm in the new belgoi artwork :P so it's not that the new art is flawless either, but on a technical level it is quite superior out-of-the-gate than baxa's old dark sun art.
I actually agree with Masato. I rather liked most of Baxa's artwork for 2e Dark Sun. Sure, it wasn't the greatest technically, but aesthetically, I felt Baxa's style complemented Brom's nicely. Brom's artwork gave the character of the world-- savage and harsh. Baxa's gave the character of its inhabitants; I particularly loved the sly grins and mischevious looks on the faces of his Athasian Dwarf and Half-Giant in MC2; not to mention, I found his Dray to be particularly alien and interesting in appearance.
I honestly believe that Dark Sun owes as much of its alien feel to Baxa as it does to Brom. Outside of the Dragon, the foes in Brom's artwork look mostly like your standard fantasy fare-- look at the Tarek on the cover of Verdant Passage and tell me you didn't think it was an Orc the first time you saw it. Baxa's creatures were incredibly interesting designs.
Imagine a woman so powerful, so sure of herself, that she rules one of the last bastions of civilization as a god. There is nothing sexier than that.
As for how this "sexy" should manifest, a ruler, whatever the culture, would prefer more clothing than less. Newborns are naked, the poor aren't much better, they are both powerless. A queen should want to be exotic, but not overwhelmed by it, unlike some vagabond merchant carting every worldly possession to and fro.
The new artwork captures this.
well, ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder. to me there is nothing aesthetic about baxa's 2e artwork. his artwork now is better, and he's prolific as a professional which only makes him gain in skill but i have no love for his work on dark sun and cannot stand by it as a professional. i was only 16 when the 1st box came out, and even then i just didn't like it. now that the long years have gone by i understand - technically - why it doesn't agree with me, and yes, there is a large portion of stylistic taste involved. that being said i won't argue anyone else enjoying his works...ultimately he was 500000000000 light years better than that miller guy they had working on it. ugh...his work was just...just...inexcusably horrible. baxa at least improved. that miller dude was the worst. ever.
completely disagree. there are a lot of fundamental flaws in his work at the time...foreshortening and anatomy are two of the big ones, let alone his poor rendering. he has improved since then, as i said, but at that time his work was passable at best and slightly less than amateur at worst. though i must say that there is a problem with the left arm in the new belgoi artwork :P so it's not that the new art is flawless either, but on a technical level it is quite superior out-of-the-gate than baxa's old dark sun art.
Though you missed my point, I was talking about the Dark Sun MC II, Terrors Beyond Tyr artwork. It was Baxas masterpiece (1994 btw). Take a look at it once again, you will start to respect his skills ;).
In the end it is a matter of taste. Personally I think that those two pieces are superior to their 4E counterparts ;).
I started the thread but never though that when I would be back there would already have 4 pages!
I agree with Masato here, the Monsters Manual II from the second edition is really a masterpiece for the FEEL of darksun. The Athasian Wraith was pretty cool and all the standard darksun races were soooo well drawn.
I agree with Masato here, the Monsters Manual II from the second edition is really a masterpiece for the FEEL of darksun. The Athasian Wraith was pretty cool and all the standard darksun races were soooo well drawn.
I started the thread but never though that when I would be back there would already have 4 pages!
I agree with Masato here, the Monsters Manual II from the second edition is really a masterpiece for the FEEL of darksun. The Athasian Wraith was pretty cool and all the standard darksun races were soooo well drawn.
completely disagree. there are a lot of fundamental flaws in his work at the time...foreshortening and anatomy are two of the big ones, let alone his poor rendering. he has improved since then, as i said, but at that time his work was passable at best and slightly less than amateur at worst. though i must say that there is a problem with the left arm in the new belgoi artwork :P so it's not that the new art is flawless either, but on a technical level it is quite superior out-of-the-gate than baxa's old dark sun art.
Though you missed my point, I was talking about the Dark Sun MC II, Terrors Beyond Tyr artwork. It was Baxas masterpiece (1994 btw). Take a look at it once again, you will start to respect his skills ;).
