Art and Painting in the New Codex

[Rodiger]

This is purely subjective, as all opinions on art are, but I really do not like the new art work in the codex, it looks like a Saturday morning kids cartoon TV series. I don’t like how the different styles are mixed together so there is no consistency across the book, with one art style on one page then another on the next, the unit fluff is full of this. The absolute worst pieces are the drawings that start on page 56 to show squad markings. It’s just plain ugly in my eyes and looks like it's been done by some 15 year old on work experience, and if they wanted to show the layout of the vehicles they should have done something like this http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/yqsbc547/GALLERY/show_image_v2.html?id=http://img5.blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ybi/1/33/90/yqsbc547/folder/446154/img_446154_59636886_1%3F1276942200&i=1

The biggest crime in the book for me is some of painted models used. Half of them look like a fans army rather than coming out of the ‘Eavy Metal Team. They are better than I can paint, but this is the Codex, not an Army on Parade in White Dwarf, these models are supposed to bring the world alive, they should be an inspiration to us, the only inspiration I get from them is that I think I might be able to get some of my models in the next Codex. Look at the Dark Vengeance Sergeant on Page 77, (there is no page number printed on it,) his face is awful for a codex publication. Compare him to the same Dark Vengeance Sergeant on Page 92. They are worlds apart in quality. I really don’t like that attack bike on page 125 either.    

This is an expensive book, and one of the reasons you spend the money is not just for the rules, but the fluff and the art, and I would have expected higher quality on the painting, art is purely subjective so can't complain in that regard, but I personally don't like the new direction.

What does anybody else think? 

[Syphid]

I am not a great artist by any means, but holy crow the Venerable Dreadnought art made me shake my head. http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/6/68/Deathwing_Venerable_Dred.png/revision/latest?cb=20150714211139

 

Also I am not a fan of the line drawing painting guide for the successors.  Black robes on black armor for the AoV look terrible.  Also the AoA backpacks are white now instead of black?  I e-mailed GW and asked about this, and the response I got was that they weren't sure if the backpacks are supposed to be white or if it was just a mistake.

[Shubniggurath]

Yep, most new artwork is terrible compared to oldschool artwork... Some of it is nice (the drawings from 6th ed. codex, mostly!), but these horribles things from the new codex just don't fit with the usual grimdark style of 40k.

Then again, I really prefer Blanche or Kopinski artwork... 

[Interrogator Stobz]

I studied Art for a few years before I joined the Army, and I am absolutely positively sure that the new art is lazy, out of proportion and did I mention lazy? At least they included the cool old stuff.

 

Never-mind; the current rules in the book are kicking it in my area. Seems I can't lose with them.....famous last cocky words :P

[Syphid]

This article does a pretty good job of comparing the most recent codex art to previous iterations: http://betweenthebolterandme.blogspot.ca/2015/06/codex-dark-angels-look-at-artwork.html

 

It's like GW told its artists: "You must represent the models exactly as how they are sold, with no artistic licence and creativity."  The art feels like an advertisement for selling models instead of something that sets a tone and inspires imagination and - gasp - maybe some emotion.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Yw6AeZJloEw/VY6s5rjnYoI/AAAAAAAAK8s/g0QthoxUsjk/s1600/Battle%2Bscene%2Bcomparisons%2B2.png

[SvenONE]

Yeah the art direction is considerably different.  I actually started to notice this when the DE book came out last fall but didn't really see the pattern until all the others started to follow.  There don't appear to be any credits in the book but I'd have to say that GW may have, after all these years, hired a different artist.  Blanche used to do all the really old stuff, but there was definitely someone in between Blanche and whatever this is.  But yeah it's a bit garish.  The game already has issues with scale making sense, but rather than have the art go the direction of reeling that in, it's making it worse.  If anything, I think this art direction was "make these look like the actual product line, and not the inspirational artwork we've done previously"

 

For whatever reason the previous artist may have just decided to take talents elsewhere or wasn't able to keep up with the pace with which GW was releasing codices so they had to supplement with another artist. 

 

Yes it doesn't look particularly great.

