i frequently see people decrying the state of magic art, and i will agree that it is slipping quite a bit. (vizier of deferment has some of my least favorite art of all time) but i often see people call it "cgi", or "3d models" here, and that is just patently false. it really conveys a lack of art knowledge. just because an illustration is done digitally on a computer doesn't mean it is "computer rendered". a good digital artist can make a digital painting that is just as effective as a traditional painting.
painting is an action. a computer is a tool. you can paint on a computer. you can paint on a canvas. you can draw with paint. the media doesn't define the process.
sorry for the little rant but if you want to be an art critic you should better understand what you're talking about. your opinions are valuable and using the correct terms will prevent people from dismissing them.
The character on Electrify looks bland, overpolished and/or under-rendered, but she's not what I'd call a "3D model".
Steve Argyle art probably comes closest to actual 3D models: Glistener Elf (New Phyrexia), Liliana of the Veil, Bloodfray Giant, Soul-Scar Mage, Seize the Initiative. He may be my absolute least favourite artist when it comes to Magic, his stuff just feels sterile and sometimes even amateurish (although I certainly couldn't do better, but that's not the point). It only looks good when the camera is zoomed out (Admonition Angel) or when he masks the lifeless visuals with actually interesting poses or composition (Monastery Swiftspear).
I too have noticed a tendency towards artwork that looks rushed or unfinished. It's not necessary to have every pore of someone's skin visible because the art box is relatively small, but the picture shouldn't look stiff and awkward at least. Oketra's Avenger and Pathmaker Initiate are two bad examples (incidentally, the art for those cards comes from different artists, but it could as well be from the same person...).
steve argyle's work does generally look too a bit too smooth and posed. it's like airbrush paintings...and honestly some of his stuff featuring women feels a bit trashy. like something you'd see on the side of a low rider.
i frequently see people decrying the state of magic art, and i will agree that it is slipping quite a bit. (vizier of deferment has some of my least favorite art of all time) but i often see people call it "cgi", or "3d models" here, and that is just patently false. it really conveys a lack of art knowledge. just because an illustration is done digitally on a computer doesn't mean it is "computer rendered". a good digital artist can make a digital painting that is just as effective as a traditional painting.
What bothers me more is that people often completely misidentify art as being digital when it was painted by hand on canvas (and vice versa), because for some reason a lot of people have come to equate smooth, clean work with digital process.
Steve Argyle art probably comes closest to actual 3D models: Glistener Elf (New Phyrexia), Liliana of the Veil, Bloodfray Giant, Soul-Scar Mage, Seize the Initiative. He may be my absolute least favourite artist when it comes to Magic, his stuff just feels sterile and sometimes even amateurish (although I certainly couldn't do better, but that's not the point). It only looks good when the camera is zoomed out (Admonition Angel) or when he masks the lifeless visuals with actually interesting poses or composition (Monastery Swiftspear).
In what universe does Glistener Elf look even remotely like a 3D model? I'm going to guess in the same made-up universe that Soul-Scar Mage looks sterile and amateurish but Monastery Swiftspear doesn't (for the record, I don't think either does, but they're similar enough in composition that saying one looks amateurish while the other is fine will be a very hard sell).
They're trying to create a unified brand. The reason they don't want multiple different art styles in one set is because it becomes harder to communicate the identity of the set (or on a larger scale, MTG as a whole). With Magic art, Wizards wants people to know that it is specifically a Magic card and even more so that it BELONGS in this block/set/etc.
Having art direction on a set isn't about branding, although you're right that it has to do with communicating the identity of a set. Magic is failry unique as a card game in the way that each new block builds a new world, and each set tells its own story. Building a cohesive world and telling a consistent story requires direction. It's the same as having art direction on a video game, animated series, or graphic novel (or really any form of illustrated storytelling). It's about making sure the art on the cards is identifiable as a part of the world and story of the set in question. It has nothing to do with making sure people know it's Magic (there's plenty else that lets them do this without sacrificing the integrity of their artists).
It is absolutely about branding. Having CONSISTENT art direction within a world, whether in a video game or elsewhere IS about branding. Yes, you want the world to have an identity - what do you think identity is? Identity is the brand. Games have an art direction to reflect the world that was built to make sure that you know what game you're playing just by looking at it. Borderlands, Skyrim, Halo, etc. They are all recognizable by their design and that is 100% intentional and it is 100% about solidifying the brand.
Each set, each plane, has it's own identifiers but there is a reason that the art feels more and more similar across different planes today than it did years ago. Wizards still has their pick of artists to commission their work. Wizards creates the art direction and then approves the final format from multiple submissions the artist creates. Again, it's all 100% intentional to make sure that the identity (see "branding") is communicated and consistent.
