Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Shadowrun Fifth Edition Cover Art
Posted by: Patrick Goodman Feb 21 2013, 10:23 PM
Here ya go, take a gander at this http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/2013/02/shadowrun-fifth-edition-cover-crafting-an-icon/ for Shadowrun Fifth Edition.
Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 21 2013, 10:33 PM
Is that a roach spirit?
does that mean we can expect more bug plots? pretty please, yes?
From an art aspect... Not quite as awesome as the cover for 3ed M&M, but beats the hell out of 4e BBB covers.
Posted by: BishopMcQ Feb 21 2013, 10:37 PM
The icon in the lower right looks like the hacker is busting into an Ares facility, so a bug spirit is in line with some of their research.
Posted by: Nath Feb 21 2013, 10:39 PM
Runners trying to get pass a door with an Ares logo, and corporate security summoning an insect spirit to stop them kinda fit. But the ork also destroy a samurai-style drone you would rather expect on a Japanese corporation site.
Posted by: Grinder Feb 21 2013, 10:40 PM
Looks great!
Posted by: BishopMcQ Feb 21 2013, 10:46 PM
Clearly it's a joint task-force. Runners escaping from a Renraku facility trying to flee pursuit by crossing extra-territorial lines are met by security forces from both companies...they even have an inter-corporate liaison in a suit guiding things.
Posted by: bannockburn Feb 21 2013, 10:47 PM
Pros:
- Action!
- Very good artwork from a great artist.
- I like the color palette
- Bug spirit? Hell yeah!
- A well drawn ork!
- A well drawn troll!
Cons:
- Lighting is too harsh, let's some of the characters look like modeled in Poser and too '3D'
- Too bright. Not enough Shadow in that Run ^^
- Too many corp logos on one site and they look ... glued on. 
- Too busy, too much is happening, no clear focus
- Cyberarm of the mage, while cool, is too subtle. I would have liked to see obvious 'ware, smack in the middle.
Favorite: The Amerind mage. She rocks!
Edit: To reiterate the bullet point from my criticism and elaborate somewhat further:
I consider the picture too busy. Too much is happening all at once and I find that I don't have a clear focus for my eye. It is fun to find more details when looking at a picture for longer than a minute or so, but when the eye just glides away and doesn't find the center, there is a 'problem'.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying "ZOMG, too busy, picture sucks!". It's just that I don't enjoy the (maybe even only perceived by me) lack of focus.
I am not clear if the magic duel is the focus, because the Amerind mage is half hidden behind the orc, and the other mage is outshone by the bug spirit / illusion. Is it the orc with his glowy sword, killing that samurai drone? I am not sure about this either, thus, my eye starts slipping and trying to find focus. But so much is happening that I am unable to.
Then the clutter of megacorp logos. It seems like this is megacorp central station, where every corp has holdings 100m from the next. It makes me unsure as to where this is supposed to happen and it feels crammed in, in order to maximize the amount of shadowrunny memes on a minimum of space.
In my opinion, less would have been more, in this case.
None of that criticism means that I don't like the picture, though. You can criticize stuff and like it at the same time.
In fact, I think that it's great artwork and a great cover, and that these are minor points in a bigger picture.
Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 21 2013, 10:50 PM
Guys... that bug is manifest...
Posted by: BishopMcQ Feb 21 2013, 10:52 PM
True-form merge?
Posted by: Malicx Feb 21 2013, 10:52 PM
does that mean we can expect more bug plots? pretty please, yes?
Oh jeez I hope so!!
Awesome.
Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 21 2013, 11:07 PM
I think this is definitely a worthy image to serve as the cover of an SR core book. Nothings perfect, but this does a fair job of trying to get there, IMO.
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 21 2013, 11:21 PM
I posted on facebook where I saw it first.
It's very iconic. I looked at it a few minutes and picked out the Iconic things in there. The Orc Street Sam. Dwarf Rigger, Elf Indian Mage, the Decker, the corp forces with the big burly troll. The Drones, both the team's Rigger's drones and the Samuri Defensive drone that's been smashed. The bug spirit, the Wadge Mage on the other side. The Corps looming over it all, including the pyramid, Very iconic image. Great visual splash there.
Thing is, like I said on Facebook, I got all that Iconic imagry by just looking at it. Reading the article where it said, basically "Lets go for THIS", made me kinda laugh. Because they hit it right on the head.
Some one above had mentioned that the corps logos seemed a bit tacked on. I wouldn't worry too much about it. That's clearly where the big ol "SHADOWRUN 5TH EDITION" is going to go.
I really like it and can't wait for the promised wallpaper. I grabbed the image and enlarged it for my screen but a high rez version made from the base art would be greatly appreciated.
Great cover art. That's going to draw the eyes.
Posted by: tasti man LH Feb 21 2013, 11:29 PM
Aye, as it should be.
The important thing for the cover is that it should clearly state "THIS is Shadowrun". Which I think this coverart executed VERY well on depicting all of the classical elements of Shadowrun.
Anyways, guess what fine bit of art is going as my desktop background!
(only minor nitpick I would say is that the choices of megacorp logos would have been different. I personally would have gone for Saeder-Krupp, NeoNET, and MCT. still, nitpick at best for a cool bit of art)
Posted by: Runeblood Feb 21 2013, 11:48 PM
I might have missed it, but did anyone else notice the hacker is physically wired to the door?
Overall, immensely evocative cover.
Posted by: Stingray Feb 22 2013, 08:20 AM
It's very iconic. I looked at it a few minutes and picked out the Iconic things in there. The Orc Street Sam. Dwarf Rigger, Elf Indian Mage, the Decker, the corp forces with the big burly troll. The Drones, both the team's Rigger's drones and the Samuri Defensive drone that's been smashed. The bug spirit, the Wadge Mage on the other side. The Corps looming over it all, including the pyramid, Very iconic image. Great visual splash there.
Thing is, like I said on Facebook, I got all that Iconic imagry by just looking at it. Reading the article where it said, basically "Lets go for THIS", made me kinda laugh. Because they hit it right on the head.
Some one above had mentioned that the corps logos seemed a bit tacked on. I wouldn't worry too much about it. That's clearly where the big ol "SHADOWRUN 5TH EDITION" is going to go.
I really like it and can't wait for the promised wallpaper. I grabbed the image and enlarged it for my screen but a high rez version made from the base art would be greatly appreciated.
Great cover art. That's going to draw the eyes.
..good looking cover, no doubt.. but i think orc is Adept, not street samurai, thinking of his sword as Weapon Focus. (slightlly glowing)
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 22 2013, 08:29 AM
Eehhh he's got two cyber arms and "Street Samuri" is very Iconic to Shadowrun.
"Adept" While not new isn't really "Jump off the page Iconic" type image.
A StreetSam is also Iconic with a gun and a sword, which the orc in the pic has.
