I can't sympathize with your position at all. I think the art looks very nice.
Because tradition!
On a serious sidenote I quit enjoy the art sofar, except that Mulan girl in her dads armor and a deformed hand. That was just poor craftsmanship.
I agree that the barbarian art is bad. It looks like a ranger going through a mid life crisis so he ditches his two-weapon fighting and grabs an axe to prove how manly he is. My first thought on seeing the character was ranger. Who knows, maybe the ranger pic will have a huge, bare chested man with two blades dressed in a loin cloth.
The only piece I've really not liked was the Warlock. The rest I've thought has gone from inoffensive (the Soldier - the biggest issue there being that we can't tell she's a dwarf except by proportion, which makes her look like a disproportionate human) to really kind of amazing (the Barbarian and Bard).
I don't care for the style. Its technically good. There's a lot of good work gone into it. Its just not my thing. But then, art is entirely subjective - its all in the eye of the beholder. There's absolutely no call to say its all bad.
This topic has been covered already and the very, very obvious conclusion is that art is subjective therefore a moot issue for a forum.
Discussion leads to nothing but "I hate it/I don't mind it/I like it" and variations.
It's pointless discussing this further, and your point would have been much better served added to an existing thread than starting another one which will go nowhere, simply because it is the kind of debate that never goes anywhere but the same place, and we know that place already.
The art I've seen so far has been evocative, imaginative, and gives me the sense of something that exists as part of a greater world. The art isn't bad at all. You simply don't like it. There's a big difference.
The cover art has been quite good, not much of the interior art has looked good though. I suppsoe that is a D&D tradition thouygh (1st and 2nd ed).
Also, I have to say that I dislike how you phrased this. I think, perhaps in our passion about the hobby and how strongly we feel about something, we forget that actual people stand behind the game mechanics, the story, and the art. They're putting their stuff out there on a passion product (let's face it, you don't get rich making RPGs). They're putting their heart and soul into this stuff. It's simply rude to call it apalling. You can say that you don't like it, I don't think that's rude. You can explain your reasoning.
But I think people get a little self-centered and forgetful of the feelings of others when they go on to say that "This is objectively appalling!" in regards to the different facets of the game. I think we're better than that. I think we can have a mature discussion about the issues we have without completely disregarding the hard work and passion that goes into the making of these things.
To reiterate: criticism is fine. Being rude is not.
I completely agree. With a few exceptions (some of the covers and the landscape stuff we have seen in the Boing Boing article and on the new website), the art has been bland, uninspiring, and just plain awful. So bad that I am thinking of laying out my own PHB if we are given permissions to use the text in that manner.
As has been stated before, art is completely subjective, but that's my opinion.
DLfan wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Conan definitely fits both Fighter and Rogue a lot better. Probably multiclass Fighter/Rogue with some Barbarian for the unarmored stuff and his occasional battle fury.
I've had mixed reactions to a lot of the art.
I love all of the art I've seen for the covers of the core books and I love the starter set box art.
The books' interior art is not as good in my opinion. I get a sense of realism and excitement from the art on the covers, but the interior art previews have been too cartoony, bright and colorful for my taste in a fantasy setting.
But it won't affect my love for 5E or my playing it in any way.
Azzy1974 wrote:
I still can't see the sailboat.
I completely disagree with the OP, the preview art we've been getting for the new PHB is some of the most stunning work I've ever seen on a D&D book. It reminds me of the works of Alan Lee for LotR, very soft, colorful, stylized. I dont think everyone can possibly be made happy and I expect that some D&D grognards will gnash, but hey, that's the nature of the brand.
I just hope they dont take a step back from what we've been shown, I would hate to see art going back to the 4e Magic the gathering style (which I really did not like).
joeburgos wrote:
I just think the OP likes starting threads about art.
From 12 days ago: Why is there so much negativity when it comes to the art?