I'm not hating on the artists at all. I have a massive respect for them as an amateur artist, I wish I dedicated the time and had the creativity to be 1% of what these artists are. Frankly, I'm not upset with the way cards look today. I actually really enjoy the aesthetics. But, I would love to see more of the dreamy style of Rebecca Guay and Terese Nielsen. Many people seem to agree with that opinion. So, why doesn't it happen more commonly? If Wizards wanted to, they could find a lot of other artists with similar style to Rebecca and Terese. But that doesn't fit the aesthetic brand that Magic is going for of late. That wasn't always the case, but in recent years it's hard to argue against it...
I wouldn't call it insulting, I'd call it reasoned criticism. Sure, maybe you wouldn't like to hear this as a artist, but I'm just explaining how I feel. And I feel like many artworks today are NOT works of passion, but more like run of the mill products. This is especially true for cards at lower rarities, though not exclusively. I'll show you 2 artworks for crappy commons, one from Amonkhet, one from Odyssee, maybe you can see my point.
This artwork is full of beautiful colors and totally has soul, it has a profile and I can feel how the artist loved what he was doing.
This artwork looks like it was done just to match Wizards guidelines, looking cool for little kids maybe, but it lacks detail and character. It feels like a Screenshot from a beta version of a crappy Computer game.
Cherrypicking to prove a point? Classy. If you think that there was no forgettable artwork in Odyssey, then you have a serious case of nostalgia goggles.
Also, the art direction in Odyssey and Onslaught was an absolute low point in Magic. It was just as "restrictive" as today's art style, but veered dangerously close to putty-like goofiness. You can be a fan of Magic's early variety of its modern cleanliness, but Odyssey/Onslaught (and I'd count Mirrodin as well) were objectively bad.
I can kinda see where people are coming from by saying that modern Magic art is homogeneous, but it's not like the variety of the old days was all good.
-Justin Hampton's art looked flat and cartoony. Between that and the excessively bright colors, I'm reminded of crappy third-party comic books.
-For every truly beautiful piece that Jesper Myrfors turned in, he turned in another that was hideous. Also, he illustrated Word of Command.
-Harold McNeill always draws the same wispy nothings.
-George Pratt is so rough and messy, it looks like he only gets 70%-80% done before handing in his paintings.
-The Foglios' art was always better suited for webcomics and graphic novels than tcg illustrations.
-The art for Stasis is so bad, it should be illegal. People constantly defend it with "I like abstract art!" as though being abstract is an excuse for being badly drawn. Visions of Beyond, Mind Funeral, and 10th ed Terror are all great abstract pieces. I'm a pretty ***** artist, so I don't think it's asking much to want MtG art to be better than something I could draw.
And that's just scratching the surface. I'd rather have magic art be uniformly good than uniquely awful. The only old artist I really miss is Rebecca Guay, and even then, I acknowledge that her style wouldn't be suited for every block.
In what universe does Glistener Elf look even remotely like a 3D model? I'm going to guess in the same made-up universe that Soul-Scar Mage looks sterile and amateurish but Monastery Swiftspear doesn't (for the record, I don't think either does, but they're similar enough in composition that saying one looks amateurish while the other is fine will be a very hard sell).
This is why arguing about art is kinda pointless. I like Monastery Swiftspear because it looks very dynamic, Soul-Scar Mage tries to do the same but just looks stiff somehow. And while the New Phyrexia art Glistener Elf doesn't exactly look like one of those 3D renders you sometimes see on Pokémon cards, it certainly is one of the most 3D-ish artworks out there imo.
Personally, I think Magic art was at it's best between the Kamigawa and Alara blocks - but maybe that's just bias because I was playing pretty heavily during that time.
I'm not so much of a fan of what is often described as older card art; I always found the older character designs to be a little too cheesy and/or ridiculous (good example: Akroma's purple/white color scheme, purple hair inclusive ... just why?). Overall I think I like the newer art better, but I think they could loosen their grip on art direction a bit. Rebecca Guays basic lands from Commander 2016 are popular enough that Wizards decided to give them out as promos/rewards after all, it really seems like stylistic variety is something the majority enjoys.
Personally, I think Magic art was at it's best between the Kamigawa and Alara blocks - but maybe that's just bias because I was playing pretty heavily during that time.
This is funny, because I remember saying the exact same things about Phytohydra back in the day.
So... pirates, scientifically accurate Dinosaurs, explorers and legendary cities. So... it's basically Road to Eldorado: The Block? I dig it.