If there was another Street Sam sort, it could be argued that it was an adept with some sort of cyber gauntlets on, but as there's not, I'm betting that's supposed to be.
*Shrugs* Just how I read it. They don't have nametags.
Either way it's a wicked image.
Posted by: Stingray Feb 22 2013, 08:35 AM
"Adept" While not new isn't really "Jump off the page Iconic" type image.
A StreetSam is also Iconic with a gun and a sword, which the orc in the pic has.
If there was another Street Sam sort, it could be argued that it was an adept with some sort of cyber gauntlets on, but as there's not, I'm betting that's supposed to be.
*Shrugs* Just how I read it. They don't have nametags.
Either way it's a wicked image.
..hand holding a sword have a Forearm Guard, hand holding pistol have a some sort of gauntlet/Commlink (?)..cyber-arms??
Posted by: Shortstraw Feb 22 2013, 08:56 AM
Where is Mungo?
Posted by: Smirnov Feb 22 2013, 09:22 AM
Is it my imagination, or does the mage have cyberarms?
Posted by: Stingray Feb 22 2013, 09:35 AM
nope, just looking it, nano-tattoo starting visible from shoulder,feathers hanging from wrist-guard..
Posted by: hermit Feb 22 2013, 09:53 AM
Hm.
The Good:
An Amerindian! Shadowrun wouldn't be Shadowrun without them featuring at leasts emi-prominently. Also, the action is sufficient, it features all major archetypes (fighter, mage, hacker, rigger), all major races (including a very well executed ork and troll), a magical threat, a corpsec mage, corpsec, and sneaking through a back door, which is pretty much the setting's default way of getting stuff done. The Background looks CGm, but that's actually okay, even if a bit more Noir rain to soften the edges would have been fine. The Corp logos' execution is goood in case of Shiawase, which now looks like an actual logo and not something thrown togeter with painter 10 years ago. The others are okay, though the fitting into the high-rises facade seems a bit tacked on. The Ork's and Elf's Cyberarms look interesting, going with the setting's trend away from klunky WH40K implants with lots of unnecessary wires poking out of the character at random, which is nice. The bug itself looks menacing, powerful and scary, and the characters are well balanced, their posing seems natural and their gear believable. The color palette is good too, so long as the book's interior proceeds to go with a blue-tinged layout.
The Bad:
It's just too excited. Lots of stuff going on but no clear story is told. Do the runners try to break into Ares' back door, and Ms. Corp Mage and her goons and troll dude just happen by and then summon a bug spirit? Did Ms Cop Mage follow the bug, and the bug just run into some runners? Are Bug and Ms Corp Mage on the same side, fighting off the runners? Trajectories of fire are unclear save for Ms Amerind Elf. Is leftmost corpsec goon's hitting the drone friendly fire or does he try to prevent the drones from randomly attacking the floor and the dystopian Brazil memorial pipe? Also, what's up with the Ork's sword, and why are the weapons unrecognisable, when the drones are apparently based on a 3E design of the Rotodrone? I'm confused. Also, where's the rain? Cyberpunk is a setting derived fom Noir, and as such, demands perpetual rain.
The Ugly:
The artist went overboard with contrast here. Nothing against a high-contrast image, but this would profit from having saturation reduced a bit. As mentioned, this creates an uncanny valley effect on the characters' skin that takes from the otherwise extremely well done characters.
This definitly is one of the better covers of the setting, closer to the original Sally, Dodger, Ghost one than the previous two (The characters looked weird in 4E's, and let's just not alk about 3E's). I like it, but maybe contact the artist about the high contrasts. With luck, they still have the work version with lots of layers and that can be reasonably easily fixed. As is, it looks a bit like 3D images done by people who have yet to lear how to use ambient lighting. All in all a good cover with relatively minor flaws.
Posted by: CanRay Feb 22 2013, 01:53 PM
Posted by: toturi Feb 22 2013, 02:06 PM
"Watchin da Bubba porn..."
Posted by: Sengir Feb 22 2013, 02:27 PM
Now that is a nice ork! But I have to agree with the others on the shading/lighting...the problem with going for a photo-realistic look is that it usually looks great in 99% of the image, but since everybody knows how the real world looks like the remaining 1% stand out.
Posted by: Stingray Feb 22 2013, 03:20 PM
..hmmm...mission idea brewing...getting stolen private "recordings " of Bubba and Naughty Night Elf Nurses, your ms. Johnson just happens to have
identical look of one of nurses,being with a child and rising politician..
Posted by: DnDer Feb 22 2013, 03:41 PM
Nice pic. Not what I'd like to see in a cover. The 4a mural speaks more to the nature of SR for me, thematically, at least.
Don't get me wrong, I love bug spirits, and magic in general... But the invasion of bug spirits doesn't feel like the core plot and theme of SR, and hasn't ever for me. It makes me think that the guys from RIFTS finally got some real artists for their books.
I like it. I'd like to see it as a color panel in the book somewhere. As the "This is what Shadowrun is ALL about, buy our book!" cover... it doesn't do it for me. (I'll still buy the book, of course.)
Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 22 2013, 03:49 PM
Hello nurse!
On topic: Damn, the cover is starting to grow on me...
Posted by: Remnar Feb 22 2013, 07:25 PM
I like it. Lots going on, as noted, very much Iconic. Seems to be indicating a return to the 'punk' of Cyberpunk (I can only hope!).
Favorite parts: BUG SPIRIT
Also, no mirror shades or trenchcoats anywhere. Not enough Pink Mohawks, but I like the style.
Posted by: Bigity Feb 22 2013, 11:01 PM
Hm, needs more Rocker.
Or mage with centering wailing away on his synth-guitar.
Posted by: CanRay Feb 22 2013, 11:22 PM
Or mage with centering wailing away on his synth-guitar.
Posted by: binarywraith Feb 22 2013, 11:49 PM
Yes, yes I did.
Posted by: silva Feb 23 2013, 02:10 AM
Best cover since Elmore. 
But I agree that it could be raining slightly and have less contrast.
Posted by: DamHawke Feb 23 2013, 02:59 AM
Apart from the cover art being a little too bright (you could probably see this fight a mile away) I'm really diggin' this
Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 23 2013, 03:28 AM
See it a mile away?
Probably not .... not with all the neon lights, AROs, and so forth in between the viewer and this one fight.
Posted by: Critias Feb 23 2013, 03:47 AM
I had reasons to study the bejeebus outta this cover in recent weeks. I still dig it, after turning it into "work" instead of "play." I think the thing's gonna be gorgeous on a book, and I, for one, am hoping they come out with prints/posters at some point.
Posted by: ravensmuse Feb 23 2013, 02:47 PM
I'll repost what I said on Tumblr:
So let me be straight and honest here - I’m not in love with this cover. And not just for the http://shadow-jackal.tumblr.com/post/43676362781/red-is-broken-bones-funky-anatomy-and-four. Hell, I didn’t notice them until she pointed them out.
