Art is subjective, one's mans exciting classic is another mans old and boring.
The reason we have Elmore's of the world is because some company at some point said, hey kid, here is your shot and let them create something and put it on a cover. It's not like ELmore was a famous artist the day he started.
I support Wizards on this, let the next generation of artist get their shot. Just don't do AI art, if that is a trade off, its a hard no on principle alone.
If I'm looking at the right one...I can't say I'm a fan, I'm not really keen on the expressions in their faces. It reminds me of a style, and I'm not keen on those either. There are several paintings that I like the idea of and would hang up, but they have that weird expression on their face and I really don't like it.
However, as noted earlier in the thread, art is subjective. I'm guessing there are those who do like that style, or it wouldn't be used. It's also not like the art is going to make me buy the book or put me off (another concept I don't really understand - I'm buying the book for the story, not the cover art. The only way cover art affects my purchases is helping me judge the tone of the book, not because I think it's really good art or not).
I'm not convinced that this means pretty much anything with respect to the healthiness of the franchise. It's a different style, and it resonates with some but not others. Even as someone who it doesn't resonate with - it's s bit of a shrug.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'll give it to @infamousArchmage here: That is some godawful work. But then ... I didn't realise they dusted off Weis and Hickman for this. Talk about giving 'the next generation of artists their shot' huh? =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Generally I agree that art on a novel has literally zero baring on my reading choices, I certainly find certain art cool, in fact I have the classic Dragonlance Dragons of Autumn as a poster in my office, but its actually not there because I love the art so much but in fact because I love(ed) reading the book so much. To me its a memory in a picture. Looking at that art today, I mean, its still cool, but is it really that much more impressive than modern digital art? Im not so sure.
Usually the art that stands out to me are pieces that are really out there, breaking expectations. I actually found I liked a lot of the art in the 5e Players Handbook... I know that puts my OSR membership at risk, but some of that is pretty fantastic.. subjective I know but... I can't say that I don't like modern fantasy art, its quite often pretty amazing.
Are WotC involved in the Dragonlance novels? I thought that was a project helmed entirely by Weis and Hickman?
I think you’re right. At least this book (number 3 in a series of 3) was published by random house. I do remember some dragonlance lawsuits a couple years back, but don’t remember what they were all about.
Though I do agree with the OP that the cover art is poor. At least the faces are kind of deep down in the uncanny valley for my tastes.
Are WotC involved in the Dragonlance novels? I thought that was a project helmed entirely by Weis and Hickman?
I think you’re right. At least this book (number 3 in a series of 3) was published by random house. I do remember some dragonlance lawsuits a couple years back, but don’t remember what they were all about.
Though I do agree with the OP that the cover art is poor. At least the faces are kind of deep down in the uncanny valley for my tastes.
Weis and Hickman had a licensing deal to write these novels but it seems that WotC did not oversee the project. That would mean that the art choice was done by the publisher/author(s) which would be normal business practice in the publishing industry.
Are WotC involved in the Dragonlance novels? I thought that was a project helmed entirely by Weis and Hickman?
I think you’re right. At least this book (number 3 in a series of 3) was published by random house. I do remember some dragonlance lawsuits a couple years back, but don’t remember what they were all about.
If it's published by Random House, they're presumably the ones who commission the art. WotC may get approval; depends on the contract. (Authors pretty much never get input, but WotC have a lot more power. Their concerns are going to be "does this damage the brand?", not "is this good?".)
Elmore's going to be way out of their budget, and likely can't work on their schedule.
Though I do agree with the OP that the cover art is poor. At least the faces are kind of deep down in the uncanny valley for my tastes.
The people in general are poor, and there's something wonky about that railing.
It's not "AI", though, before anyone suggests it. (The repetitive background detail like leaves and dragon scales is too competent. At no point does it blur or merge into something else, and it even manages multiple overlapping tree lines.)
The danger is gone. D&D now feels more like a product in line with Hasbro's franchises for small children than it does D&D.
Danger? This is the game that had a Saturday morning cartoon more than 40 years ago. It has never been the place where one goes for 'danger'. It's certainly never been something conveyed in the Dragonlance cover art.