I really liked the cover art on the core books and the Tyranny of Dragons art as well. I'm neutral on the art from the class pages in the PHB so far. But I think comments like "5e art is bad so far, give us better" are useless unless you show examples of what you consider good art. Since art is entirely subjective, and some say "sucks" and others say "wonderful!", How is WOTC supposed to address your concern if you don't show them art that you WOULD like?
The bard does look good. I prefer the starter set art to the core book art I've seen so far.
thespaceinvader wrote:
Offhand I have absolutely no idea. I could probably find out, but not at work.
I'm glad this thread is started. I couldn't agree more.
First, the cover of the basic set, is blah and non-memorable. The internal art and the other art produced so far (that we're seeing) is NOT up to the quality expected of the world's flagship RPG.
It's as if wotc is so hung up on the rules, they forgot that having good, finished-looking art is so much more desirable than what we're getting.
You're not going to attract a 12 year old with "really great rules" on blah pages with blah artwork.
Sure, the art is adequate and completely boring, but it looks cheap, and feels cheap.
If low-rent companies can get good artwork, wotc should too.
jh
Emirikol wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
1) The art overall has been met with positivity on the internet. So if "pleasing most of the people most of the time" was the goal of the art, they met that goal;
2) Their art budget is very high, higher than their competitors art budget, and uses a lot of well known and well liked fantasy artists - nothing was outsourced to China, you can find the names of the artists if you look around, and a lot of them have worked for Pathfinder in the past as well, and there was even a brief discussion elsewhere about how WOTC "took all the good artists" for a while leaving some competitors to have to deal with delays or alternative artists;
3) Art is subjective. So, to say a company needs to change to meet your tastes, is ludicrous. They're not your servants. They work to please most of the people most of the time.
So you can't find anything else to complain about...
Where was the Soldier art previewed?
I have liked the 5th Edition artwork, with the exceptions of the Warlock from the PHB and the Halflings from the new Web site (the female, on the Races page, has too large a head; and the musician, on the Halflings page, has too small lower legs and feet).
I think the art is nice but i really like the style they are going with in 5e
Personally, I don't care. The art in a rulebook is an extra to me, and utterly unnecessary.
Honestly, the book could have a plain white cover with just the title, and not a single picture at all inside, and it wouldn't affect my purchasing of it.
I buy a rulebook for the rules. If I want art, I'd buy an art book. In a way, I somewhat resent that page space is being wasted with pictures when it could have more crunch, or examples of how to rule in odd circumstances.
I believe that the 5e artwork is a deliberate reaction to the common criticisms of 4e and PF artwork (who shared a lot of the same artists) as being too "anime", having too many sharp lines, containing exagerrated weapon sizes, featuring attractive white females with ample bosoms, etc. So they kind of are going with this pastoral, pastel, muted watercolor approach on most of the interior art weve seen, with few, if any, of the figures allowed be physically attractive. I def think its subjective whether u like the current art or not, but I dont think its debatable thats its reactionary to 4e and PF. Personally, I will always look at 1st edition AD&D as the pinnacle of D&D art (Sutherland, Otus, Trampier, Easley, etc).
I love the Cover art. The illistrations we've seen so far are imo "a mixed bag" if you will. I like the female Dwarf. The warlock looks like a little girl trick or treating to me, and the Barbarian is lack luster as well. The soldier Background art of the female warrior in Eastern armor is "bleh". The monsters have been very cool. I liked the Starter set art. I hope for more of that gritty realistic style. the closer the art is to Wayne Reynolds the more I think it Sux. Death to Dungeon Punk! 
There will be no 6th, 7th, 8th editions, or anymore beyond 5th. I have spoken with an employee of Wizards of the Coast. Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition (which is what the gamers call it), actually only has the official name of "Dungeons and Dragons". The game system is a living system that will be updated from time to time, evolving from player opinion through surveys.
Figured I would try with my tablet.
Here is another.
And another.
I like this style of art.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Can we get the usual crowd of math monkeys in here to quantitatively over analyze and prove why the art in this edition is better than all the previous editions? I am certain they can spin the propellors on their heads and come up with some crazy triatic equation thingy.