This cover is too busy. It has too much stuff going on it, in the name of trying to get as much SHADOWRUN involved in there. I think that what we’re presented with here just goes against the grain of what Shadowrun is - these guys should be getting the fudge outta there, not standing around, looking to go toe to toe with these people. And where’s their cover?
But look what we have: corporate hit squad, Roach spirit, drones, magic, and two obvious mega-corporations in the background. It’s just too much ACTION for me.
(Also I’m a little disappointed that the troll gets stuck in the back, like always, to let the pretty folk be front and center. Where’s the fun in that?).
For my money, the Anniversary cover is my favorite illustration to give you The Sixth World. It gives you a relevant montage of Shadowrun action, without it looking busy like this.
Posted by: Sengir Feb 23 2013, 11:55 PM
The cover surely has a lot of elements, but why not? This is a book cover, not an encyclopedia illustration or a technical drawing, which should show the essential details without bells and whistles.
As far as favorite covers go, I admit I still like the original 4th Ed one. High-rises with bright advertisement screens and flying cars between them, but below them a filthy back alley full of graffiti, rats, toxic waste dumpsters, and shadowrunners in this their natural habitat. Yeah, the dwarf looks like a caricature of down syndrome, the elf has an oxygen mask connected to his armband, and the human in his hammerpants and metal things on his legs and weird posture looks completely out of place. But the background still captures all that is cyberpunk -- and the troll's proportions match the fluff descriptions, which sadly cannot be taken for granted.
Posted by: Stahlseele Feb 24 2013, 12:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg_iz6yBu2I
Posted by: hermit Feb 24 2013, 12:20 AM
What? The character who gets most spotlight is an orc. Hardly 'pretty folk'.
A troll in the ork's place would block the elf, human, and parts of the dwarf from view. I cannot see where this would have been a better choice, though the Troll could well have been with the team, firing on the bug with a BFG, someplace to the left of the elf, for instance).
Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 24 2013, 12:29 AM
Or the troll could have been the Mage.
Posted by: EKBT81 Feb 24 2013, 03:25 AM
I'm not sure about the alleged "four-fingered hands". I believe that they all have five fingers, just that not all fingers are visible in that perspective.
Although I also find the cover a bit busy.
And how big is that bug spirit supposed to be? That was a serious WTF to me. And I agree with DNDer about the bugs. I like them as a background element, but not as a front-and-center plot. That's already been done.
A troll in the ork's place would block the elf, human, and parts of the dwarf from view. I cannot see where this would have been a better choice, though the Troll could well have been with the team, firing on the bug with a BFG, someplace to the left of the elf, for instance).
Well, compared to some other ork pictures in SR he is "pretty folk".
That's okay with me, since I prefer illustrations that show SR orks as metahumans, not Warhammer rejects or warty mutants.
Posted by: Trillinon Feb 24 2013, 03:28 AM
I don't love it, but it will do.
I agree that it's overly busy, but my biggest problem with it is that it doesn't feel like a real place. You can just so happen to see four megacorp logos from this vantage. Nor do I get any sense of why this fight broke out. No sense of story, just action. Lots of action. Personally, I'm burned out on action covers these days.
But, as I said, it'll do.
My favorite covers from Shadowrun tend to be more focused on setting. Seattle 2072, Sprawl Sites, and Corporate Guide, etc. Oh, and I do still love the original 1st Edition cover.
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 24 2013, 03:28 AM
People keep talking about it being busy. Every time I read it I kinda tilt my head and go "Did they want a group of fat orcs and trolls and some bloated elf sitting on a couch watching a trid eating cheetos while a dragon flew by the window?? A Dwarf Delivery guy, and an Indian trying to steal cable from next door?"
Posted by: Bigity Feb 24 2013, 04:13 AM
Yes, because the opposite of busy is any of those things?
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 24 2013, 04:27 AM
Yeah, the opposite of busy is Lazy. Like sitting on the couch, watching TV and ordering pizza.
Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 24 2013, 04:46 AM
Wrong kind of busy. Perhaps English is not your first language?
"Busy" can also mean just that there's too many things happening at once. e.g., "a busy street".
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 24 2013, 04:51 AM
Now I have an idea for a group contact. The Cheetos Guys Apartment.
It's an apartment of roommates who have no special qualifications whatsoever, they just happen to be keyed-in to whatever big is happening in Seattle, because their apartments keep getting fried and they keep moving and consequently the big thing keeps happening outside their windows. Meanwhile, they shrug, blog about it, then go back to watching the Trid.
That said, they really better not be killing the wireless matrix. I will fucking vomit the opposite of friendship and magic if that happens.
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 24 2013, 05:50 AM
"Busy" can also mean just that there's too many things happening at once. e.g., "a busy street".
It's my first language. My first post was some what sardonic. The second one a little joking when someone got snippy. lol.
There is a bit if seriousness there though. The opposite of a "Busy street" would be a dead or quiet street with nothing happening.
If the cover is too busy, the converse would be nothing happening and it'd be boring. I suspect that those saying it's too busy want a bit less happening. That route rapidly leads to stagnation and boring. They have to walk that tightrope.
For myself I'd rather have a busy cover over a boring one. I'm sure the company would too. When you're going for iconic visual impact. That image that says "PICK ME UP! I'm COOL!! I'M ---SHADOWRUN---" Sedate or boring is exactly the opposite of what you want. You want something eye catching and energetic. Something yes... with a bit of color to catch the eye. With kickass art that's appealing visually, and in this case something that -screams- Shadowrun. Not says it sedately to those listening closely.
This is the Core book. It needs to stand up and shout in no uncertain terms "THIS-IS-SHADOWRUN!" Like king Leonidas kickin' that dude into the well. Something that will hopefully draw in new people. Or draw back players that may have left the game. You don't get that with calm, sedate, muted covers. You want something with some flash, something that is iconic to the game.
In those aspects this cover succeeds. It's not boring or sedate. It's energetic and Iconic. Is it a touch flashy or 'busy'? Yeah, but on purpose. Because that's what you're going for. Not bland beige colors with guys sitting on the couch, munching snacks and smearing their dorito fingers on their stained white tank tops. People urge us "Don't judge a book by the cover" but the truth is many many many many times they are. And if a book has absolutely ugly covers, they often don't get picked up at all. Boring cover on a Shadowrun book would do it no favors. You want something entergetic and fun. Some action to 'sell' the game at a glance. Orcs with swords, elves flinging lightning bolts, dwarf riggers, corpsec guards, giant bug spirits. That's action and eye catching. Which is what sells.
Posted by: Shortstraw Feb 24 2013, 07:57 AM
You will note people said the problem was it is "too busy" not that it was "busy".
