New Set?

Until the design team gets the thumbs up from WW, alternative art on cards is the most constructive topic we have, commence derailing.

Two words about nazi: Hive Mind XD

Lönkka wrote:
Hmmm, this is the first time I hear about such a ban (by others that VEKN).

Are you absolutely sure someone just didn't confuse VEKN point of view ("We do not give money nazis") with WotC etc PoW?

Well, his last artwork in a new MtG set is from 1997(tempest). Make of that what you will.

Considering Wizards hires artists by commission rather than long-term, theres not really any proof to be had. They simply didn't commission him again. Its only a rumour that they blacklisted him, but its a pretty believable rumor considering the amount of 'discussion' surrounding him. These days he is very difficult to find, apparently . Which says something about an artist. I believe he became a persona non grata in ccg circles.

About art: I personally want card art to actually depict what the card does. Paint a picture of what is happening in-world when I play the card. McNeills art is too detached and too abstract to my liking. Not to mention he hates colors, while I enjoy colors. Almost all his card art is monochrome.

While I appreciate abstract art (one of my favorite artists is Paul Klee), I don't think abstract art has a place in card games. I want card art to supplement my imagination when I'm playing a game.

Bloodartist wrote:
About art: I personally want card art to actually depict what the card does. Paint a picture of what is happening in-world when I play the card..

This is why i like the old conditioning. looks like the vamp is at a hair salon

narpassword wrote: ... looks like the vamp is at a hair salon

That's the problem with "realistic" art - you can get completely different meaning from them, which is exceptionally true for cards involving methuselahs.

If we take "Personal Involvement", which also intended to show actions of metuselah - it always looked to me like some old fart harassing woman at cheap sea resort. "Abstract" art helps to show feeling of the action, which players transform with there imagination into specific events corresponding to their table position (sorry for my English).

Actually for me even straight cards, for example weapons, looks dumb if it just show a weapon. Yea for Saturday Night Special its meaningful, but everybody knows what Assault Rifle is, give us some reason to look at the art.

By the way, flavor text is even bigger problem - most of them just pointlessly takes card space.

Bloodartist wrote: Well, his last artwork in a new MtG set is from 1997(tempest). Make of that what you will.

WotC gave the boot to MANY old artists when they changed the way how they paid the artists (or actually WotC changed the contracts and plenty of the old guard artists didn't sign the new ones).

In the early days they gave artists a small sum but, as they had very little money to actually give, also a percentage based on the sales. As MtG became the runaway hit it did the amount money the artists ended up getting was CONSIDERABLE.

It could be that he left the company that time.

Bloodartist wrote: About art: I personally want card art to actually depict what the card does. Paint a picture of what is happening in-world when I play the card. McNeills art is too detached and too abstract to my liking. Not to mention he hates colors, while I enjoy colors. Almost all his card art is monochrome.

Limited palette, especially monochrome, tends to work very well for especially for vampire themed things!

Bloodartist wrote: I don't think abstract art has a place in card games. I want card art to supplement my imagination when I'm playing a game.

Heh, I think you are contradicting yourself right there!
Non-photorealistic art sure sparks up the imagination way better than photorealistic art.

YMMV