And there is nothing you can do about it.

Well, you could get glasses. That might help you see the art better I guess. Maybe with corrected vision you'd be able to see how nice the art is. Granted, it's not at Foglio levels of the past, but it's still pretty awesome.

Magic card art is pretty much the best art in fantasy gaming. They're doing less abstract things than they did in the past, but the quality didn't actually went down.

I can't wait 'till Keeper gets here.

I liked the organic feel of art from ages long past. Traditional media. I'm not talkng Foglio, I'm talking old Mark Tedin, Rob Alexander, Drew Tucker, Rebecca Guay, Anson Maddocks.

Nowadays its 90% digital, for one thing, clean sterile lines and shading, motion blurs, CGI looking BS. And they try to cram 1000000 details into a tiny two inch box and it looks absolutely dreadful and appalling. Not to mention I couldn't tell you a Dan Scott piece from a Zoltan Boros piece.

Could you post examples of card-art you like and card-art you dislike. Just so we know what we're all talking about.

Card art i like:
Necropotence
Drew Tuckers Icatian Moneychanger
The original Moxen
Old Kev Walker pieces, in particular his Mirage material
Anything by Rebecca Guay, Drew Tucker, Mark Tedin, or Ron Spencer

Card art I hate:
Anything by Dan Scott
Boros/Szikzais Incinerate
M10 Fog (goddamn motion blur, looks like a video game screencap)
Anything by Raymond Swanland cause it all looks the same.

I will say that I agree with an inclination towards non-digitally produced art. I also typically prefer physical art.

That's not to say that I dislike all of the CGI works. My favorite piece of Magic art actually is CGI — Angelic Destiny — but it gives me a bittersweet feeling knowing I'll never be able to purchase an original canvas piece for that art. I would spend many numerals of money for the work.

Though, I have seen some pretty awesome things done with it.

I also don't like that nearly all Magic art feels like it's the same style these days. There are certainly fewer Chaoslaces.

Looking down the list of Theros cards, each of the pieces feels very much the same as the others; regardless of artist, they share the same shapes, structures, and general level of realism. Messenger's Speed is the most variant piece, which makes me wonder about how much freedom the individual artists have to infuse their own personality. Traveler's Amulet also has a nice contrast to the rest of the set.

The problem is that yes, there is fewer horrid pieces nowadays... but there's fewer great pieces as well. Its as if the artists are just coasting along. I know traditional media is harder to utilize, and I know its harder to create more realism with traditional media... but screw realism, most art nowadays isn't unique. Iconic. Its sad.

I don't know much about art, so I don't want to speak with any kind of authority, but it seems to me that it's not really a decline in quality. It's more that they're moving away from the more absurd, surreal or impressionistic types of art and more towards realism.

This is sad, to some degree, because it makes art look a bit same-y, but after doing a quick look at Gatherer for the artists you (Butt) mentioned, I noticed that while there was definitely some top-notch stuff in there, it was often hard to read in the small space art gets on the cards. I'm sure that at full size it looks nicer, but card-art isn't shown at full size.

Another thing I'd like to note is that recent sets seem to be moving to a more specific "point of view" in the entire set. I think this was even specifically mentioned by Wizards, that they went for a human point of view in Innistrad, creating "in your face" horror. Maybe they're overdoing that a little bit.

And finally: For (most of) my creatures, I like the realism. Creatures benefit from being clear and instantly readable. Most artifacts are similar. Spells can be a lot more surreal. It's okay for spells to not be instantly clear in what they're showing.

TL;DR: I don't think it's really a decline in quality, but rather a decline in variance.

I notice a decline in both quality and variance. There is SOME digital art I like (Nils Hamm) but stuff like Boros/Szikzai, Dan Scott, Ray Swanland, Clint Clearwood, is unforgivable.

The interesting thing about the whole "Soulless Digital Art" thing is that the people who complain about too much digital art usually can't actually pick out what is or isn't digital. This thread happened on Wizards a while back and Jeremy Jarvis basically stepped in and was like, "So, most of the art you just complained about is actually painted in oils..."

Part of the problem is that you can paint in a hyperrealist, smooth style in physical media, and you can easily paint in a rough, painterly style with a digital canvas. It depends what look the artist is going for.

I don't know, there's a sort of obsessive prizing of the material in our culture today that I don't really understand. It takes just as much skill to paint on the computer as it does to paint with a physical brush. I think it's easier to transition from physical to digital media than the reverse, but the core training is largely the same. And is an "original piece" really so inherently valuable? Originals only attained their value economically due to their nonreproduceability... it's just limited supply. There's nothing about an original that should make you feel more delight when looking at a work.

And the original Moxen are pretty awful looking, not gonna lie. I really don't understand the elevation of a bunch of art that was painted at small sizes, scanned poorly, and printed at a low quality. Unless your whole thing is liking bad quality, in which case I can only ask you to please step down from the advisory board of the Turner Prize immediately. (baZING!)

Yes, mostly it's the style that I dislike, rather than the medium used — which is actually a bit harsh, because I *do* like the realist style. I just also like other styles and what I dislike is the lack of variance. I know others will dislike the idea of opening a pack of cards and feeling like each card belongs to a different game, but I actually preferred that.

But I am typically less inclined towards digital or digitally retouched art, because more than other mediums it is most often "too clean."