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 24 2013, 09:16 AM
Same difference. It's a complaint, a negative quality attributed to the cover. "Too busy" "Busy" which ever, said in a negative way means the same thing. A quality, in this case the level of 'busyness' that is qualified as a negative quality. If it was a positive one or a neutral one it wouldn't have been used in that fashion.
If you go. "I don't like the weather today, it's hot" it's the same thing as saying "I don't like the weather today, it's too hot" Both are describing something (The weather) in a negative way. You don't go "I don't like the weather today it's hot.... but I like it hot" because you'd contradict yourself. If you go "I don't like the cover it's overly busy" or "I don't like the cover it's -too busy" or "I don't like the cover it's -busy-" your saying the same thing.
It's not that big a deal. I -get- what they're saying as to why they don't like it. My post about it was meant partially in jest. Partially serious as noted above. You don't want to err on the side of stagnant and boring. It's easy to do too little or not enough. Going the other side "Too busy" is a possibility, but one preferable to the alternative. In a perfect world you'd hit the sweet spot. But not everyone agrees where that spot is. For example, I think they hit it 100%. Some here think they went a bit too far. (( Or maybe even alot too far)). So the aim is for the majority of the people to like it. Which this thread and facebook and all seem to indicate. Most people seem to think it's a great cover. There will always be people that disagree.
Posted by: Grinder Feb 24 2013, 09:41 AM
Could be an illusion spell (trideo phantasm, anyone?), too.
Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 24 2013, 09:59 AM
The hell, I keep liking this cover more and more...
Also what's up with the guy with the goatee on the roof? is he supposed to be the rigger?
Riggers always die in the intro stories
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 24 2013, 10:24 AM
Figured he was the dwarf Rigger controlling the drones that were shooting at the Corpsec and the CorpSec were shooting back at. The guy in the poncho seemed to be the Decker trying to hack the door. (( Plugged in, I'm assuming because Ares purposefully has it's security as a stand alone, off the Matrix grid.))
Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 24 2013, 11:00 AM
No, it's not. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.
If I decide "there's too much mayonnaise on my sandwich", that doesn't mean I want NO mayonnaise at all on it. Just that I'd like ... less than there is.
No, it's not.
Some people despise heat, so being hot at all makes the weathr bad to them. Some people only dislike extreme heat, but like it a LITTLE hot.
But, one can go and say "I generally like hot days, but today is just too hot".
No, no I really don't think you do.
Posted by: SirBedevere Feb 24 2013, 11:15 AM
It's not perfect, I think it's a bit too busy, but overall, it's a very good cover for the new main book.
Posted by: SIN Feb 24 2013, 12:35 PM
Well, to chuck in my tuppence, I love the cover.
At first glance, I felt it was perhaps a bit hectic too, but having looked a bit more, it's really grown on me. There are so many little details to discover, all of the metatypes are represented properly and the magic "effects" fit with the general feel of the picture. Given some of the art that made the books in the darker periods of SR4, I think this is right up at the top end.
For those saying that they don't know what the "story" of the picture is, I feel like there could be any of a number of different situations going on and I think that's a great idea. The cover of a roleplaying game book should be a jumping on point for the imagination and I think this cover does a great job.
Can't wait to see this with a logo, a title and some pages hidden underneath!
Posted by: ShadowJackal Feb 24 2013, 02:47 PM
Those are some bad hands that suffer four finger hand syndrome. Artists that haven't properly studied anatomy (As in taken a serious scientific class on anatomy) often will leave out bone and joints that would exist even though a perspective isn't allowing of visibility of that limb. The Elf hand and the other human-ish guy suffer from this badly. There are entire joints missing.
I know I'm probably the only one bitching about the art and that I *always* complain about the art, but to me this is like getting there, they're and their mixed up if you were a writer. These are mistakes you do not make. The overextended spines on the women are pretty crap-tasic too but less offensive to the eye. Oh and the dwarf's knee actually gets *smaller* as it sits nearest to you on body. Things get larger as they come closer to you visually. The perspective on everything in this work is just way off, that's the reason the entire background looks off.
</artnerdrant>
Posted by: hermit Feb 24 2013, 03:33 PM
They suffer from comic book spine syndrome. It's a very common affliction of women in modern gaming and comics art.
Posted by: bannockburn Feb 24 2013, 03:41 PM
Correct anatomy is less important if it still looks cool. Case in point: http://nebezial.deviantart.com/art/diablo-ish-barbarian-video-yeah-312091457
If you claim photorealism, yes, anatomy is important, but you don't have to have properly studied anatomy to be an outstanding artist. Just look at Munch and uncountable others.
This being said: As a fellow 'art nerd', I'll have to say I don't see glaring errors. All those fingers look fine to me, and where they are 'missing' it's easily explained with perspective.
The only thing where I agree is the dwarf's knee, and even there it's not so bad that you think "OMG, I can't look anywhere except at that knee"
So, no, the perspective is not 'in everything way off', apart from maybe those skyscrapers in the background.
Posted by: ShadowJackal Feb 24 2013, 05:05 PM
If you claim photorealism, yes, anatomy is important, but you don't have to have properly studied anatomy to be an outstanding artist. Just look at Munch and uncountable others.
This being said: As a fellow 'art nerd', I'll have to say I don't see glaring errors. All those fingers look fine to me, and where they are 'missing' it's easily explained with perspective.
The only thing where I agree is the dwarf's knee, and even there it's not so bad that you think "OMG, I can't look anywhere except at that knee"
So, no, the perspective is not 'in everything way off', apart from maybe those skyscrapers in the background.
There has never been a more incorrect statement in "Correct anatomy is less important if it still looks cool." That just isn't how it works. If you want to cite artists such as Munch you need to understand that the intent of his work was to abstract what we saw as conventional, that was kind of the point of Symbolism and what would go on to be Surrelalism.
Art is at it's roots about intent, that is how we judge if it succeeds or fails. An abstract artist such as Munch's intention was to symbolize a person or an object and alter it to make it in some way symbolic to the viewer. The Scream for instance as been abstracted to create a sense of fear and to make the viewer uncomfortable in the subjective. By transposing the frightened and abstracted man into a subject of great beauty (re:sky and calm people walking behind him) it creates a feeling of uncomfortableness with the composition. This was the intent, there was intent to abstract.
In modern fantasy art, artists are trying to create a bridge between real and fantasy, but I don't think that in fantasy worlds our bones will move in and out of joints nor be made of some pliable material that allows them to move to and fro in an amorphous fashion. The intent is to create realistic worlds that viewers can relate their fantasies to. It's not about photorealism but it is about creating a realistic representation of what a fantasy world would be.
