Artworks as lore

[gideon stargreave]

I recently saw a discussion about the cover of Horus Rising, and the inconsistencies with the lore (armour marks, markings etc) and it got me thinking about art’s place in the lore.

We’ve all heard how the various pieces of codex fluff, background, black library stories etc are often written from an in universe perspective, and that because of this the contradictions can be explained by the unreliable narrators. 
Artwork on the other hand is almost always (but not always) presented as from our own universe, which implies a meta-knowledge akin to an omniscient narrator.

Should artwork then be considered the true lore rather than the written word? 
In my own hobby life, I know that the miniatures I create are most often based on images rather than written descriptions. I also remember a minor palaver when the art style changed from 3rd/4th edition weirdness to the cleaner, model led presentation of later editions, and a general upcheer when we got new work by kopinski and others who harkened back to those days. 
So I ask again, is artwork truer than the written word?

[lansalt]

56 minutes ago, gideon stargreave said:

is artwork truer than the written word?

 

No, IMO in 40k illustrations, text, and miniatures coexist and evolve despite contradictions. Sometimes one is truer than the others, and sometimes all are a fuzzy representation of what they're portraying, so it's left to us to choose or imagine what we like the most. This is partially the result of GW's lack of strongly unified vision and art direction over too many creators, and partially by design to allow creative freedom.

 

A recent example comes to mind: Nassir Amit, the HH Blood Angels 5th company captain famous for being the founder of the Flesh Tearers. His art and text descriptions have never matched in the HH stories featuring him, even in the same book! See Echoes of Eternity and he wearing MkIV armour in art, but described as wearing the MkVII suit from the post HH novel Sons of Wrath:

 

 

So which is "true"? mistake or not, I'd say it's neither and left to the reader.

[gideon stargreave]

That’s usually my position too, but I often read people saying that the art isn’t lore accurate, and have never heard it posited the other way around. Like you seem, in general I’m very much an “nothing is true, everything is permitted” consumer of the background (for a given value of true and everything). But I have come to realize that the artwork of the setting would usually win over. If there’s an image of someone in mk6 at ullanor and it looks cool, that mk6 there was, whatever the BL or forgeworld has to say on it.

I personally like the seeming contradictions as it opens up the universe in interesting ways for ‘my guys’

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I think you’re over thinking it.

[Gamiel]

6 hours ago, gideon stargreave said:

Should artwork then be considered the true lore rather than the written word? 

I sometimes treat it as such.

 

 

[gideon stargreave]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I think you’re over thinking it.

I've got a whole essay planned about Lacan's symbolic and imaginary orders versus the Real. I am indeed overthinking it, which is just the right amount of thinking for me

[NovemberIX]

I think I've always looked at the artwork as also in universe. The differing styles are not just different era's and artists, but different cultures take on art. I think I agree with the take Nothing is True Everything is Permitted but that also feeds into one of my gripes with 40K in that there is no one piece of media that is the definitive take on the universe. At this point I'd say some of the games are really exploring the imperial aesthetic, combining art and tabletop into a cohesive experience, but even those are adaptions for their media.

[grailkeeper]

They're all ultimately just there to give you ideas for your models. If someone is petty enough to care that your model doesnt match some bit of lore, particularly obsurer bits of lore like the ones you've mentioned, then you can be pretty sure they've never felt the loving touch of another person. 

[LameBeard]

4 hours ago, NovemberIX said:

I think I've always looked at the artwork as also in universe. The differing styles are not just different era's and artists, but different cultures take on art.

This bit I like the idea of - it makes the most sense and is also the most fun.  I also like the idea that there is no “one truth” because it preserves ambiguity in the setting. Some say the Blood Angels are paragons of nobility, humanity’s greatest defenders; others that they are vampires, slaking their thirst on innocent civilians across a thousand systems. And there remains the most terrible possibility of all: that both are true.

[SvenIronhand]

5 hours ago, gideon stargreave said:

I've got a whole essay planned about Lacan's symbolic and imaginary orders versus the Real. I am indeed overthinking it, which is just the right amount of thinking for me

You have my attention.