In the end it is a matter of taste. Personally I think that those two pieces are superior to their 4E counterparts ;).
no i didn't miss your point. i just don't agree. the artwork above and most of baxa's work in that book is sub-par. i find it neither representational of dark sun, nor inspiring. all i see is bad. to say his work circa 1994 is better than the artwork presented in the newest edition just isn't the case. the artwork presented in the latest gallery is leaps and bounds better than that. the rendering, the anatomy, the gesture, the expression. on a technical and aesthetic level the new artwork beats out the DS monster manual hands down. even the worst of the new gallery is better. compare the athasian dwarves on page 1 image #20; page 2 image #10; and page 3 image #12 to the above picture of the dwarf. the poses are better and more dynamic, the rendering and detail is far superior, and overall the images convey much more character.
i don't like the new aarakocra much (like how it looks to be standing on the spear as opposed to holding the spear and how is it staying aloft with those tiny wings) but at least it captures the creature as a whole and gives it a somewhat interesting pose. you may like baxa's art more, but it just doesn't hold up on a technical level in comparison.
no i didn't miss your point. i just don't agree. the artwork above and most of baxa's work in that book is sub-par. i find it neither representational of dark sun, nor inspiring. all i see is bad. to say his work circa 1994 is better than the artwork presented in the newest edition just isn't the case. the artwork presented in the latest gallery is leaps and bounds better than that. the rendering, the anatomy, the gesture, the expression. on a technical and aesthetic level the new artwork beats out the DS monster manual hands down. even the worst of the new gallery is better. compare the athasian dwarves on page 1 image #20; page 2 image #10; and page 3 image #12 to the above picture of the dwarf. the poses are better and more dynamic, the rendering and detail is far superior, and overall the images convey much more character.
i don't like the new aarakocra much (like how it looks to be standing on the spear as opposed to holding the spear and how is it staying aloft with those tiny wings) but at least it captures the creature as a whole and gives it a somewhat interesting pose. you may like baxa's art more, but it just doesn't hold up on a technical level in comparison.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but i disagree. The year doesn't matter, it is art not science, and Baxa is an artist. Art isn't perfect nor should it be, the imperfect is by far more interesting than a technically perfect and sterile piece. But then again if I look at the Braxat (the worst piece of art in the CC) I fail to see the technical-amatomical greatness you were talking about, on the contrary, i see faults. The new art isn't bad, don't get me wrong, it's a high quality work but some pieces from the past are better, it's simple as that ;). Though once again, our opinions differ and that's ok
.To the Avatar, Tron thing: you might prefer 3d over "real" art but to me there is still a big difference between "digital art" and "real art". You might like the first one better and that's fine but it isn't superior to the latter, nor will it ever be. It's a bit similar to the days when Photography was compared to paintings. Though technically more flaweless they still failed to accomplish what others could with brushes and paint.
I like art that tells a story and inspires gaming. A monsterous image that "looks cool". A monster that would make an interesting challenge. A Dark Sun creature that emphasizes the "harsh" lifestyle of the wastelands.
Both Baxa and the 4e images are extremely interesting... but different. The 4e images are usually action shots, but lack some of the "harshness" of Baxa's images. Baxa's use of harsh lines, brown colors, and gritty effects were very unique to Dark Sun. Some of the 4e images are too "plain". For example, the drakes look like the dragonborn/dragonspecies from any other setting. While Baxa's dwarves wouldn't fit anywhere but in Dark Sun. However, some of the techniques shown in the 4e pictures (like the Drakes), have action, terrrain and expression that are completely lacking in Baxa's images.
The new images give a more complete background of the creature - example, see image 9, the turtle creature with the shooting carapace (I have no idea what creature that is). What is that little critter the turtle has caught? What if that critter was a PC? How did that turtle sneak up on the critter? Boy... that little critter is f***'d.
Eitherway, I think there are some amazing images in both sets - images that inspire my creative juices. More images are always good
listen, 3d art doesn't just happen. it all starts on paper. as a graphic artist you should know this. the concept artists pass off their 2d art and paintings to the 3d artists - who btw are all traditionally trained artists as well - who then transform the concepts into 3d environments, characters and everything else. 3d doesn't just spontaneously appear inside the computer and even digital art needs an artist to do it - an artist who knows what they're doing. digital is just a tool, just like a pencil or pen; and those tools can only go so far as the skill behind it. as an artist you are seriously short-changing yourself by not learning all the available tools to you especially in graphic design. every graphic designer i know uses photoshop, and i'm talking about guys who design entire ad campaigns with budgets in the multi-millions...but these very same people also paint on a sunny sunday afternoon to just relax and unwind, or still go to life drawing classes at the local community college so that they maintain their skill with the human form. digital art is real art, and real art is only superior when it's done with superior skill. it's no different than with painting and traditional media. in this case, baxa's work in the DS MC2 is passable at best; but in no way holds up to contemporary illustrators, illustrators at that time (i.e. - Brom), or even his own current illustration.