I relaize that the VAST majority of fantasy artists did not recieve the same schooling as I or others are privileged to, but there needs to be a maintained desire to create realism. Fantasy art and comic art as a whole is a joke to the fine art world. I was privileged enough to study at one of the world's most prestigious art school and from day one my professor used to say' "If you want to draw dragons, find another school.", this is because the genre as a whole is a joke due to the low standards that it is held to.
Realism is important and it is something we should expect out of artists, just like we should expect writers to construct full sentences with proper grammar.
(I can't believe I'm discussing art theory on here...)
Posted by: bannockburn Feb 24 2013, 05:20 PM
I do actually know what I'm talking about here, but your lecturer obviously has had a different opinion than mine and we'll have to leave it at that.
The intent of art is set by the artist, no one else. Sure, Munch wanted to abstract his work, but it's still there, a lack of anatomic correctness. At the time, people hated it, because he was 'obviously unable to do it right'
Other artists may chose not to adhere too closely to real anatomy because that's not their focus. Instead they may want to tell a story, or even be unable to do so, but still want to transport their art / intent. Doesn't make them less of an artist, despite what hardliners and / or purists may think. There has been a constant paradigm shift in visual arts since the middle ages when people mostly painted funny 2D pictures at the level of 6 year olds. It went to hyper-realistic drawings during the renaissance and today we have an eclectic mix of styles, which are all valid in themselves.
There is no such thing as 'modern fantasy art'. There are people who draw fantasy pictures, in their own, varied styles.
Good for you to have studied at such a fine institute, but your professor sounds like a pompous ass. The lowest common denominator, and as such, lowest standard one's art can be held to, is if people like it. If the artist tells his story and people enjoy it, he's succeeded, no matter what a crusty, arrogant old man may say. There is NO need to create realism. Except when you claim you want to be a realistic artist. Personally? I don't. I find photo-realistic art very boring, all in all, not only to create but also to look at.
I am sure that your privileged schooling provides you with the ability to create and objectively criticize such art, and I applaud you for it. But it is still only an opinion, in a very confined space.
Oh btw: Look at Vallejo. An immensely successful artist in his own right. Then look at his dwarf and troll on the fields of fire cover. Those suck donkey balls
Posted by: ShadowJackal Feb 24 2013, 05:30 PM
The intent of art is set by the artist, no one else. Sure, Munch wanted to abstract his work, but it's still there, a lack of anatomic correctness. At the time, people hated it, because he was 'obviously unable to do it right'
Other artists may chose not to adhere too closely to real anatomy because that's not their focus. Instead they may want to tell a story, or even be unable to do so, but still want to transport their art / intent. Doesn't make them less of an artist, despite what hardliners and / or purists may think. There has been a constant paradigm shift in visual arts since the middle ages when people mostly painted funny 2D pictures at the level of 6 year olds. It went to hyper-realistic drawings during the renaissance and today we have an eclectic mix of styles, which are all valid in themselves.
There is no such thing as 'modern fantasy art'. There are people who draw fantasy pictures, in their own, varied styles.
Good for you to have studied at such a fine institute, but your professor sounds like a pompous ass. The lowest common denominator, and as such, lowest standard one's art can be held to, is if people like it. If the artist tells his story and people enjoy it, he's succeeded, no matter what a crusty, arrogant old man may say. There is NO need to create realism. Except when you claim you want to be a realistic artist. Personally? I don't. I find photo-realistic art very boring, all in all, not only to create but also to look at.
I am sure that your privileged schooling provides you with the ability to create and objectively criticize such art, and I applaud you for it. But it is still only an opinion, in a very confined space.
Oh btw: Look at Vallejo. An immensely successful artist in his own right. Then look at his dwarf and troll on the fields of fire cover. Those suck donkey balls
I'm not even going to start on Vallejo, he's Lyfelidian levels of atrociousness.
I don't think you're really understanding what I am saying but either way, you're entitled to your opinion as I am.
For the record, I'm an abstract artist, so I know a little something about making things that aren't at all realistic, I can also draw realistic and correct art. It makes me better to understand what I'm abstracting. You need to know a rule before you break it, and as much as you might not believe it, there are rules in art that need to be adhered to in order to create successful art.
ETA: Most of the Renaissance was a direct result of one forcible hand creating trends in art, the Di Medici's. That time of art is largely diluted due to their "influence".
Posted by: bannockburn Feb 24 2013, 05:35 PM
I do understand that you hold the cover art for an RPG book to an impossibly high standard while inferring intent on the artist's part that you have no way of knowing about.
You apply the rules (yes I know them, and I know that it is USEFUL to know them in order to break them, but not necessary. There are tons of autodidacts that prove you very, very wrong) and therefore do not like the artwork. Don't get me wrong here. I am a critic as well, but the overall tone is good enough for an RPG cover, in my _opinion_
I do not like it 100%, as I've pointed out in an earlier post, but the things you criticize are good enough for my taste to represent the SR world.
And we're in full agreement over Vallejo. He still earned tons of money with his bikini chainmail girls.
Posted by: Medicineman Feb 24 2013, 06:31 PM
Sidenote :
its Louis Royo http://www.luisroyo.com/
http://lcart1.narod.ru/image/fantasy/luis_royo/ma/luis_royo_shadowrun.jpg
, not Boris Vallejo
(Thats the 80's Airbrush Fantasy Painter http://vallejo.ural.net/1980/ )
with a Sidedance
Medicineman
Posted by: bannockburn Feb 24 2013, 06:32 PM
You are entirely correct. I lost my FoF years ago and identified from memory
The point still stands (for both artists, btw *g*)
Posted by: hermit Feb 24 2013, 07:19 PM
That sounds rather snobbish. The reputation of abstract art everywhere but fine art circles and their hanger-ons nonwithstanding, it is also rather unfair. It is quite similar to saying you don't care about 50% of the electorate because they're not rich enough to matter anyway. Modesty is a virtue, something many artists, especially 'fine' artists, don't seem to understand. Well, as long as there are enough muppets who will pay ridiculous amounts of money for the nth iteration of "it's a blank canvas" ...
Not to say anatomical problems aren't bad and all, but seriously, you have to adapt the level of criticism leveled at a certain work somewhat with the artist's level of skill. So you studied at a prestigious school that was prestigious enough you had to say that in nearly every post. Good for you. Would you hold your nephew (12), who draws with far more enthusiasm than skill, to the same standard your work is held to? Btw, can you link to some of your works? I'm curious what artists who study at the world'S most prestigious schools are capable of.
Posted by: Nath Feb 24 2013, 07:31 PM
Posted by: hermit Feb 24 2013, 07:38 PM
The Medici forced him too. She wrote that http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=38519&view=findpost&p=1212515.
I hate James Joyce too.