I found it annoyingly dumb the way way he postured in the video to mention "historically accurate". Some dinos had feathers, some did not. Why even mention that the the physical body of the dinosaur being fought by the gorgon who can travel between worlds and raise the dead is currently fighting is 25% based on reality?
So... pirates, scientifically accurate Dinosaurs, explorers and legendary cities. So... it's basically Road to Eldorado: The Block? I dig it.
I found it annoyingly dumb the way way he postured in the video to mention "historically accurate". Some dinos had feathers, some did not. Why even mention that the the physical body of the dinosaur being fought by the gorgon who can travel between worlds and raise the dead is currently fighting is 25% based on reality?
/end pointless rant on a trivial pet peeve
probably to call out the fact to avoid the backlash that Jurassic world received
probably to call out the fact to avoid the backlash that Jurassic world received
That got backlash? Really?
1. It would have been AWFUL to not have the raptor/Trex iconic look return
2. They addressed that the look of the dinos was heavily influenced by the scientists
3. Its a fantasy. Go nuts. We arent even 100% positive many species had feathers or scales (though there are strong and highly likely theories to support either one for various species)
Feel like people giving backlash over that are either anti-fun puritans or people trying to look smart but dont actually know the research and reasoning behind theories on how they looked. Willing to bet they read a headline about "Dinosaurs had feathers, no scales" headline, read half of the first paragraph of the article, and considered themselves experts. lol
Anyway, apologies for slightly derailing the thread
So... pirates, scientifically accurate Dinosaurs, explorers and legendary cities. So... it's basically Road to Eldorado: The Block? I dig it.
I found it annoyingly dumb the way way he postured in the video to mention "historically accurate". Some dinos had feathers, some did not. Why even mention that the the physical body of the dinosaur being fought by the gorgon who can travel between worlds and raise the dead is currently fighting is 25% based on reality?
/end pointless rant on a trivial pet peeve
probably to call out the fact to avoid the backlash that Jurassic world received
That movie got more "backlash" about a character in high heels outrunning a T-Rex than it did about how the dinos looked, and by that I mean the feathers and their aesthetic look although there was plenty on how they didn't look great thanks to the CG.
As for the dinos here. It's nice to see dinos with feathers. Those saying it's purely accurate are right, in that some had feathers, but they are wrong thinking that ALL of them had feathers, which isn't 100% correct.
Spectra Ward has some of the worst art in my opinion cause it just reminds me of Final Fantasy 11. Theres using 3D art techniques to make it quicker/easier to work than there's sacrificing quality.
There's no 3D in Spectra Ward's art. It's just a digital painting.
Spectra Ward has some of the worst art in my opinion cause it just reminds me of Final Fantasy 11. Theres using 3D art techniques to make it quicker/easier to work than there's sacrificing quality.
There's no 3D in Spectra Ward's art. It's just a digital painting.
this. with possibly the exception of the card energy tap (?) i don't think there has ever been a magic card with cgi artwork. calling digital paintings "CGI" is like calling a ps4 a "Nintendo". kind of embarrassing.
I like vulture headed raptors, especially if they were on a black card. Considering we know very little of how the flesh actually hung on dinosaurs they can really customize them to fit the colors they are supposed to be a part of which I think is great. Though it does look like they went a little overboard with feathers...
So... pirates, scientifically accurate Dinosaurs, explorers and legendary cities. So... it's basically Road to Eldorado: The Block? I dig it.
I found it annoyingly dumb the way way he postured in the video to mention "historically accurate". Some dinos had feathers, some did not. Why even mention that the the physical body of the dinosaur being fought by the gorgon who can travel between worlds and raise the dead is currently fighting is 25% based on reality?
/end pointless rant on a trivial pet peeve
probably to call out the fact to avoid the backlash that Jurassic world received
That movie got more "backlash" about a character in high heels outrunning a T-Rex than it did about how the dinos looked, and by that I mean the feathers and their aesthetic look although there was plenty on how they didn't look great thanks to the CG.
As for the dinos here. It's nice to see dinos with feathers. Those saying it's purely accurate are right, in that some had feathers, but they are wrong thinking that ALL of them had feathers, which isn't 100% correct.
probably to call out the fact to avoid the backlash that Jurassic world received
That got backlash? Really?