Zardnaar wrote:
I like about 80% of the art so far.
It must be a hard life, to be so invested in something you dislike that it's a major forum of your internet life, only to have to wallow in your unhappiness and disappointment. Hopefully OP can find some joy one day.
frothsof wrote:
Jaden.Shadowcraft wrote:
frothsof wrote:
Novacat wrote:
While i think the the art in 6E will be hopefully even better than 5E, i think 5E art has been fabulous so far IMHO! 
I LOVED the art in the Starter Set. I think it was up to par with Elmore's excellent classic D&D art.
Aside that, the art pieces that I 've seen so far in the PHB make me say "meh"...
I hated the Warlock (a little girl and a frog, freakin' please...), I hated the geisha soldier and I hate this more than anything so far:
I am not inspired by the art but it's all very personal. If someone loves it, well great who am I to say what they like is appalling. It might not be for me but not everything is for me. the picture I use for my little icon makes me want to play a cleric or paladin of helm, I wouldn't appreciate someone telling me it was appalling and I wouldn't do it to others. I might suggest art that I do like, as I just did, but that's as far as I go. Enjoy all.
Caliburn101. wrote:
-1 to OP.
I like the art.
I like the art, looks good. I think they should branch out a bit more, with different artists.
Mr_Treegins wrote:
With as much good art, or different art, or alternative styles as there are available on the internet and sites like Deviantart, is this really even an issue?? 
I like the 5e art so far. I like the 3e/4e/PF art as well, for different reasons.
I liked the 2e covers. Those oil paintings were good.
It is true that if you google fantasy illustration, search through sites like Creature Spot, check out Deviant Art, or look at some of the better MtG art, there is better. But few TTRPGs/games come close to WotC in the art department. That is almost undeniable. FF and GW do, of course. As does Paizo.
What I like about the 5e art is that it's not too over the top, well, at least the PC background and PC class art isn't.
I am dissapointed in the cartoony halfling and gnome. 4e made them look pretty badass for little people. But that's really it.
Look at it this way. When you walk into a world class art museum (MOMA, the Met, National Gallery in DC, Leuvre, etc.) do you like every piece? I doubt it. I bet you'd respect many, but not want copies on your living room walls. You probably pick 5+ or so that you love out of 100's, however. You might even stand in front of them for more than 5 seconds!
Everyone knows art is subjective. And 99.9999999% of all fantasy game illustration will never be in a museum. Heck, HR Gieger is dead now, and even he's had problems getting into museums (So he bought and opened his own 
). He was 'better', IMO, than anyone who's ever worked for a RPG publisher.
Haters jus' gon' hate. And apparantly, it's not even their fault.
Science!
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Personally I'm hoping that the opinions in 6th edition are of higher quality than the ones I'm seeing in 5th edition.
I hope that a 6th edition won't be necessary. From what I've seen and played of 5e so far, it just might be a good enough system to make sure that happens. Just hope it sells.
Oh, and I like the art.
The interior art so far is more meh to me than out right bad. Its better than WAR art though on PF covers but there best art seems to be i the APs where WAR doensn't make much of an appearance.
Xun ofr modern art I like the pieces you posted.
thewok wrote:
Compliation thread on ENworld for the art. I missed some of it and looking at it togather outside the covers the art is actually kind of bad.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?357371-How-much-of-the-PHB-have-we-seen-Maybe-more-than-you-think!
Personally I like the less cartoony stuff. Glad they're using multiple artists. Really like this one:
http://i.imgur.com/uL5Xmr2.jpg?1?6870
I kinda love these threads where the person is so very sure they are the one to judge what is good and bad that they just alert us to their latest discovery of badness. Because everyone else needs that.
The next time anyone is really certain about the quality of something, think of the OP.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Art is fantastic.
No pun intended.
Other then the Cover art there has not been much that has grabbed my attention.
