What art style do you prefer, Veeky Forums?

B

Lizards should not have boobs.

No, this is hypothetical.
I just know there are always anons who systematically answer "none of them, kill yourself" to any multiple choice question because it makes them feel superior.

Hypothetical? For what fucking purpose? Are you conducting some kind of weird-ass board survey?

He kind of is, there was the /co/ that posed the same OP image here: Funny enough most of the replies prefer A and B.

For a game A. For Shonen anime see: B. For "we dont takeep our own system seriously and neither should you," C.

Isn't that from minus8's tumblr?

Either way, it depends on what kind of mood things are in. Probably A, but B and C can occasionally show up if things feel more lighthearted.

you aren't good enough to do A
B works
C just looks like shit

A or B, with the emphasis on B.

C only if it's very lightweight game.

>A
great
>B
Warning, waifu shit levels growing
>C
Maximum waifushitter, opinion, post and """art""" discarded forever.

I think they're all exactly equally good OP good job you're the best OP I love you.

A.
B just makes it look cartoonish and funny, and C deserves to be shot.

B keeps a good mix of A and C while still having detail and not skimping too much on quality. Can allow for more expressive emotions without being cutesy as well as cutting down on drawing time that a more realistic model would. A would be my second choice and C is more for a light hearted style.

A looks better and more real, C looks like cancer,B is alright.

B but no side mouth

Find a better artist.

This.

I like them all

it really depends on teh setting

B it's a lot cleaner that A and more relatable to the audience due to the simplified style. A is suitable if you have a solid understanding of the anatomy of all your characters and plan to only use the lizards as secondary characters rather than your main. C is too simplified and better suited to younger readers.

For a rulebook?
All of them, the type switching by tone.
For example, character portraits detailed, party chatter or humorous scenes less so.

Fine. I won't discourage the artist. I'll encourage him to do a better job.

A is too ugly, C doesn't have enough detail.
B is perfect.

A by far.

B and C have a bad case of anime sidemouth, and C is way too cutesy minimalist.

this
That kills B and C for me; otherwise adorable.
I'm good with all styles desu; depends on the intended tone. Personally I go for more of a B situation in general; sans side-mouth.

A, most of the time, though B and C can have their places depending on the mood.

They're filled with Hist Sap.

A is the most accurate, and I really like tjhe detail
B displays more emotion which I loveeven though argonians aren't supposed to be able to and still has plenty of detail
C has the biggest tits and is kawaii as fuck

B > A > C

A >>>>> B > C

Depends entirely on the setting and tone.

B. It's not too gaunt like A, but isn't quite as dead simple as C. It's decently seriously while still being visually appealing.

A. Realism is nice. B is acceptable.

I cannot believe anyone would choose B over A. A is an awesome lizard-creature, and B is a Pokemon. Come on, you fags.

A has the potential of looking bad if not everything is at the same cohesive design level. Like I don't know if I could or would see more variety in lizard people in that style. But it is by far, the best style.

B is probably the most versatile style so long as you don't go full grimdark with the tone. It is cute but exaggerated and there's room for more variety that I can at least picture. You could probably get the most mileage out of B.

C is full retard and absolutely terrible. Save it for a style you break out when someone gets slipped some major acid and they're black-out debauched in the lair of the enemy. Which is to say, don't use it unless it works for comedic effect; and even then use it sparringly.

A for a more serious project, B for a more lighthearted project (sans side-mouth, fix that).

Also, if you go for option A remember to keep her face expressive. Otherwise she's just going to look silly.

B.

>tfw I share a board with muh realism fags
Oh the humanity.

A is tryhard nonsense that only grognards could like.

It's not about realism, sidemount is not the worst atrocity against art, but only because tumblr nose exists.

Sidemouth is whatever tier and is mostly used as a animation shortcut because animators aren't paid enough to care.

I would totally hold hands with B

A, Maybe B if it needs done fast, C if its for a joke/needs done tomorrow.

>lizard people
>realism
what
we just like the more defined design more

>either of those things
>greatest atrocities to art
>atrocities to art
>not dadaists
>not ISIS actively destroying art from the oldest civilization on earth
>not the sphinx' nose being blown off by soldiers
>not the systemic looting of every ancient wonder
Fucking internet people have no perspective

>style
>STYLE
>S T Y L E

S T Y L E
T
Y
L
E

No seriously, if you can do "style" A then do the higher quality art. You'll never get better doing B or C.

Awesome is stretching it. It's a T-rex skull on a really skinny neck with some chicken feathers.

B looks like it's trying to be its own thing, and is overall more expressive

I never understood why people like #3. Literal children under 5 can make better stuff.

It's almost as if it lines up with the popularity of Photography, and the onset of film and mass production to make pictures more accessible.
Weird right?

But... what does that have to do with bad art

>Photography ruined the value of painting skills

>What is fantasy

>What is the use of matte paintings in movies with lots of special effects

>What is pushing skills to develop as an artist

It seems that you have labeled lifelike art, 'good art' and if it's not, it's 'bad art'.
Before 1850~, if you wanted a lasting realistic picture of a thing, you needed an artist to paint the thing. Ideally, you would want them to make it look like real life, and this was not cheap.
This pushed artists to be more and more true to life, or at least be able to do lifelike embellishments.

This, in my opinion, probably would have gone on with more of the same, but then plate photography came in to being. Suddenly it was much easier to get a true to life representation for much less than it would cost to commission a painter to create.

Here's the question, what did this mean for the life of a painter? You could try and stay the course, and I'm sure a lot of them did that, but I don't think there would still be enough money out there to sustain the art community in the same way that it had. What could an artist paint that a photograph could not capture? Their impressions on what they see. Obviously, this wasn't an instant hit, but I don't think it would have happened at all if photography didn't happen.

I'm not defending modern art, it's gotten pretty awful, but simply dismissing Impressionism and what came from it as bad art and nothing else is just poor taste.

B is really neat.
Except for the lack of arrows in the frontal picture.

I don't care whether it's lifelike, but #3 just looks bland, just a few lines in the most basic 'person' shape, but I get what you're saying.
I was more criticizing that specific piece of art rather than simplistic art as a whole.

user, conceptart.org wants a word with you

>Continues to ignore the value of quality fantasy art
>What photography couldn't do
>Not until modern CGI of the 21st century
>Even then, quality concept art is faster to churn out

I post frazetta because quality color film was available to schmucks making costumes and sets in their basement. This painting still took fewer manhours than practical effects or modern CGI.

Quality realistic art will always have a place for conceptual work.

>1
A good place to begin. Somewhat lifelike, still obviously style due to the sandy undertone of the picture.

>2
A reasonable art piece with more surreal colours. This allows for a more varied art style.

>3
Artist got lazy and tries to scam the world.
The world, in large, falls for it.

>Being able to see what's come of technology is so easy in the present day, why didn't they realize what is possible now when the technology was new?

>'artistic skill' means the ability to recreate real life and nothing else.

>What is fantasy? What is surrealism?

>>'artistic skill' means the ability to recreate real life and nothing else.

>Learn-2-draw anime done enough times will make a professional artist
Uh huh.

That's certainly fair, I'm not a fan of that particular picture either.

I admit that I'm not as familiar with the history of 'fantasy art' as I should. Could you point me towards a good timeline? I doubt that fantasy art could keep the entire art community afloat on it's own. Also, and I say this purely in a non-judgemental historical context, that the art community likely saw fantasy art, as my understanding of it, as 'low brow' art. Still, my knowledge is lacking and I'll have to fix that.

I'm also not saying that Impressionism and what followed were the only option, I'm only defending their existence.

That's not even remotely what I've said and you know it.

ceci n'est pas une bait.jpg

> the history of 'fantasy art'

Well, I'd say it starts with shit nobody could have taken photographs of if they wanted to, with shit like religious organizations demanding higher quality embellishments.
Businesses gotta zazzle people with nice concept art to attract business.

Then I'd say propaganda has a lot to do with it when a real general on his horse in the actual middle of battle looks like shit, and it's not like you can go back in time to take more photos of real moments.
Organizations gotta wowzer people with nice concept art to attract support.

A fundamental understanding of what a real thing looks like is required by all art, be it impressionism or manga, or even sculpting or needlepoint.

Fantasy is no exception. References, references, practice, practice, and more references.

I'm trying to find a timeline on the art style. I understand "You can't take pictures of things that don't exist", but I want more to look through.
From the rest of what you've said, I'm starting to assume you mean 'anything that either can't have a picture or would be unlikely to be photographed,' which I don't think is a practical way of thinking with this.

If anyone does have any information, would be interested to pick up some reading, I'll check in on this thread in the morning.

Also, the picture is not directed, but I got the idea in my head and figured I'd make it.

I think all 3 have their merits. A has the ability to allow for more realistic approaches and appeal to the dnd crowd that enjoy more realistic, oil painting styled artwork for games systems.

B, while being more cartoony, allows for more expression. Surrealism and drawing outside the anatomically correct allowed for greater diversity of art and expression.

>Not anatomically correct
>allows for more expression.

Or he could just study facial anatomy to learn the actual underlying mechanics of human expressions, then modify the anatomy of what he's drawing to allow for expressions without compromising overall quality.

As opposed to just drawing floating cartoon features.

and then realize you just spent months learning how to be a really really good furry artist.
... the beeessssst.....

Hey man, if you're okay with furfags knowing your power word: real name; you can make mad dosh.

> mad dosh
Only if you do fetish art.

gifted.jpg
again

>Now you're just the ___ fetish guy!
>Well, I've never drawn it before
>As long as I don't start it won't be a problem
>Squander your money making? Unthinkable!
>... mad dosh ...the very bessssstttt.....

Not that user but I agree with the intent

"The history of fantasy art" is going to be a couple thousand years of art including many genres and a great deal of change depending on culture, era, and intent.

If you wanted to track art in Dungeons and Dragons, you could find a timeline of quality, different artists and styles depending on what's popular and what's available, but that by no means is definitive of the genre.

Are you looking for Anime-style fantasy? Because that's something you could go through and analyze, the trends of the industry are really quite fascinating. American cartoons? We went from Thundercats to Adventure Time, there's a hell of a story there. What were books and movies doing? Because you could write a paper on what fantasy art looks like before and after Lord of the Rings came out.

TL:DR - Don't be so dismissive just because you're ignorant.

>Only if you do fetish art.
Furfaggotry in of itself is a fetish, don't kid yourself.

Don't kid yourself, yourself.

Don't make me post a picture of the tags on e621.
The real money is in other weird fetishes, wherein furry is merely a popular medium

I like B, it's expressive without being overly cartoon like C

>Don't make me post a picture of the tags on e621.
Don't make me post the pics of furfags paying 1k+ dollars for a neon dragon, or a radioactive dog with a neon dick.

/thread /board /site

B feels the most generic to me, so I'd prefer either A or C depending on tone.

Preferably, A, but I like B too.

A is the only non cancerous way

A is the best by far, but B could work for a light hearted game.
Burn C with fire.

Base it on theme of the game. If it's a store fantasy world where life is hard and death is cheap, go A. Go B if you want the beast races to be sympathetic. Go C if you wanta magical realm.

Easy, A.

This.

>As opposed to just drawing floating cartoon features.
That shit pisses me off, but drawing emotions like in pic related can be pretty damn difficult

god, i love Lackadaisy.
so good

C

man easily half of those I would use right along better drawn expressions.
Especially on the dopey guy.
Or the drunk guy.

A for a game.
B for porn.

All that just to briefly explain expressions. It's a miracle we get new comics at the rate we do.

A for a "realistic" setting with lizard people evolved from dinosaurs

B for kobolds in a less serious game with an anime feel to it

C for a cute and comfy game about exploration and cooperation more than combat