Bingo. Too fake and too cartoony. This seems like a particularly poor decision for a Victorian / classic horror themed set. The same art would've been gorgeous as an oil painting.
The same art as an oil painting would have looked the same.
I have noticed a lot of people are deeply mis-guided by the merits or lack of suck on media. If Argyle is as good with oil as he is with digital painting an oil rendition of this illustration would look just the same because that's how he wanted it to look.
Media doesn't make things magically better, it's just colour and texture, notthing more than what digital paint is.
It's Liliana Vess you're looking at, not a sweet apple pie, it's pretty obvious by everything in the composition, you should feel uneasy when you look at her, and the tilt on the pose makes that work very well. Illustration is meant to send a message, not look like an academic depiction of reality, the fact this piece communicates so well makes it a great illustration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes sir, I take fantasy art and character design commissions, PM me for rates.
Seductiveness X (When this card declares an attack, you may have your opponent tap X target non-"Insert color of the card" creature he/she controls.)
X is a variable number depending each card.
Sorta like a..."Hey baby don't hurt me please? *puts finger on lips*"
Nay, I think it'd be more along the lines of Alluring Siren. Basically a ability that forces the opponent/opponent's creatures to do something to your advantage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Once I saw the art in the card frame, it looks better, so its actually growing on me...But when I heard that Lili will have a 2.0 in INN I was so excited, I actually expected something along the lines of this...
I rapidly whipped this mess up, which in no way is meant to disrespect anybody, I just wanted to show what I was expecting, but now that this has grown on me a bit, im sure by the time INN is released I'll be going bat**** crazy over her anyways!
So lemme see if I understand the two mindsets here: 1) "Ooo sexy I love it." 2) "I'm an art expert with an extreme case of vertigo I hate it."
I don't know a thing about art, but I know about computer graphics and phong shading and liliana looks exactly like a character in a next generation world of warcraft, not a piece of art. Shes as shiny as a robot, one sparkly away from a little pony.
Specifically, what is wrong with Liliana here is called the Uncanny Valley
Take a look at a shot like this: (and don't look too long or you'll go blind)
That's Terese's Elvish Ranger, of course. Similar, uh, "subject matter"
But which of these two images looks more *human*? Its an interesting question, because one is clearly a 'low resolution' drawing made by paint/color penciles/crayons/whatever, while the other is closer to photo quality. Yet the busty ranger looks a heck of a lot more human to me precisely because she looks less human to me. I instantly recognize, subconsciously, that this is a painting, a work of art. But when I look at Liliana here, she looks more like a photograph of something that is not quite human, and I'm drawn to the features that *don't* look realistic. Picking out the air in the full glass instead of the water in the empty one, so to speak.
So the uncanny valley might not be the exact thought I'm looking for, since its not something avoided so much by going inhuman shapes, but rather by less photo-realistic means. And it doesn't imply that high resolution photorealism in CGI is necessarily bad (but mind you it is, overall, imo)- there are plenty of techniques you can use to make art look distinctly unrealistic even with 'realistic' graphics. But the CGI here is just a major turn off.
I mean to put it in one line, when I look at this art, I see all the unrealistic things on a mostly realistic picture. When I look at a *normal* piece of art, I see all the realistic things on an unrealistic picture. Its a subconscious pessimism, and it makes this picture look like crap
ANYONE suggesting that this piece is anything other than amazing and gorgeous is just a troll angling for a post count with no understanding of the artist or his amazing talent.
Yeah, because anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. I got another idea about who's trolling who.
Anyway, I don't like either art. The first one feels way more digital than any MtG art should in my opinion, with Liliana looking like an unnatural doll. The second one... well, let me just put it this way: less is more. There is so much unneeded detail that the final piece looks like a convoluted mess. (Plus everything I said about the first piece, obviously.)
I'm not liking this art nearly as much as I like the usual Planeswalker stuff. The digital painting on it, while good, is a little wonky in some areas, and although thats usually just fine with magic art, on Planeswalkers the art usually comes off as photorealistic, and almost always looks near perfect.
You're saying that you LIKE the art on Gideon? DD Liliana? Book Jace? JtMS? Sarkhan Vol/Mad? Tezzeret the Seeker? Hmmm...
That's exactly what I'm saying. I actually think DD Liliana is the best planeswalker art in the game so far. Also, none of the other planeswalkers look this plasticky and fake. Honestly, the art looks like a teenager's facebook profile pic who thinks tilting the camera is cool (what's up with that?). I think Argyle did an AMAZING job on Chandra, Snuff Out, and a plethora of other cards, but this just isn't good.
But hey, art is subjective. Artists realize that, he gets paid at the end of the day, and I'm just a random person on a message board.
