[X] My Assistant

[Grinder]

Is that a roach spirit?

Could be an illusion spell (trideo phantasm, anyone?), too.

[Lionhearted]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Pepsi Jedi]

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.))

[_Pax._]

Same difference.

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.

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"

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.

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.

But, one can go and say "I generally like hot days, but today is just too hot".

I -get- what they're saying [...]

No, no I really don't think you do.

[SirBedevere]

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.

[SIN]

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!

[ShadowJackal]

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.

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>

[hermit]

These are mistakes you do not make. The overextended spines on the women are pretty crap-tasic too but less offensive to the eye.

They suffer from comic book spine syndrome. It's a very common affliction of women in modern gaming and comics art.

[bannockburn]

Correct anatomy is less important if it still looks cool. Case in point: http://nebezial.deviantart.com/art/diablo-...-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" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
So, no, the perspective is not 'in everything way off', apart from maybe those skyscrapers in the background.

[ShadowJackal]

Correct anatomy is less important if it still looks cool. Case in point: http://nebezial.deviantart.com/art/diablo-...-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" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
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...)

[bannockburn]

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' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[ShadowJackal]

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' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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".

[bannockburn]

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_ (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
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.

[Medicineman]

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

Sidenote :
its Louis Royo http://www.luisroyo.com/
http://lcart1.narod.ru/image/fantasy/luis_...o_shadowrun.jpg
, not Boris Vallejo
(Thats the 80's Airbrush Fantasy Painter http://vallejo.ural.net/1980/ )

with a Sidedance
Medicineman

[bannockburn]

You are entirely correct. I lost my FoF years ago and identified from memory (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)
The point still stands (for both artists, btw *g*)

[hermit]

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.

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.

[Nath]

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.

I always knew Raphael was a loser.

[hermit]

The Medici forced him too. She wrote that here.

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 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.

[Patrick Goodman]

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 photographer. 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....

[Medicineman]

some Guys simply aren't happy when they can't complain about sth.
And I thought this is a "German Attitude"

HokaHey
Medicineman

[Pepsi Jedi]

No, it's not. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

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___"

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.

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.

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.

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.

But, one can go and say "I generally like hot days, but today is just too hot".

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.

No, no I really don't think you do.

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.

[Grinder]

some Guys simply aren't happy when they can't complain about sth.
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.

[Grinder]

Pepsi Jedi, _Pax_: stop it.

[bannockburn]

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?show...p;#entry1212070

[_Pax._]

Fantasy art and comic art as a whole is a joke to the fine art world.

Monet and the other Impressionists were similarly disparaged by the established artists of their time.

Just sayin'.