Maybe the Human Drizzt wanabe, he looks cool.
seti wrote:
Well, would you look at all those people with objectively wrong opinions. They sure are stupid, huh *insert your username here*? The art style that those people like is dumb, unlike the style that we like, which is great!
I've only got issue with the Starter Set.
The art for the soldier looks pencil drawn. The dragon looks half-finished. There is no POP, there is no MOXY. It doesn't look appropriate for something thats supposed to sit on a shelf at TARGET and pull your eyes in and say BUY ME.
It doesn't say BUY ME. It says dull, green, drab. The interior art of the boxed set seems appropriate (but I kind of have to laugh when I think that the first art a 12 year old is going to see inside the cover is a bunch of people laying round a campfire doing nothing while an old geezer snorts out his wisdom ;)
jh
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
I like most of the artworks, especially the front covers.
CelticPaladin wrote:
kalil wrote:
Friendy reminder: World of Warcraft ≠ Magic: the Gathering ≠ almost any anime.
Each are separate worlds of stylization. Also: 4e (Xmas lights and midriff armor) ≠ 3e (dungeonpunk).
It may be more helpful to link to images one likes alongside ones we don't...or at least explain what one likes/dislikes about D&D art without using any word that could serve as a one-word insult or complement (such words being too subjective).
Cennedi wrote:
Classic AD&D B&W artwork:
Love it!
DLfan wrote:
Paladin (LG only) 
Cennedi wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Maybe they should have used four pictures for every illustration: one for each edition 1e-4e. This way everyone's favorite art would feel fully-inclusive in this edition too.
I love most of the art, and like the rest, EXCEPT for the barbarian picture.... I think he looks far too civilized. Overall very impressed by the 5e art thus far.
gone is the time of artists like Brom(for D&D at least) ,sadly this is the era of digital art and mediocre jobber.
Deal with it.
I'm not seeing the "Dungeon Punk," whatever that is.
What is with all this "it's not nice to say something bad" or "let's use different words" etc.?
Look, when you start selling your art for money, you better get used to it when people tell you your art is bad. I am a paying customer which means I have standards that I want met. Also, by expressing how I feel honestly and not just being nice for the hell of it, maybe next time we will get better quality.
I start to question who lives in the real world and who never left their fantasy one.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I much prefer the 5E art to the comic-book 4E art. I like that they have gone with a more natural-media look, and I like the watercolour style sketchy pieces. I like some bts more than others, and I like the intternal art more than the covers (the Starter Set has the best cover art so far in my opinion, followed by the Tyranny of Dragons books. I think the Handbooks covers are too close to comic-book 4E stuff.
SO It hink 5E art is headed in the right direction, but I would have liked it tof go even further towards classical painting style. I think fanatrsy art looks best when it's not trying too hard to be "awesome", and I lke to an artists own style in her work..
emwasick wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
DLfan wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
DLfan wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
The Dothraki from Game of Thrones remind me of barbarians.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
DLfan wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
DLfan wrote:
I would prefer more black & white internal art.
Brock_Landers wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
To avoid the giant quote tree, I was thinking of basically something involving flower power instead of raging or something. But it's friday afternoon and my brain no work good now.
thespaceinvader wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Coltrane was always interesting, though often not sonically pleasing.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I love jazz. Coltrane spent a large portion of his career exploring discordant/non-harmonic music. Harsh tones and chaos were his form of expression, which was extremely interesting musically, just not very (traditionally) pleasing to the ear.
Dave Brubeck is also really crappy to dance to, but that'll happen when you stray from 4/4 or 3/4 time signatures.
Gunthar wrote:
Ah, so you really don't know squat about jazz and music, got it. I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone.
I have not liked the art for the Player's Handbook so far.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
seti wrote:
Damn, I forgot Charlie Parker.
Sorry.
I'm a little loopy; I just got a new job...Shxt has been interesting, tragic, and Bahamut-ic in my life these days....
Peace; D&D sisters and brothers.
frothsof wrote: