Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The 8th edition art is quite poor compared to a lot of the pieces that came out before then. It's that overly bright and clean look that doesn't feel like art for a grimdark setting.

Similar thing was going on with DoW 3's in game color saturation which strangely enough contrasted with it's own trailer art (which was amazing looking imo). Maybe that was a 2017 thing that GW wanted to have bright colors as the look for 40k.

They cave to conform to the concept of brand recognition. They want the art to match the models. If someone only ever saw John Blanches artwork and then they decided to get into the hobby they would probably be let down that there are about 2 models in the entire current range based on his art.
I like that they've left the Grimderp behind.
This is my "grimdark" artwork in the style of Blanche.

I feel I captured most of the common elements. Smudged ink, yellowed paper, smudged red ink, some scribbles, weird bionics, a lack of clarity between loyalist and heretic, odd proportions and so on.

Uptonius wrote:
They cave to conform to the concept of brand recognition. They want the art to match the models.

Making the art match the models isn't a brand recognition thing, it's a response to getting slapped down in a court case when they tried to stop another company from making models that GW didn't make themselves, based on GW artwork.

If someone only ever saw John Blanches artwork and then they decided to get into the hobby they would probably be let down that there are about 2 models in the entire current range based on his art.
I like that they've left the Grimderp behind.

Funnily enough, back when I first got into 40K in the early '90s, Blanche's artwork was my least favourite in the setting, and it bugged me that he kept drawing stuff that didn't match the game.

Over the years I've come to love what he does, but it was a real disconnect at first.

Whilst art is always subjective, I do personally agree that 40k art is better when it feels more gritty, and this is easier to achieve in monochrome. Not to say there isn't good modern GW art, but I do prefer a lot of the older pieces. Some 2nd ed/early 3rd ed era art is very goofy though, like all the portraits with the triangular noses, or the scarface Blood Angels...

People keep pinpointing 8th as a low point for 40k art being too clean. I actually think this trend was very prevalent in 7th and maybe started in 6th edition. I remember a lot of artwork in the Sentinels of Terra book just being... bright. Normally Imperial Fists stand out for being bright yellow, but they sort of just blended in in a lot of the picks. Poor contrast between elements of the image.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Uptonius wrote:
They cave to conform to the concept of brand recognition. They want the art to match the models.

Making the art match the models isn't a brand recognition thing, it's a response to getting slapped down in a court case when they tried to stop another company from making models that GW didn't make themselves, based on GW artwork.

If someone only ever saw John Blanches artwork and then they decided to get into the hobby they would probably be let down that there are about 2 models in the entire current range based on his art.
I like that they've left the Grimderp behind.

Funnily enough, back when I first got into 40K in the early '90s, Blanche's artwork was my least favourite in the setting, and it bugged me that he kept drawing stuff that didn't match the game.

Over the years I've come to love what he does, but it was a real disconnect at first.

Agree with this. I always appreciated Blanche's work as a vibe, but always preferred Jes Goodwin's concepts and artwork as a conversion from Blanche into "reality".

Tell GW to pay their artists better.

this thread is pure dakka dakka flavor though

stratigo wrote:
this thread is pure dakka dakka flavor though

What do you mean?

 Gert wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. Unlike certain companies who have been caught like 8 times already using AI, GW artists seem to have either been really good at hiding it or haven't used it yet.
Maybe because they're in-house and not commissioned?
Then again, the horrors of AI art could actually be useful for the likes of Chaos gribblies.

Some of there artists have already used it to generate procedural elements like faint background images, though I am not aware of anyone using it for the bulk of the image or key parts of it, no doubt due to copyright concerns.

I honestly don't think it's too bad. I agree that some of the colour choices are a bit garish, but the artwork itself looks fine. I took the colour out of the Fabius Bile pic in the OC and apart from FB's goofy grin it looks much more like something you'd see in the older editions.

 insaniak wrote:

Uptonius wrote:
They cave to conform to the concept of brand recognition. They want the art to match the models.

Making the art match the models isn't a brand recognition thing, it's a response to getting slapped down in a court case when they tried to stop another company from making models that GW didn't make themselves, based on GW artwork.

How do you explain Lewis Jones' work then?

As the work of an artist rather than an illustrator, and a welcome and gradual shift away from 1:1 model/art representation?

 insaniak wrote:
As the work of an artist rather than an illustrator, and a welcome and gradual shift away from 1:1 model/art representation?

Sorry, what I meant by that is if GW gave the edict that all* art has to resemble the models for whatever reason, then how is Lewis Jones, a new artist to GW's circle of artists allowed to apparently break that? I mean, I'm not complaining as his art is a breath of fresh air (I mean, I literally said he is the heir apparent to Blanche ITT...), but it seems odd that all of his pieces are a break from the norms that all* the other art has to adhere to.


*I put an asterisk there as it appears some of the more, trusted established artists (such as the piece by Paul Dainton on the previous page) can break this rule.

Yes, I got that. My point was that the 'art must just show the models' trend was something that they leant into in a big way in the aftermath of the Chapterhouse case, and that they seem to be gradually shifting back away from. But if some of their art is still being produced by illustrators rather than artists, it's still going to be in a similar style because that's what illustrators do.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, I got that. My point was that the 'art must just show the models' trend was something that they leant into in a big way in the aftermath of the Chapterhouse case, and that they seem to be gradually shifting back away from. But if some of their art is still being produced by illustrators rather than artists, it's still going to be in a similar style because that's what illustrators do.

Might be they’ve decided their new adherence to NMNR has closed the gap and art can look cool again as you won’t get rules until GW has something to sell…

I don't see the problem. Can you better explain where it's bad? I can see maybe some might say it's not their style, but sucks? That's not fair.

For a long time I didn't know how good old w40k or WFB art was. Right now both AoS and w40k art feel steril. On top of that most of it is models taken 1 to 1 and turned in to pictures. I maybe get it for model box art, but for art outside of that use? GK in their old art are 100% faction fantasy, a combination of a holy paladin and a mage/exorcist. 8th ed art is just copy of models. And I thought that this is how it has always been.

As someone who hasn't followed 'current' GW in a long time, I have to agree with the OP. The current stuff looks like it was put out by Marvel/Disney.

Also - and this a serious question - is GW no longer giving artistic credits? I've been watching the interviews with Priestly and Chambers, and Priestly said that the need to give the artists credits (to boost their careers) led to listing game design credits.

Is the new art uncredited?

It is credited to be made by GW.

Karol wrote:
It is credited to be made by GW.

That's not right.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think the biggest change is the use of computers and the pressure to churn out a lot more art for lower prices. No doubt AI elements will increasingly be used as well. The money paid means you simply can't take 'art' levels of time over an image. That 'cleaner' look is one consequence. It is hard to get the same sort of horror the old pieces have, because the pressures on artists have changed.

Digital illustration has zero to do with a piece of art being clean or bright.

Adrian Smith himself uses a mix of traditional and digital art techniques. Go check his YouTube page.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Maybe GW should let artists put their names on their works. It's hard to talk about art direction when a company is viewed as a monolith rather than a complex web of artist and businessmen.

There are going to artists of varying quality over the years and I'm I could make a list of subpar art from over years.

Mmmmm...remember when gw used to put those little "symbols" on every piece artwork so that you knew who made them? And when they actually promoted music? Awww.....Bolt Thrower. 40k actually got me into extreme metal. Sorry, just an old metal head/40k dude reminiscing.