Also, none of the other planeswalkers look this plasticky and fake. Honestly, the art looks like a teenager's facebook profile pic who thinks tilting the camera is cool (what's up with that?).
This is exactly what I think. Plasticky. Fake. A teenager's facebook profile pic. Seriously, I couldn't say it any better.
So no, I didn't like the art it either. Let's hope that at least the card will be good.
I'm really crushed I didn't get here in time to make a cor(e)set pun. =[
I loled because I am tired and didn't get the first joke.
oh and this artwork is terribly awesome. I have never bought a playmat, but I might buy one with this on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
I know I'm late to say this, but for myself, I actually am glad they didn't use the second art for the final piece. It is a beautiful piece, of course, but even though I am a guy, I'm sometimes sick of random sex-ification (or sexy-fication, your call) of female characters. In this case, the second art's random hip slits are over-the-top in terms of sexiness, considering that Lili is already a very sexy evil lady.
But I do admit the second art's background is just plain badass. Here's hoping that at least it will be reused.
As an artist myself this conversation has actually managed to get me to sign up to post. anywho... here my opinion on it. Also sorry for the wall of text.
The artwork is pretty successful and amazing, but objectively there are things you can point out. It shows use Liliana, Looks like her (or for those nit pickers enough like her to not be mistaken for someone else), and looks like a human.
Despite the few odd bits Ill get to in a moment, a little interesting fact is drawing a human figure is a precise goal to achieve. Our minds know what looks real and what doesn't. We a programed to recognize faces more but we can notice slight disproportions in human figures. In fact, I remember seeing somewhere we prefer exaggerated anatomies in art rather than a perfect representations. Possibly due to that, when a piece of art comes closer to a near proportional human we notice the slight variations or parts where artistic license might have covered up a defining factor in our perception of the figure. Such as clothing or environmental objects.
Liliana is successful in that she has a well proportioned body, but people have noticed how she looks a bit contorted or off and I think its due to a few factors. Some of the things i noticed is the line created by the corset making her abdomen twist to the left while her body is twisted more to the right. Subtle on its own and possibly in the right position, but this slightness and "line" is exaggerated by her right leg coming up and the folds in her skirt/dress. The leg also adds to this contortion by turning to the right/in a bit to much adding to the "stomach left, hips and legs right" distortion. One thing i noticed is that this positioning also makes her right thigh look shorter than it should be. But to be honest, when it comes to the car these parts will likely be hidden by the text and smaller dimensions of the card.
Her upper body looks great to me. My only thing is it looks a bit off due to her hair covering up most of her left shoulder since when i look at it, i feel i should see the skin. Thats just my personal thing, but aside I see nothing wrong. Aside from the nose and the aforementioned human programing to see faces it looks amazing in her facial area.
Figure aside, the shading is well executed and you can clearly tell the fabric of the dress is shiny and catches light and the skin is a shadowed pale tone. Only thing I can see a bit off, and this is just me nit picking, is the light from the flames. While the red light shown on the stairs, ruffles and folds is placed well, a few spots that I see should be lit are missing, then again its magic, but if it where giving off like like a normal object: The shadow on the right thigh seems a bit dark given its angle. The more detailed one actually has lighting on this area. The back of her hair behind her right arm is in a position that should catch some of the light like the side of her dress. Her right arm seems to dark compared to the left.
otherwise the lighting is pretty spot on, if a little exaggerated for a light in the foreground we cant see and how shiny and smooth she is compared to the background.
Those where just some things I noticed and picked up on. But overall the act does what it was commissioned to do, and thus is successful. I for one love the art. My favorite? no. Do I like it? yeah! I find is beautiful and stunning in its own ways just like I do any work of art.
I could probably go on for a while to for the sake of saving you guys a long read Ill end.
I applaud you good sir for that. I personally think these sort of quote are worth second looks.
I assume that those who appreciate this kind of art are the ones who were born at around 2001 or 2002ish where digital art is suddenly becoming more and more recognized in the industry.
For me, I still prefer the manually rendered. During the previous years (before the card template revamp I think), I really enjoyed in a card's artwork the strokes, blots, and imperfections that make up a really astounding masterpiece (Hi Nielsen, A. Waters, Staples, et al!). Now all I can see are these unnecessary light/fire effects, 3D-like renders, and such. Makes me throw up, really.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The same art as an oil painting would have looked the same.
I have noticed a lot of people are deeply mis-guided by the merits or lack of suck on media. If Argyle is as good with oil as he is with digital painting an oil rendition of this illustration would look just the same because that's how he wanted it to look.
Media doesn't make things magically better, it's just colour and texture, notthing more than what digital paint is.
It's Liliana Vess you're looking at, not a sweet apple pie, it's pretty obvious by everything in the composition, you should feel uneasy when you look at her, and the tilt on the pose makes that work very well. Illustration is meant to send a message, not look like an academic depiction of reality, the fact this piece communicates so well makes it a great illustration.
Nay, I think it'd be more along the lines of Alluring Siren. Basically a ability that forces the opponent/opponent's creatures to do something to your advantage.
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
I rapidly whipped this mess up, which in no way is meant to disrespect anybody, I just wanted to show what I was expecting, but now that this has grown on me a bit, im sure by the time INN is released I'll be going bat**** crazy over her anyways!
i second this..... . . . "me gusta" :)p
I don't know a thing about art, but I know about computer graphics and phong shading and liliana looks exactly like a character in a next generation world of warcraft, not a piece of art. Shes as shiny as a robot, one sparkly away from a little pony.
Specifically, what is wrong with Liliana here is called the Uncanny Valley
Take a look at a shot like this: (and don't look too long or you'll go blind)
That's Terese's Elvish Ranger, of course. Similar, uh, "subject matter"
But which of these two images looks more *human*? Its an interesting question, because one is clearly a 'low resolution' drawing made by paint/color penciles/crayons/whatever, while the other is closer to photo quality. Yet the busty ranger looks a heck of a lot more human to me precisely because she looks less human to me. I instantly recognize, subconsciously, that this is a painting, a work of art. But when I look at Liliana here, she looks more like a photograph of something that is not quite human, and I'm drawn to the features that *don't* look realistic. Picking out the air in the full glass instead of the water in the empty one, so to speak.
So the uncanny valley might not be the exact thought I'm looking for, since its not something avoided so much by going inhuman shapes, but rather by less photo-realistic means. And it doesn't imply that high resolution photorealism in CGI is necessarily bad (but mind you it is, overall, imo)- there are plenty of techniques you can use to make art look distinctly unrealistic even with 'realistic' graphics. But the CGI here is just a major turn off.
I mean to put it in one line, when I look at this art, I see all the unrealistic things on a mostly realistic picture. When I look at a *normal* piece of art, I see all the realistic things on an unrealistic picture. Its a subconscious pessimism, and it makes this picture look like crap
Anyway, I don't like either art. The first one feels way more digital than any MtG art should in my opinion, with Liliana looking like an unnatural doll. The second one... well, let me just put it this way: less is more. There is so much unneeded detail that the final piece looks like a convoluted mess. (Plus everything I said about the first piece, obviously.)
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
FINALLY!! I put all that hard work into a pun and no one caught on that you can never tap a planewalker...
You sir get a +1 Internet Counter
Standard
WBGWBGABZAN AGGROWBGWBG
Gideon taps...
Uhh...hmm....well sir, you foiled my pun. I get -1/-1 comedy.
Can't wait for this card
Standard
WBGWBGABZAN AGGROWBGWBG
Yeah and he's a bit jealous, what with the killing lily if someone else taps her
Like most guys in magic hes stuck tapping himself every turn anyway
Prior to Future Sight, enchantments however, could not be tapped. Period.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Modern:
Affinity
EDH:
Rhys (Tokens)
Karrthus (Dragons)
Bruna (Auras OP)
That's exactly what I'm saying. I actually think DD Liliana is the best planeswalker art in the game so far. Also, none of the other planeswalkers look this plasticky and fake. Honestly, the art looks like a teenager's facebook profile pic who thinks tilting the camera is cool (what's up with that?). I think Argyle did an AMAZING job on Chandra, Snuff Out, and a plethora of other cards, but this just isn't good.
But hey, art is subjective. Artists realize that, he gets paid at the end of the day, and I'm just a random person on a message board.
This is exactly what I think. Plasticky. Fake. A teenager's facebook profile pic. Seriously, I couldn't say it any better.
So no, I didn't like the art it either. Let's hope that at least the card will be good.
LE
I loled because I am tired and didn't get the first joke.
oh and this artwork is terribly awesome. I have never bought a playmat, but I might buy one with this on it.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
Overall I find the quality of the actual finished image to be high, I cannot count myself among its fans however.
But I do admit the second art's background is just plain badass. Here's hoping that at least it will be reused.
Also:
I applaud you good sir for that. I personally think these sort of quote are worth second looks.
For me, I still prefer the manually rendered. During the previous years (before the card template revamp I think), I really enjoyed in a card's artwork the strokes, blots, and imperfections that make up a really astounding masterpiece (Hi Nielsen, A. Waters, Staples, et al!). Now all I can see are these unnecessary light/fire effects, 3D-like renders, and such. Makes me throw up, really.