Listen, I know this but still 3d isn't "real" art and it won't be. I use Photoshop, Illustrator and others progs from CS 4 MC, I also own and use an cintiq 12wx but i still know and see the difference between digital and real art, it's interesting that you don't.
Brom is a case for himself, I've never saw an digital art that could compete with his best works (though i admit that i admire his style).
Baxa is an artist, 3d designers are workers most of the time. There is a difference between the things i have to do in my day to day work and the things i do in my free time. The first one is design the latter is art. Design touches the mind most of the time (there are rare individuals that can break those boundaries), art however inspires the soul. Read the comments of the other user in this thread, then maybe you might understand the difference. I have the pleasure to know artists, designers and people who do both, all have different tastes but all of them know the difference.
Baxa's art in the MC II isn't passable, maybe for you (and maybe to some others) but the fact alone that it can inspire others and the fact that there are people who like his MC II art (in this thread even the mayority) should be enough to tell you that he is an true artist and that your opinion is really nothing more than that, means your opinion. Just because you, like me, work in the creative business doesn't makes your opinion more valid when it comes down to art. If we would talk about design and 3d then yes, there you can find thigs and flaws one can't argue away but when we talk about art then we can only state our opinion, our taste, nothing more nothing less, and there neither your nor mine opinion is better then the opinion of people who aren't "professionals".
When I look at the CC art (still very good, most of it anyway) I see a good work. When I look at Baxas MC II art i feel "Dark Sun" and I believe that he really enjoyed (or even loved) what he did.
A big difference, but the only one that matters. So that's why his aarakocra and his dwarf look better (style, look, feel, colours, art), IMO. You don't have to like it but you will have to accept that it is mine opinion and that it is as valid as yours. ;)
i agree that art doesn't have to be perfect to be enjoyed, but that being the case it also doesn't have to be "real" to be enjoyed either...which is in abundant evidence in every single media around you. that being said, i see how baxa's art is in and of itself inspiring of the themes and elements of dark sun. but i stand by my opinion: his early works were poor in comparison to the contemporary art we have on display now; but if he were to come back and lend his skills to it today, it would be much better than it was then because he has improved quite a bit since then.
in regards to the current gallery there are pieces there that i'm not a huge fan of either. what i would be interested in seeing is a thread where people posted up their re-designs of the old dark sun beasties from the MC 2. that would be fun and inspiring for everyone.
Listen, I know this but still 3d isn't "real" art and it won't be. I use Photoshop, Illustrator and others progs from CS 4 MC, I also own and use an cintiq 12wx but i still know and see the difference between digital and real art, it's interesting that you don't.
Brom is a case for himself, I've never saw an digital art that could compete with his best works (though i admit that i admire his style).
That is simply ludicrous. "Real" art? Seriously? Art is independent of medium. So, does "real" art have to be rendered on something physical? Does that mean that writing is no longer a form of art? Nonsense. Music suddenly isn't art? Rubbish.
Medium doesn't make the art. Art is subjective, and the joy the viewers/readers get from the art is important. Art requires a creative alteration of the physical, the mental, or the environment, and it encompasses more beyond that.
This view is absolutely astonishing to me. Who are you to judge what is "real" art and what isn't? You can only judge what you consider to be art that you like, and art that you don't. You are more than welcome to state that you dislike a piece of art because it was rendered on a computer instead of on a canvas, on paper, in stone, in clay, in plastic or in metal, or whatever other medium(s) is happens to be rendered in.
Beautiful computer art is a medium still in its infancy. They very existence of such tools as Wacom tablets, etc, has begun to combine traditional forms of art with new, unexplored territory. To state that such art isn't "real" art is, really, quite insulting. It is essentially spitting on the creative efforts of the many people who engage in such artistic endeavors.
if it isn't real art then what am i doing? all the films i've worked on, illustrations...everything? not art? it doesn't inspire people? not just me but ALL the artist i know and work with? you included? not art? how about the years of fine arts training? nothing? still doesn't make it art? it's just...what? a waste of my time, of your time, because it wasn't done with paint and a canvas? the difference between digital art and real art is that one is pixels and the other is pigments. all other principles of art apply no matter what tools you use. i've been around way too long to buy that line...it's a huge disservice to every artist who works hard to hone their talents, yourself included. just like my opinion of baxa's work on dark sun is ultimately my opinion; then it must be said that your opinion that digital art is not real art is...ultimately...your opinion. it's an opinion that would be heatedly debated by any other artist worth their salt...but you're entitled to it.