The art is “meh” for me, though I’m also looking at it on a phone so the picture might not be large enough for fuzziness to stand out. It’s a generic fantasy picture, and that’s about all I expect from a typical book cover.
The art is “meh” for me, though I’m also looking at it on a phone so the picture might not be large enough for fuzziness to stand out. It’s a generic fantasy picture, and that’s about all I expect from a typical book cover.
It's certainly what one would expect for a Dragonlance cover. Three figures with a dragon in the background. Honestly, even if the implementation is poor, the composition is a bit more interesting than the original Elmore covers.
(1) Random House hired the artist(s) but Wizards of the Coast had to grant approval because they wanted the cover art to align with their vision of the property. This has been spelled out in the press, which people would know if they just did the bare minimum of research and read, instead of simply speculating to wish away any role Wizards might have had in this.
(2) Visual art is no more 'subjective' than is music or literature. An individual subject's enjoyment, or lack of, of something is a matter of subjectivity. That doesn't mean everyone can play a musical instrument, does it? It doesn't mean everyone can write good fiction. [I know. I teach both literature and creative writing.] Neither does it mean everyone can draw or paint with the technique, precision and composition we expect from even a half-decent draftsperson. People attend art college for a reason. It's not all theory. I could not care less if they hired an old or a new artist. I love the work of a lot of young artists in this industry and in others. But the least they could do when the cover art is going to feature figures and their faces are going to be visible—is hire someone who knows how to draw or paint faces properly, instead of just cutting costs. It's not like they can't afford to do that much.
Elmore's going to be way out of their budget, and likely can't work on their schedule.
Random House's budget? Hardly. It's in a conglomerate with Penguin. Random House give advances of tens of thousands of dollars to even just new and upcoming authors as if it were mere change. Elmore "likely can't work on their schedule"? What makes you say that? For how long were the books in the works? When did Weis and Hickman get the go-ahead? It would have taken Elmore considerably less time to paint each cover than it would have taken Weis and Hickman to write each book. These aren't short stories for the pulps.
(1) Random House hired the artist(s) but Wizards of the Coast had to grant approval because they wanted the cover art to align with their vision of the property. This has been spelled out in the press, which people would know if they just did the bare minimum of research and read, instead of simply speculating to wish away any role Wizards might have had in this.
The artist was chosen by the Publisher, In the video I linked above Phillip Urlich talks about it at around 4 minutes in.
According to the artist, WotC gave input on the design of the Dragon, but the actual overall cover was directed by the publisher's designer. This was talked about at the 9 minute mark. Urlich talks about how WotC was concerned about the dragons looking like the official 5e dragons.
At the 17 minute mark Phillip Urlich talks about input from Margaret Weis and how she gave him direction on the character designs for the 3rd book.
Elmore's going to be way out of their budget, and likely can't work on their schedule.
Random House's budget? Hardly. It's in a conglomerate with Penguin. Random House give advances of tens of thousands of dollars to even just new and upcoming authors as if it were mere change.
I didn't say "they can't afford it". I said "it's not in their budget". They'll have set aside some relatively small amount of money for the cover art. Might they pay for somebody who commands Elmore's prices for someone like N.K. Jemisin, or GRRM, or a newer author that they're making a big push on? Maybe, though I doubt it. (They'd certainly have a bigger budget.)
But cover art for the umpteenth Dragonlance book? Why? It's a book that sells to its built-in audience who'll buy it whatever the cover looks like. Almost nobody will pick it up just on the cover, whatever the cover looks like, and most of those who do will put it down on "book three of a trilogy in a series of trilogies".
(Also, those advances? They're really not that big when you consider how much time it takes to write a novel. And I'm pretty sure new authors in F&SF are pulling way under $10K these days.)
Elmore "likely can't work on their schedule"? What makes you say that? For how long were the books in the works? When did Weis and Hickman get the go-ahead? It would have taken Elmore considerably less time to paint each cover than it would have taken Weis and Hickman to write each book. These aren't short stories for the pulps.
Pretty sure publishers don't even think about commissioning art until the manuscript is delivered and the book's in production. At which point, it's got a slot on the schedule, and they need time to get the spec to the artist, give them time to work, time for a couple of rounds of sending it back for changes, probably extra time with WotC in the loop.
Meanwhile, Elmore is likely semi-retired, doing big money commissions for fans. He may well be booked out for months or years, and isn't going to be as fast as he used to be.
But yes, if they really wanted to get an Elmore cover, they could've made it happen. But there's no reason for them to jump through the hoops required to do so.
I don't know who Kevin Lamb is but apparently he asked Larry Elmore why he didn't do the covers and it is likely his tweet being used by Clownfish that started this conversion in this thread.
The publisher wanted a digital artist. The publisher selected and contacted Phillip Urlich. Phillip Urlich got his direction from the publisher's designer, WotC wanted the dragons to look like the official 5e dragons, Margaret Weis had input on the character design.
I didn't say "they can't afford it". I said "it's not in their budget". They'll have set aside some relatively small amount of money for the cover art. Might they pay for somebody who commands Elmore's prices for someone like N.K. Jemisin, or GRRM, or a newer author that they're making a big push on? Maybe, though I doubt it. (They'd certainly have a bigger budget.)
How have you arrived at the conclusion Elmore is charging a king's ransom for his work? Greg Gillespie and even smaller players in the hobby have had Elmore do work for them or acquired permission for use of existing work. Are you suggesting Random House have never put forward the money for an established artist's work? Because you would be very wrong. I now lecture in lit. and workshop creative writing for middle and high school students, but I used to work in the book industry. You have gone from one assumption to another. Maybe Elmore this. (You are now saying how busy he might have been when he put his hand up to do it, so eager was he to return to painting something for the franchise. Characters he practically defined for a whole generation.) Maybe Random House that. I mean, maybe you're wrong? Did you ever think about that? And you are wrong: artists are most often given nothing more than a concept well in advance to ensure work is complete well in advance with ample time to spare should changes be requested or for experimenting with layouts and whatnot. Heck, a lot of work is already done before the author has even put pen to paper. It's simply then licensed.
A close friend of mine has paid to have more than one original done by a pioneering manga artist. These things are not beyond the reach of ordinary people. But you're acting as if it's perfectly excusable that a multi-billion dollar publisher only put forward the money to afford to pay someone who can't even draw faces even as well as many an amateur when publishers smaller than them are paying some of the best living artists today to do both covers and interior art for the books they publish?
Why are less popular authors of the genre even obtaining better art? The latest series by the twin authors of one of the most popular and best selling fantasy trilogies in recent decades gets that. But older authors who have fallen into near obscurity except among fantasy diehards get Brom? Tom Kidd? Julie Bell? Sam Weber?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Put it down to personal taste if it pleases you but what I am seeing is why I don't like digital art.
Look at the faces on the figures on the cover of Dragons of Eternity.
Tanis' in particular. Kitiara's doesn't even look finished.
Compare this to those in the paintings of Larry Elmore who painted the cover art for the original series.
I'm sorry. But this is bad art. Some independently published baby's first bible bad art.
If Wizards are doing so well and have all the money in the world why didn't they take Elmore up on his offer to do the covers?
This travesty is just another reason excitement for the game is waning.
The danger is gone. D&D now feels more like a product in line with Hasbro's franchises for small children than it does D&D.
And the art direction pales astronomically in comparison to what has come before.
Art is subjective, one's mans exciting classic is another mans old and boring.
The reason we have Elmore's of the world is because some company at some point said, hey kid, here is your shot and let them create something and put it on a cover. It's not like ELmore was a famous artist the day he started.
I support Wizards on this, let the next generation of artist get their shot. Just don't do AI art, if that is a trade off, its a hard no on principle alone.
If I'm looking at the right one...I can't say I'm a fan, I'm not really keen on the expressions in their faces. It reminds me of a style, and I'm not keen on those either. There are several paintings that I like the idea of and would hang up, but they have that weird expression on their face and I really don't like it.
However, as noted earlier in the thread, art is subjective. I'm guessing there are those who do like that style, or it wouldn't be used. It's also not like the art is going to make me buy the book or put me off (another concept I don't really understand - I'm buying the book for the story, not the cover art. The only way cover art affects my purchases is helping me judge the tone of the book, not because I think it's really good art or not).
I'm not convinced that this means pretty much anything with respect to the healthiness of the franchise. It's a different style, and it resonates with some but not others. Even as someone who it doesn't resonate with - it's s bit of a shrug.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'll give it to @infamousArchmage here: That is some godawful work. But then ... I didn't realise they dusted off Weis and Hickman for this. Talk about giving 'the next generation of artists their shot' huh? =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Are WotC involved in the Dragonlance novels? I thought that was a project helmed entirely by Weis and Hickman?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Ok you have me curious now, anyone have a link?
Generally I agree that art on a novel has literally zero baring on my reading choices, I certainly find certain art cool, in fact I have the classic Dragonlance Dragons of Autumn as a poster in my office, but its actually not there because I love the art so much but in fact because I love(ed) reading the book so much. To me its a memory in a picture. Looking at that art today, I mean, its still cool, but is it really that much more impressive than modern digital art? Im not so sure.
Usually the art that stands out to me are pieces that are really out there, breaking expectations. I actually found I liked a lot of the art in the 5e Players Handbook... I know that puts my OSR membership at risk, but some of that is pretty fantastic.. subjective I know but... I can't say that I don't like modern fantasy art, its quite often pretty amazing.
art by Philipp Urlich
Published by Random House Worlds
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Just as a side note for those that might be interested.
Youtube Interview with Phillip Urliich about this cover
Not a great listen, but does provide more information about the artist in question.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think you’re right. At least this book (number 3 in a series of 3) was published by random house. I do remember some dragonlance lawsuits a couple years back, but don’t remember what they were all about.
Though I do agree with the OP that the cover art is poor. At least the faces are kind of deep down in the uncanny valley for my tastes.
Weis and Hickman had a licensing deal to write these novels but it seems that WotC did not oversee the project. That would mean that the art choice was done by the publisher/author(s) which would be normal business practice in the publishing industry.
Does anyone have more information?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If it's published by Random House, they're presumably the ones who commission the art. WotC may get approval; depends on the contract. (Authors pretty much never get input, but WotC have a lot more power. Their concerns are going to be "does this damage the brand?", not "is this good?".)
Elmore's going to be way out of their budget, and likely can't work on their schedule.
The people in general are poor, and there's something wonky about that railing.
It's not "AI", though, before anyone suggests it. (The repetitive background detail like leaves and dragon scales is too competent. At no point does it blur or merge into something else, and it even manages multiple overlapping tree lines.)
Danger? This is the game that had a Saturday morning cartoon more than 40 years ago. It has never been the place where one goes for 'danger'. It's certainly never been something conveyed in the Dragonlance cover art.
The art is “meh” for me, though I’m also looking at it on a phone so the picture might not be large enough for fuzziness to stand out. It’s a generic fantasy picture, and that’s about all I expect from a typical book cover.
It's certainly what one would expect for a Dragonlance cover. Three figures with a dragon in the background. Honestly, even if the implementation is poor, the composition is a bit more interesting than the original Elmore covers.
Two points to be made here:
(1) Random House hired the artist(s) but Wizards of the Coast had to grant approval because they wanted the cover art to align with their vision of the property. This has been spelled out in the press, which people would know if they just did the bare minimum of research and read, instead of simply speculating to wish away any role Wizards might have had in this.
(2) Visual art is no more 'subjective' than is music or literature. An individual subject's enjoyment, or lack of, of something is a matter of subjectivity. That doesn't mean everyone can play a musical instrument, does it? It doesn't mean everyone can write good fiction. [I know. I teach both literature and creative writing.] Neither does it mean everyone can draw or paint with the technique, precision and composition we expect from even a half-decent draftsperson. People attend art college for a reason. It's not all theory. I could not care less if they hired an old or a new artist. I love the work of a lot of young artists in this industry and in others. But the least they could do when the cover art is going to feature figures and their faces are going to be visible—is hire someone who knows how to draw or paint faces properly, instead of just cutting costs. It's not like they can't afford to do that much.