1. It would have been AWFUL to not have the raptor/Trex iconic look return
2. They addressed that the look of the dinos was heavily influenced by the scientists
3. Its a fantasy. Go nuts. We arent even 100% positive many species had feathers or scales (though there are strong and highly likely theories to support either one for various species)
Feel like people giving backlash over that are either anti-fun puritans or people trying to look smart but dont actually know the research and reasoning behind theories on how they looked. Willing to bet they read a headline about "Dinosaurs had feathers, no scales" headline, read half of the first paragraph of the article, and considered themselves experts. lol
Anyway, apologies for slightly derailing the thread
This isn't the only source for it but yeah, it's out there. Someone always has to have a reason to be disappointed or "triggered."
It's not my personal opinion that there was a problem with the dinosaur design in Jurassic World or in Ixalan for that matter. I like creative license and I agree that Jurassic World was working with the iconic designs the franchise had produced.
I'm a fan of taking artistic license and deviating from the source material in a fantasy setting. Bring on the DINOS!!
Saw the posts here are surgin & was hopin for Ixalan speculation & news.
Only saw debate bout art & other insignificant stuff.
@ least Spoilers start next week
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
the Jurassic Park movie didn't get any backlash about that, what are you talking about? They specifically had a line of dialogue in the movie explaining why the dinosaurs look the way they do
i frequently see people decrying the state of magic art, and i will agree that it is slipping quite a bit. (vizier of deferment has some of my least favorite art of all time) but i often see people call it "cgi", or "3d models" here, and that is just patently false. it really conveys a lack of art knowledge. just because an illustration is done digitally on a computer doesn't mean it is "computer rendered". a good digital artist can make a digital painting that is just as effective as a traditional painting.
painting is an action. a computer is a tool. you can paint on a computer. you can paint on a canvas. you can draw with paint. the media doesn't define the process.
sorry for the little rant but if you want to be an art critic you should better understand what you're talking about. your opinions are valuable and using the correct terms will prevent people from dismissing them.
Steve Argyle art probably comes closest to actual 3D models: Glistener Elf (New Phyrexia), Liliana of the Veil, Bloodfray Giant, Soul-Scar Mage, Seize the Initiative. He may be my absolute least favourite artist when it comes to Magic, his stuff just feels sterile and sometimes even amateurish (although I certainly couldn't do better, but that's not the point). It only looks good when the camera is zoomed out (Admonition Angel) or when he masks the lifeless visuals with actually interesting poses or composition (Monastery Swiftspear).
I too have noticed a tendency towards artwork that looks rushed or unfinished. It's not necessary to have every pore of someone's skin visible because the art box is relatively small, but the picture shouldn't look stiff and awkward at least. Oketra's Avenger and Pathmaker Initiate are two bad examples (incidentally, the art for those cards comes from different artists, but it could as well be from the same person...).
What bothers me more is that people often completely misidentify art as being digital when it was painted by hand on canvas (and vice versa), because for some reason a lot of people have come to equate smooth, clean work with digital process.
In what universe does Glistener Elf look even remotely like a 3D model? I'm going to guess in the same made-up universe that Soul-Scar Mage looks sterile and amateurish but Monastery Swiftspear doesn't (for the record, I don't think either does, but they're similar enough in composition that saying one looks amateurish while the other is fine will be a very hard sell).
It is absolutely about branding. Having CONSISTENT art direction within a world, whether in a video game or elsewhere IS about branding. Yes, you want the world to have an identity - what do you think identity is? Identity is the brand. Games have an art direction to reflect the world that was built to make sure that you know what game you're playing just by looking at it. Borderlands, Skyrim, Halo, etc. They are all recognizable by their design and that is 100% intentional and it is 100% about solidifying the brand.
Each set, each plane, has it's own identifiers but there is a reason that the art feels more and more similar across different planes today than it did years ago. Wizards still has their pick of artists to commission their work. Wizards creates the art direction and then approves the final format from multiple submissions the artist creates. Again, it's all 100% intentional to make sure that the identity (see "branding") is communicated and consistent.
I'm not hating on the artists at all. I have a massive respect for them as an amateur artist, I wish I dedicated the time and had the creativity to be 1% of what these artists are. Frankly, I'm not upset with the way cards look today. I actually really enjoy the aesthetics. But, I would love to see more of the dreamy style of Rebecca Guay and Terese Nielsen. Many people seem to agree with that opinion. So, why doesn't it happen more commonly? If Wizards wanted to, they could find a lot of other artists with similar style to Rebecca and Terese. But that doesn't fit the aesthetic brand that Magic is going for of late. That wasn't always the case, but in recent years it's hard to argue against it...
Cherrypicking to prove a point? Classy. If you think that there was no forgettable artwork in Odyssey, then you have a serious case of nostalgia goggles.