For reference: Technically, I agree with ShadowJackal. The elf mage's spine looks weird, the dwarf's knee has dimensional problems and the foreground and background are seen from different angles. My problem is more the expectation that commercial artists have the luxury to make everything perfect, instead of delivering a product that largely works (it has other problems too, which I mentioned in my post, but mostly it works well enough for the intended audience, which is what it, as functional art, is supposed to do). You don't hire Neo Rauch to illustrate a pulp novel. You can, hence, not hold the person hired for the job to the same standards you (should) hold Rauch, Aichinger or other post-socialist realists to. Though, to be fair, if you want to you can totally take apart a Neo Rauch painting too.
And frankly, the snobbism oozing from the posts is a massive turnoff and makes people who otherwise might agree at least in part disagree on principle. That's, if nothing else, bad style and a really bad way to communicate your view.
Oh, and it's Liefeld.
Posted by: Patrick Goodman Feb 24 2013, 08:27 PM
As a writer, I know my stuff is the literary equivalent of a Big Mac with fries (thanks be to Stephen King for giving me that line to rip off). And I'm all right with that. As fast food burgers go, my stuff is pretty good. I'm not Steven Brust, by any means, nor even Stephen King. We'll leave masters like Dickens and Joyce out of it (though I'm no great fan of Joyce, to be sure).
But I make a damn good burger and fries, nonetheless. I don't need to make foie gras to know I'm good, and I don't expect that someone demanding foie gras is going to like my stuff.
I'm kind of amused about how snobbish a lot of artists (and writers, to be fair) come across when they see something produced for a relative pittance (though I'm sure Michael Komarck gets more for that cover than I got for, say, Running Wild) for the mass market, and decide it's not Michelangelo or Hugo, and therefore it's no damn good. I honestly don't know what they're expecting by holding people to the impossibly high standards they hold them to. You try working to the timetables that commercial art directors and editors hold you to (and I know whereof I speak here), working from notes that get pretty specific at times, and let's see you turn in O'Keeffe or Verne.
I'm not a painter. I'm a writer and a http://pgoodman13.deviantart.com/. I don't claim to be great at either, but I know enough about visual arts to comment on it reasonably intelligently, at least in terms of composition and style (though, since I never took any classes at the world's most presitigious art institutes, I know my commentary probably doesn't matter). So here we go:
Is it a little busy? Yeah, maybe, but combat scenes can get pretty frenetic without a lot of effort. (They're a bitch to write, too, for the record, at least for me.) I'm not 100% sold on all the logos, but I do know that it feels very Blade Runner to me in that sense; there were logos on every damn thing in Blade Runner, and I feel like this gets that part right. Some of those corp logos are gonna be covered up by the Shadowrun logo anyway, so I don't see that as a negative.
The composition works for me; it seems fairly balanced to me, and it easy enough to follow what's going on. I'm curious about what's going on, but it's not enough to make me say, "There's no story!" Sure there is: Runners are in a hell of a fix and trying to get out of it, while security has come up a different way and they're tyring very much to keep the runners from leaving. It's a tale as old as crime itself, though that bug is sure making me nervous.
Are there problems with contrast and perspective? A little, on the perspective front anyway, though unlike some of esteemed fellow forum denizens, I don't have an issue with the contrast, particularly. I like the color palette, and the lighting works for me, too.
Overall, the image screams "Cool adventure!" and "You wanna play this game!" to me, and that (ultimately) is its job. So I think he succeeds here. I'd pick up this book to see if the game itself was as cool as the cover based on this image.
Hell, I might even super-size it....
Posted by: Medicineman Feb 24 2013, 08:43 PM
some Guys simply aren't happy when they can't complain about sth.
And I thought this is a "German Attitude"
HokaHey
Medicineman
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 24 2013, 08:59 PM
It was used in Derogatory fashion. Not in neutral discriptive. So when you say it that way, that's what it means. Saying you don't like something because of _____ is the same as saying you don't like something because it's "Too___"
But it was still said in derogatory fashion, so in this instance it means the same thing. Trying to nit pick it is just trying to obfuscate it.
Some people despise heat, so being hot at all makes the weathr bad to them. Some people only dislike extreme heat, but like it a LITTLE hot.
and if it was described in great detail you might have a point. It wasn't. It was smallish offhand comments in a forum with out extrapalation. So it very much is a "Same difference" Sort of deal.
One could, but one didn't. One simply said they didn't like it because it was too busy or overly busy or whatever. There was no stipulation that you outline. So the little nitpicky thing you're trying falls flat.
Oh I do. You're just trying to add things out of your head that weren't in the thread, to try and quibble over some word usage.
Posted by: Grinder Feb 24 2013, 08:59 PM
And I thought this is a "German Attitude"
HokaHey
Medicineman
That was unnecessary - I'd like to point you to the ToS of this board.
Posted by: Grinder Feb 24 2013, 09:01 PM
Pepsi Jedi, _Pax_: stop it.
Posted by: bannockburn Feb 24 2013, 09:12 PM
edit: sorry, posted after grinder, redacted.
If interested, non-replying content is found in my original post, as I have the feeling that some of my criticism has been misunderstood.
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=38519&st=0&p=1212070&#entry1212070
Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 24 2013, 10:44 PM
Monet and the other Impressionists were similarly disparaged by the established artists of their time.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: CanRay Feb 24 2013, 11:03 PM
I'm pretty sure the fine authors of the world would hire thugs to jump up and down on my hands so that I never write again...
Posted by: hermit Feb 24 2013, 11:15 PM
They wouldn't live up to her standards either, stream of consciousness and all that.
Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 24 2013, 11:16 PM
What exactly is these "fine art cirles"?
Last I checked classical arts are struggling to stay relevant, is it a laugh of blissful ignorance?
Because it's sure as hell easier to make a living as an illustrator.
Posted by: hermit Feb 24 2013, 11:19 PM
Not really. Check what a Neo Rauch sells for these days. Classical arts are as well or unwell as they've ever been.
Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 24 2013, 11:20 PM
It's probably easier to win the lottery then make it big as an artist...
Posted by: hermit Feb 24 2013, 11:25 PM
Nah. You may never become Neo Rauch, but your bills are unlikely to go unpaid if you are any good.
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 24 2013, 11:49 PM
Art is subjective. Always has been. Some people in LA will spend $50,000 for a white canvas with a red dot in one corner and go on at length about the artists vision and what not. In reality it's a red dot on a white background. I could paint the same thing for the cost of the canvas and a few bucks for the red paint. Exact same "Artistic work". *Shrugs* People like to cite the 'classics' and what not. By and large I think they are meh. Not my style you know?
Posted by: CanRay Feb 24 2013, 11:58 PM
Posted by: Bull Feb 25 2013, 01:48 AM
I will also note that, well, spirits can look like damn near anything. So for all we know, that's a City Spirit that looks like a giant cockroach for whatever reason.