Random House's budget? Hardly. It's in a conglomerate with Penguin. Random House give advances of tens of thousands of dollars to even just new and upcoming authors as if it were mere change. Elmore "likely can't work on their schedule"? What makes you say that? For how long were the books in the works? When did Weis and Hickman get the go-ahead? It would have taken Elmore considerably less time to paint each cover than it would have taken Weis and Hickman to write each book. These aren't short stories for the pulps.
The artist was chosen by the Publisher, In the video I linked above Phillip Urlich talks about it at around 4 minutes in.
According to the artist, WotC gave input on the design of the Dragon, but the actual overall cover was directed by the publisher's designer. This was talked about at the 9 minute mark. Urlich talks about how WotC was concerned about the dragons looking like the official 5e dragons.
At the 17 minute mark Phillip Urlich talks about input from Margaret Weis and how she gave him direction on the character designs for the 3rd book.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I didn't say "they can't afford it". I said "it's not in their budget". They'll have set aside some relatively small amount of money for the cover art. Might they pay for somebody who commands Elmore's prices for someone like N.K. Jemisin, or GRRM, or a newer author that they're making a big push on? Maybe, though I doubt it. (They'd certainly have a bigger budget.)
But cover art for the umpteenth Dragonlance book? Why? It's a book that sells to its built-in audience who'll buy it whatever the cover looks like. Almost nobody will pick it up just on the cover, whatever the cover looks like, and most of those who do will put it down on "book three of a trilogy in a series of trilogies".
(Also, those advances? They're really not that big when you consider how much time it takes to write a novel. And I'm pretty sure new authors in F&SF are pulling way under $10K these days.)
Pretty sure publishers don't even think about commissioning art until the manuscript is delivered and the book's in production. At which point, it's got a slot on the schedule, and they need time to get the spec to the artist, give them time to work, time for a couple of rounds of sending it back for changes, probably extra time with WotC in the loop.
Meanwhile, Elmore is likely semi-retired, doing big money commissions for fans. He may well be booked out for months or years, and isn't going to be as fast as he used to be.
But yes, if they really wanted to get an Elmore cover, they could've made it happen. But there's no reason for them to jump through the hoops required to do so.
Kevin Lamb asked Larry Elmore
I don't know who Kevin Lamb is but apparently he asked Larry Elmore why he didn't do the covers and it is likely his tweet being used by Clownfish that started this conversion in this thread.
The publisher wanted a digital artist. The publisher selected and contacted Phillip Urlich. Phillip Urlich got his direction from the publisher's designer, WotC wanted the dragons to look like the official 5e dragons, Margaret Weis had input on the character design.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Well, it's pretty bad art... but I was never much of a fan of the original art either, so not much change there.
How have you arrived at the conclusion Elmore is charging a king's ransom for his work? Greg Gillespie and even smaller players in the hobby have had Elmore do work for them or acquired permission for use of existing work. Are you suggesting Random House have never put forward the money for an established artist's work? Because you would be very wrong. I now lecture in lit. and workshop creative writing for middle and high school students, but I used to work in the book industry. You have gone from one assumption to another. Maybe Elmore this. (You are now saying how busy he might have been when he put his hand up to do it, so eager was he to return to painting something for the franchise. Characters he practically defined for a whole generation.) Maybe Random House that. I mean, maybe you're wrong? Did you ever think about that? And you are wrong: artists are most often given nothing more than a concept well in advance to ensure work is complete well in advance with ample time to spare should changes be requested or for experimenting with layouts and whatnot. Heck, a lot of work is already done before the author has even put pen to paper. It's simply then licensed.
A close friend of mine has paid to have more than one original done by a pioneering manga artist. These things are not beyond the reach of ordinary people. But you're acting as if it's perfectly excusable that a multi-billion dollar publisher only put forward the money to afford to pay someone who can't even draw faces even as well as many an amateur when publishers smaller than them are paying some of the best living artists today to do both covers and interior art for the books they publish?
Why are less popular authors of the genre even obtaining better art? The latest series by the twin authors of one of the most popular and best selling fantasy trilogies in recent decades gets that. But older authors who have fallen into near obscurity except among fantasy diehards get Brom? Tom Kidd? Julie Bell? Sam Weber?