[eurieus]

Well, the new art is not "bad", the guy knows what he's doing, and it's a more modern, digital, cleaner feel. Unfortunately this not what us, 40 players, used to gritty, realistic and "dirty" picture are used to and love. 

 

And i also agree on the fact that it seems more like illustrations made to represent the models, instead of a glorious piece of fluff. It's as much in textures, colors and composition.

 

Really for me the biggest disapointement in those pics are the composition, so static...  

 

Also the vehicules illustrations look like paint-overs :(

[Lostrael]

There are some quite nice new artworks, like that of the new Chaplain. 

 

Yet some just look a bit like ruff concept art you would use for design concepts or give away to out-sourcing to make a final more detailed version.

The worst of them are those with the copy/pasted bikes and dreadnoughts in the background.

 

As for the painted models, I think they want to show other styles of painting and skill. Some may feel discouraged knowing they can never achieve the level of skill required to paint an army in 'eavy metal quality. 

[Attias]

It is the inconsistency of the various art styles throughout the book that grated on me a bit.  The newer, watercolor/stylized works resembles much of the concept art I have seen coming from the upcoming 40k Eternal Crusade video game https://www.eternalcrusade.com/media/concept-art . 

 

I can get behind a stylized direction (very reluctantly) for a large scale video game, but my preference for paintings and photos - especially in a very expensive collector edition book - is much more in line with what we have been referring to as more realisitc/gothic 'Grim Dark'.  The traditional photos of course are my favorites; I also very much enjoy the works of Jon Sullivan. 

 

For all this being said, it was still nice to actually see new art and not just all recycled stock.  I just hope that in the future, they pick a style and go with it.

 
 

[Rodiger]

I didn't know about the Art in Eternal Crusade, maybe they are expecting to get players coming from that so that is why it is in there. The comparison article is great. Maybe they don't want people feeling discouraged by the level of painting, but personally when I'm buying an expensive book I want to be blown away by it, not hugely underwhelmed, like I was. I like to look in their books for inspiration and get lost in the world, and dream about having an army that looks that good on a board like that. With this Codex I have felt like I'm watching a cartoon instead of getting lost in the world and I'm comparing my models to see if some of them are better. It's not making me want to read the book other than just for rules.   

[Larhendiel]

I agree, they look bad. Cartoony, unfinished, shallow, not interesting. Since I got new dex I haven't played a single game....

[Adeptus-Alaska]

Mark Gibbons.......come back to GW.

 

 

there, I said it.

 

 

P.S. it seems the new art is a visual representation of matt ward fluff.  shallow, uninspired and just. so. sad. i hope GW's art directer gets lice.

[shabbadoo]

This article does a pretty good job of comparing the most recent codex art to previous iterations: http://betweenthebolterandme.blogspot.ca/2015/06/codex-dark-angels-look-at-artwork.html

 

It's like GW told its artists: "You must represent the models exactly as how they are sold, with no artistic licence and creativity."  The art feels like an advertisement for selling models instead of something that sets a tone and inspires imagination and - gasp - maybe some emotion.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Yw6AeZJloEw/VY6s5rjnYoI/AAAAAAAAK8s/g0QthoxUsjk/s1600/Battle%2Bscene%2Bcomparisons%2B2.png

Well, if they were representing the actual models, that sergeant's head would be TWICE as big as in the art, because the real model has MELON of a head.  The real model's head is so big it wouldn't fit into helmet because it IS the size of a helmet. That being said, that sergeant art also looks pretty cartoony, while that BA vs. Nids art is BAD-ARSED AWESOME!!!, and is everything we would want to see for 40K grim-dark.  It is okay to have different art styles, but each book should have a UNIFIED art style.  Not having that kills the presentation.  Anybody who has studied the most basic principles of composition in publishing should know this.  The Forgeworld wing of the company understands this very well, but the corporate behemoth portion of the company are apparently a bunch of morons who do not.  The art direction for the book is pretty bad.

 

Also, the Space Marine Painter here at B&C looks many, many times better than GW's line art pics for the DA and Successors.  Many kudos to those who did the art/programmed everything for the Space Marine Painter here at B&C.