Used sparingly, that could actually be a great tactic, since bugs are pretty much still on of the worlds big bad boogey men. I mean, how would your PC react to seeing something that looks like a bug spirit pop up? I know "oh drek!" is mine. Spirits are kinda scary, but they're just spirits. The GM says "You see 4 guards and and air spirit", it's all in a days work. "4 guards and a roach spirit" though, suddenly this run got a whole lot more complicated, or so I think.
(Note, these are just thoughts and opinions based on things I've actually done to my runners in the past, or had done to me. This is not indicative of the type of spirit depicted on the cover of SR5. While I've been following the various art refinements, I don't know what type of spirit that's actually supposed to be, if it's defined at all anywhere. It's entirely possible it exists because the artist thought it looked cool. And none of us diagreed.)
Bull
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 25 2013, 03:47 AM
Bull - That strategy is likely to backfire hilariously. Nothing says "Kill it with FIRE!" quite like Bug Spirits.
What was just a standard datasteal might turn into a holocaust if the Runners conclude the entire building is hived and decide that for the good of metahumanity, they have to let their insane pyromancer off the leash and let slip the dogs of war. Cue the hacker locking the doors and the pyro burninating and cleansing the whole building in flame.
And they'd feel good about it, too.
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 25 2013, 04:00 AM
Possible, but I'm betting the "Wet themselves with fear "ABORT ABORT ABORT" happens a bit more than "KILL UM ALL AND LET PREZ DUNK SORT UM OUT!!" type. lol
Posted by: tasti man LH Feb 25 2013, 04:02 AM
Last I checked, most runners are more concerned with saving their own skins versus saving everyone else in the sprawl.
Posted by: phlapjack77 Feb 25 2013, 04:51 AM
So....what I'm hearing from you is that things like "City Spirits" are coming back...
Posted by: Bull Feb 25 2013, 05:53 AM
Heh, THAT'S what you read off that?
And technically speaking, City Spirits never went anywhere. They're just one of the variants of "Spirits of Man". It's pure habit for me, but I almost always make a distinction between what I'm summoning in correlation to where it's being summoned. I still say Hearth SPirits. Mages still only summon Elementals.
But that's just me being an old grognard. After all, I still call 'em Deckers...
Posted by: phlapjack77 Feb 25 2013, 05:57 AM
Yeah, was just hoping you accidentally let something slip about the new edition
Posted by: CanRay Feb 25 2013, 06:20 AM
Posted by: Sengir Feb 25 2013, 12:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBM5hM5LdDw
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 25 2013, 01:58 PM
Somebody needs to bring back Big D's Temper rounds for shotguns in SR4/5.
And when it comes to Bug Spirit infestations, you definitely want to go with the "Let Big D sort 'em out" option. That, or flee the country.
If the whole sprawl goes bug, what Shadows, exactly, are you going to be running in? When everybody and their dog has a Roach Spirit infesting them, it's game over time. You're looking at another Chicago - at best. So sure, you could just leg it and piss yourselves in fear and hop the next plane to Shanghai and leave a note on the local Shadowlands telling any uninfested Runners to get the frag out of Dodge before it's too late... Or you could do something about it.
Most NPC runners would probably get the hell out of Dodge. Fortunately for the world, there are PC runners, being the heroes for hire that the world deserves since 1989.
[e]Admittedly, saving the world doesn't pay very well. Fortunately, you should be able to extract some paydata or valuable prototypes or something when you burn the building. That's what looting is for.
Posted by: ShadowJackal Feb 26 2013, 12:19 AM
You apply the rules (yes I know them, and I know that it is USEFUL to know them in order to break them, but not necessary. There are tons of autodidacts that prove you very, very wrong) and therefore do not like the artwork. Don't get me wrong here. I am a critic as well, but the overall tone is good enough for an RPG cover, in my _opinion_
I do not like it 100%, as I've pointed out in an earlier post, but the things you criticize are good enough for my taste to represent the SR world.
And we're in full agreement over Vallejo. He still earned tons of money with his bikini chainmail girls.
I just find it inherently necessary to adhere to a standard, that's my only real point. Work can't improve if you don't hold yourself to a standard.
Not to say anatomical problems aren't bad and all, but seriously, you have to adapt the level of criticism leveled at a certain work somewhat with the artist's level of skill. So you studied at a prestigious school that was prestigious enough you had to say that in nearly every post. Good for you. Would you hold your nephew (12), who draws with far more enthusiasm than skill, to the same standard your work is held to? Btw, can you link to some of your works? I'm curious what artists who study at the world'S most prestigious schools are capable of.
I don't intend to sound snobbish so I truly appologise for my tone. I'm not sure how many fine artists you know in person but most that I've known are really down to earth and just want to have a few drinks and paint. The confidence and the "snobbish behavior" I'd imagine comes from the air you have to put on in the "circles" which is really more to do with the critics and gallery owners, but I'm starting to get way off topic here.
I would hold a child to the same standards I hold anyone to, but on a gradient scale. Whatver you're drawing needs to be drawn to the best of your ability and to be done with intent and purpose. There are steps to take in order to get to that point. One case that's easy to relate to is one that I encountered a few weeks ago with a friend.
My best friend is a craftsperson by trade. She creates miniatures and sells them for thousands of dollars on a regular basis, she's easily one of the best in that particular hobby. We were sitting around gaming and she was drawing her character and she mentions "I suck at drawing hands.", so I grab a post-it and a pencil and start sketching my own hand explaining that if you look at something you can usually draw it much better because you have a point of reference and you are breaking your brain's natural tendency to work from memory. She stated that she couldn't draw anything in person, only from memory. Needless to say, she isn't very adept in the realm of sketching.
Back to the nephew point, I wouldn't expect him to draw a hand like a great master, but I would expect him to look at his hand and do his very best to see all the details. That's what this cover is lacking, there is no life in it because there isn't any true human point of reference. This is also the reason why the anatomy is so incorrect, there's no point of reference.
I'd rather not post my work to this thread because I enjoy my anonymity and I'd rather not let my real name out here but http://shadow-jackal.tumblr.com/post/31335897658/random-sketches-from-my-sketchbooks-newest-to (Including a dragon) if you're interested. My actual paintings are on sites associated with my name that I'd rather not link to
*snerk* I see what you did there...
Posted by: ShadowJackal Feb 26 2013, 12:34 AM
Last I checked classical arts are struggling to stay relevant, is it a laugh of blissful ignorance?
Because it's sure as hell easier to make a living as an illustrator.
I wouldn't say that's exactly true or untrue, you have to play the field and schmooze but there's a market out there. The real problem is dealing with the subjective nature of an artist muse and sticking with something.Sometimes you just can't produce work. The modern art world is booming in many ways, heck I recently saw the work of a student I studied with in a major museum and I haven't been out of school for *that* long, I'd say that's a moderate level of success. I have friends that attended other schools that are making it on their own on a variety of levels, some producing small works and earning a normal middle income salary and others that are extremely successful. The vast majority of my close friends are in the creative fields and earn their living alone on that.