i agree that art doesn't have to be perfect to be enjoyed, but that being the case it also doesn't have to be "real" to be enjoyed either...which is in abundant evidence in every single media around you. that being said, i see how baxa's art is in and of itself inspiring of the themes and elements of dark sun. but i stand by my opinion: his early works were poor in comparison to the contemporary art we have on display now; but if he were to come back and lend his skills to it today, it would be much better than it was then because he has improved quite a bit since then.
in regards to the current gallery there are pieces there that i'm not a huge fan of either. what i would be interested in seeing is a thread where people posted up their re-designs of the old dark sun beasties from the MC 2. that would be fun and inspiring for everyone.
At least we agree ;). We could discuss this even further, though as you said it's my opinion that i prefer "handmade" art over "digital" art. What i do as a designer is no art but work :p but anyway, I understand your point and i agree with it, partially (about digital art being also art, though a different kind then "real" art, maybe the word real is a poor choice but you know what i mean).
The difference between work and passion is a debate that wiser heads then us have already discussed, so we might leave it at that. And Yes Baxa improved, the leap from his work to MC II was already great, though it's fascinating that his style is so unique (like Broms, Diterlizzi etc.) that you always recognize his hand at the first glance.
As for the current Gallery, my faves are "the Cloud Ray", "the Kank", "Tectuctitlay", "the Crystal Spider" and "the Thrax #61 is a Thrax I guess :D".
Because, somehow, this isn't art or this or...well, about a billion others. Also, I invite anyone who believes digital art isn't art to head to my gallery on dA. I work solely with digital tools, I haven't touched physcial pen-and-paper or brush-and-canvas in years.
I like sketches, paintings, charcoals, markers, computers, what have you. I do not worry about the process of how they got there, only the end result.
What a crock! Art is art no matter the process. All that matters is the end result and whether it is liked or not. Choose your process and keep at it. Especially if you get good reviews. Now I got to listen to higher than thou art critics saying what is and isn't real art? Pull your head out of your...
I like sketches, paintings, charcoals, markers, computers, what have you. I do not worry about the process of how they got there, only the end result.
Maybe you should try to work with "physical brush-and-canvas" once in a while, it's worth the time. ;) I'm sure you will find out that it is an challanging and satisfying experience.
I never suggested that it wasn't, nor did I indicate that I have not or do not currently do exactly that.
I merely objected to the erroneous implication that art made digitally is not handmade.
i also don't think anyone would be upset if he did it by scanning his sketches and coloring them in photoshop either!
now that work is winding down and the game is almost done i myself might make up a thread where we can post up our own interpretations of creatures from the DS MC2. i know a lot of ya'll are artists and i think it would be fun to experiment just for the fun of it!
in any event, the new oba looks pretty cool. perhaps our first assignment should be to do our own version of her and other SKs?
now that work is winding down and the game is almost done i myself might make up a thread where we can post up our own interpretations of creatures from the DS MC2. i know a lot of ya'll are artists and i think it would be fun to experiment just for the fun of it!
in any event, the new oba looks pretty cool. perhaps our first assignment should be to do our own version of her and other SKs?
Go for it!
I might even be inspired enough to take out my wacom too (although I do it just for fun)! I now have a computer that can actually run photoshop, and would love to sketch sketch sketch.
This is the picture I always show my players for the Oba. Not sure what the gorilla thing with horns is next to her but it looks pretty Athasian.
This is the picture I always show my players for the Oba. Not sure what the gorilla thing with horns is next to her but it looks pretty Athasian.
Brom rocks. Haven't looked at the Yin-Sloth cover in a while. The creature is the grimbor.
This is the picture I always show my players for the Oba. Not sure what the gorilla thing with horns is next to her but it looks pretty Athasian.
If I ever play a nganga (templar of Gulg), I'll be using that picture as my character portrait. With a bit of photoshopping, the gorilla-thing could easily be made to look like a spirit companion slave (nganga often multiclass into shaman).
Now all I need to do is persuade somebody to actually DM a DarkSun campaign...