Also, the art direction in Odyssey and Onslaught was an absolute low point in Magic. It was just as "restrictive" as today's art style, but veered dangerously close to putty-like goofiness. You can be a fan of Magic's early variety of its modern cleanliness, but Odyssey/Onslaught (and I'd count Mirrodin as well) were objectively bad.
-Justin Hampton's art looked flat and cartoony. Between that and the excessively bright colors, I'm reminded of crappy third-party comic books.
-For every truly beautiful piece that Jesper Myrfors turned in, he turned in another that was hideous. Also, he illustrated Word of Command.
-Harold McNeill always draws the same wispy nothings.
-George Pratt is so rough and messy, it looks like he only gets 70%-80% done before handing in his paintings.
-The Foglios' art was always better suited for webcomics and graphic novels than tcg illustrations.
-The art for Stasis is so bad, it should be illegal. People constantly defend it with "I like abstract art!" as though being abstract is an excuse for being badly drawn. Visions of Beyond, Mind Funeral, and 10th ed Terror are all great abstract pieces. I'm a pretty ***** artist, so I don't think it's asking much to want MtG art to be better than something I could draw.
And that's just scratching the surface. I'd rather have magic art be uniformly good than uniquely awful. The only old artist I really miss is Rebecca Guay, and even then, I acknowledge that her style wouldn't be suited for every block.
Personally, I think Magic art was at it's best between the Kamigawa and Alara blocks - but maybe that's just bias because I was playing pretty heavily during that time.
I'm not so much of a fan of what is often described as older card art; I always found the older character designs to be a little too cheesy and/or ridiculous (good example: Akroma's purple/white color scheme, purple hair inclusive ... just why?). Overall I think I like the newer art better, but I think they could loosen their grip on art direction a bit. Rebecca Guays basic lands from Commander 2016 are popular enough that Wizards decided to give them out as promos/rewards after all, it really seems like stylistic variety is something the majority enjoys.
This is funny, because I remember saying the exact same things about Phytohydra back in the day.
I found it annoyingly dumb the way way he postured in the video to mention "historically accurate". Some dinos had feathers, some did not. Why even mention that the the physical body of the dinosaur being fought by the gorgon who can travel between worlds and raise the dead is currently fighting is 25% based on reality?
/end pointless rant on a trivial pet peeve
That got backlash? Really?
1. It would have been AWFUL to not have the raptor/Trex iconic look return
2. They addressed that the look of the dinos was heavily influenced by the scientists
3. Its a fantasy. Go nuts. We arent even 100% positive many species had feathers or scales (though there are strong and highly likely theories to support either one for various species)
Feel like people giving backlash over that are either anti-fun puritans or people trying to look smart but dont actually know the research and reasoning behind theories on how they looked. Willing to bet they read a headline about "Dinosaurs had feathers, no scales" headline, read half of the first paragraph of the article, and considered themselves experts. lol
Anyway, apologies for slightly derailing the thread
That movie got more "backlash" about a character in high heels outrunning a T-Rex than it did about how the dinos looked, and by that I mean the feathers and their aesthetic look although there was plenty on how they didn't look great thanks to the CG.
As for the dinos here. It's nice to see dinos with feathers. Those saying it's purely accurate are right, in that some had feathers, but they are wrong thinking that ALL of them had feathers, which isn't 100% correct.
this. with possibly the exception of the card energy tap (?) i don't think there has ever been a magic card with cgi artwork. calling digital paintings "CGI" is like calling a ps4 a "Nintendo". kind of embarrassing.
Alters
https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/dec/04/scientists-disappointed-jurassic-world-dinosaurs-movie-film
This isn't the only source for it but yeah, it's out there. Someone always has to have a reason to be disappointed or "triggered."
It's not my personal opinion that there was a problem with the dinosaur design in Jurassic World or in Ixalan for that matter. I like creative license and I agree that Jurassic World was working with the iconic designs the franchise had produced.
I'm a fan of taking artistic license and deviating from the source material in a fantasy setting. Bring on the DINOS!!
Only saw debate bout art & other insignificant stuff.
@ least Spoilers start next week
Well maybe next week, bloop;
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/exploring-ixalan-exploring-our-world-2017-08-14
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
It will happen next week
I'm 110% sure they will take pictures of the preview cards in the caches and post them on Facebook/twitter/Reddit/wherever.
I want to see team dinosaur go to the max today
Ofcoarse the only slight delay is for those near or In Wyoming for the Solar eclipse
I'd probably be doing dinosaur from the get go, if I had a phone and also knew what the geocaching thing was even about.