I know this won't convince you or anyone else on the subject but the point it always comes back to is that you didn't think of that, so you wouldn't do it. It sounds ambiguous but it really comes down to intention. As I mentioned earlier I'm an abstract artist that works in fields of color. My work probably falls into your realm of "I could paint this in five minutes" but it is more than that. It's about color, composition, tone, music and feel. It's about emotion and love and feeling and texture and beyond that, the technique of it is all mine. I know this won't make a lot of sense, but there is more to abstract art than just slapping something on a canvas.
See above, if you work hard enough and want it bad enough you can do it! This is true for anything you love! Just keep pushing and trying and eventually you'll find a way to do it!
Posted by: ShadowJackal Feb 26 2013, 12:44 AM
But I make a damn good burger and fries, nonetheless. I don't need to make foie gras to know I'm good, and I don't expect that someone demanding foie gras is going to like my stuff.
I'm kind of amused about how snobbish a lot of artists (and writers, to be fair) come across when they see something produced for a relative pittance (though I'm sure Michael Komarck gets more for that cover than I got for, say, Running Wild) for the mass market, and decide it's not Michelangelo or Hugo, and therefore it's no damn good. I honestly don't know what they're expecting by holding people to the impossibly high standards they hold them to. You try working to the timetables that commercial art directors and editors hold you to (and I know whereof I speak here), working from notes that get pretty specific at times, and let's see you turn in O'Keeffe or Verne.
I'm not a painter. I'm a writer and a http://pgoodman13.deviantart.com/. I don't claim to be great at either, but I know enough about visual arts to comment on it reasonably intelligently, at least in terms of composition and style (though, since I never took any classes at the world's most presitigious art institutes, I know my commentary probably doesn't matter). So here we go:
Is it a little busy? Yeah, maybe, but combat scenes can get pretty frenetic without a lot of effort. (They're a bitch to write, too, for the record, at least for me.) I'm not 100% sold on all the logos, but I do know that it feels very Blade Runner to me in that sense; there were logos on every damn thing in Blade Runner, and I feel like this gets that part right. Some of those corp logos are gonna be covered up by the Shadowrun logo anyway, so I don't see that as a negative.
The composition works for me; it seems fairly balanced to me, and it easy enough to follow what's going on. I'm curious about what's going on, but it's not enough to make me say, "There's no story!" Sure there is: Runners are in a hell of a fix and trying to get out of it, while security has come up a different way and they're tyring very much to keep the runners from leaving. It's a tale as old as crime itself, though that bug is sure making me nervous.
Are there problems with contrast and perspective? A little, on the perspective front anyway, though unlike some of esteemed fellow forum denizens, I don't have an issue with the contrast, particularly. I like the color palette, and the lighting works for me, too.
Overall, the image screams "Cool adventure!" and "You wanna play this game!" to me, and that (ultimately) is its job. So I think he succeeds here. I'd pick up this book to see if the game itself was as cool as the cover based on this image.
Hell, I might even super-size it....
I wanted to reply to this specifically because you put this in words that really made me think about things. I totally understand your perspective but I think that you and I think in a similar vein. You say you make a the writer's equivalent of a Big Mac, and that you are trying to make the best Big Mac you can. That's what I find to be most important. I have a problem with the work because it feels cheap and unfinished, it's unedited, it just needs a few things to be a really good cover!
Trust me when I say I understand that the payment on this piece probably equated to about $3 an hour, but I guess I just want to see an artist create work to the best of their ability and strive for the best possible. I think it's important to want to do the best that you can, and if this is the best the artist can do, that's great, his Big Mac still looks pretty good, but maybe he'll fix the errors in this one and make an even better Big Mac next time.
I just want to say that I really relate to you on the Big Mac level, I'm a newer writer that does have a paying job, but one day I'd like to be published in the biggest Big Mac market there is, romance. Sure you can laugh because 99.9% of romance novels are pure crap that a 14 year old could write but as you stated, I want to write the best damn Big Mac I can.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Feb 26 2013, 01:47 AM
I would point out that there is a big difference between knowing proper anatomy and choosing to stylize or abstract away from it as a conscious decision as an artist, and simply not knowing proper anatomy.
Good artists will learn proper anatomy and choose to use it or not depending on their goals.
Bad artists never bother to learn it, among other bad habits, and wonder why their art never progresses past "amateur" levels.
-k
off and on professional freelance artist
Posted by: Patrick Goodman Feb 26 2013, 03:26 AM
Good artists will learn proper anatomy and choose to use it or not depending on their goals.
I think it's been mentioned, but it's a good thing to reiterate it: Good writers learn the rules, too, and then pick and choose when to break them for the best effect. But you have to know the rules before you can break them effectively. Anything else is just a train wreck (and I could show you my first novel as proof, if I hadn't thrown it over the side of a shrimp boat in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico thirty years ago).
But to break the rules and it not be a train wreck, you have to know how to spell, you have to know grammar, you have to know basic style, you have to know how the language works. Until you know that, until you know the basics, you can't make the language work for you. It just won't happen. I'm 46 years old, I've been writing for 30-something of those, and I'm only recently beginning to feel like I've got that part of it down. I can string together some pretty nice sentences, but that's because I've been working on how to make the words work together for a long time. Like KI said, there's a big difference in knowing how to write a simple declarative sentence, and choosing not to, and in not knowing how to write a simple declarative sentence, and rambling on for two pages because you don't know where to put the damn period and start the next sentence. I've seen both. Hell, I've done both.
Okay, that might have been more than people wanted to hear, but there it is anyway.
Posted by: Critias Feb 26 2013, 04:26 AM
It's a corny reference to make, I know, but every time this sort of conversation comes up, I remember an episode of that old Young Indiana Jones Chronicles show, an episode called Young Indiana Jones and the Mystery of the Blues (yes, really, bear with me). Indy insists that because jazz is all about improvisation, he doesn't really need to practice anything -- he'll just be improvising anyways, right? -- and then he humiliates himself. Then he spends the whole damned episode practicing Twinkle Twinkle Little Star on his soprano sax, over and over and over and really learning the song inside and out, so that he can improvise it later.
I'm cheerfully admit I'm a Big Mac writer, myself. Hell, I'm a 99 cent value menu Junior Bacon Cheeseburger writer. The point stands, either way, though. I have to do all sorts of professional, grammatically correct, academic writing (and grade an awful lot of the same) in my day job. I know the rules. You've got to know the rules before you can choose to throw them away from time to time.
I think the point stands whether you're talking writing, art, or Sean Patrick Flannery playing the blues.
Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 26 2013, 04:59 AM
Some of us actually love the 99cent bacon cheeseburgers.
Keep up the good work guys.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)