I should rephrase; I wouldn't care if my purchase of a canvas work was an original or a later work of the same art by the same artist. I want the tangible sensations of the canvas art, the sensory perception of it — the smell, the texture, the visible depth of physical objects. That's why not being able to get Angelic Destiny as a canvas work is bittersweet to me. I appreciate that many people can download it and enjoy it, including myself. I'm happy that it isn't scarce.

But I want it in canvas form because a digital form doesn't replicate the tangible sensation. I don't want to "own" it for the sake of owning it. I want to have it in order to feel it, to experience it.


The original Moxen are decently well-done in their minimalism. But yes, if the Moxen themselves were not iconic as *cards* within Magic, the art would certainly not be so sought after. They are quaint pieces of an earlier era of fantasy gaming art. Their status as works of art is more a testament to their place as symbols within Magic and fantasy gaming culture, rather than inherent quality.

Volkan Baga's moxen are a hundred thousand times better from a structural and detailed perspective. They have soul, the original moxen do not.

As well, I despise Foglio's work (and always have), but I really do agree that Rebecca Guay deserves her spot amongst the best. That being said, it doesn't mean all physical media is good. Look at the absolute garbage Omar Rayyan turns in, nothing but washes and crappy pencil work.
Peter Mohrbacher does wonderful digital media that doesn't have a digital feel to it, though he praises Rayyan's work, and it was the one thing that I really disagreed with him about when I met him.

It should be noted, as well, that you can actually buy a lot of the prints on canvas from the artists. John Avon and Peter Mohrbacher both offer canvas prints.

Incidentally? Gabor and Skizai? Not digital. They work in oil.

There are traditional painters I hate, and digital artists I like, as said before. But Magics recent forerunners (Swanland, Biclot, Dan Scott, Baga, Swanland again, Clint Clearley or whatever that dinks name is, all this modern hyperrealist style. Its just garbage. There is no soul. It just so happens that MOST of these artists use digital medium. But my main complaint is that they jampack so much **** into art nowadays. Cards aren't iconic anymore. Not special.

Briclot and Baga don't use digital mediums.
They also have more skill than every early artist in the game.

I also have no clue what you mean by them not being iconic (especially since some of the artists you just listed have won numerous awards for their magic work.) I think you're just putting poor artwork from early in the game on a pedestal.
When it comes down to it, art is subjective, but that doesn't mean that art you do not like is technically flawed, where as a LOT of art from early in the game was.

Technical skill means nothing in art. To draw a comparison to another artform... music. what good is being able to sweep pick at 300bpm if your music sounds like indigestible wank? Some people like garbage like Brain Drill, where its "all fast sweep/alternate picking, all the time" but I don't. And I also said that MOST of those artists use digital medium. The older arts are by and large better because they accomplish more with less.

The problem is that Magics modern artists and player base have visual ADHD.

I really have a hard time caring about your opinions when you keep making statements like "Most artists are digital!" and then ignore Barinellos when he points out that you're factually incorrect...

It just really doesn't seem like you have any idea what you're talking about.

I mean, when I think of the most iconic pieces of Magic art that are iconic BECAUSE OF THE ART and not because of the card... well, the moxen are out. They're as interesting as any other artifact of that time period was, which is to say deathly dull. Artifacts from that time period just looked awful. The new versions are a stunning improvement. Jester's Cap probably ranks. That's pretty iconic. Stasis is so weird that it's stuck with me. (sidenote: there is rule 34 of stasis, just throwing that out there.) Macabre Waltz is incredible. Treacherous Urge. Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts has really become a defining piece for Return to Ravnica. Phyrexian Unlife. I'm just not seeing what you're saying re: iconic artwork, or artwork that isn't special, or artwork that has ADHD, or whatever random epithet you've cooked up in your new post. Man your arguments have ADHD. There's no consistent throughline, because you don't even have a language to express what you're trying to express...

@Planeshaper:

Hm, might I suggest, just as an exercise, that you consider what physical qualities of a fine art print you can enjoy? They're not the same thing as the pleasures of a painting, I suppose, but that doesn't mean there are none there for you to enjoy, if that makes sense.

I get what you're saying, and I'm really into physical media as well, especially digitally irreproduceable media (which obviously can't work for a Magic card), but I'm not sure it's fair to judge the alternate medium as a medium that's lost something rather than a medium that's found something different. Does that make sense?

I definitely agree with that, though part of me wishes the hands were left out.

I disagree that the original moxen don't have soul, though. Many of those original cards have lots of soul, it's just simpler, more homely — a reflection of the time in which they were made. They were not as "produced." Yes, I do wear my Sunglasses of Urza sometimes when I look back at that art, but they *are* in fact representations of a special time, a time when things were still risky and production was low.

Baga's works are indeed gorgeous, though. Many modern works are.

I actually like Rayyan's pieces, so we disagree on that. I am not personally fond of most of the Foglios' works (some I do like, even from Phil), but because they brought a variance of character, I appreciated them.

Mohrbacher's works suffer from the problem that I have with a lot of present day choices of art for Magic, I have trouble distinguishing them from the crowd. Even though Mohrbacher goes for emulating the look of a different medium, some of his stuff is still basically indistinct. I do like Blood Scrivener and his Knight pair, though.

That's not to say that everyone has to be different. They don't, but I think we've trended too much towards a uniformity of style that I can't help but feel that the artists are pressured to keep from infusing their own character into the works. My intuition could be totally wrong, but I think the art directors can let some slack out on the reigns of freedom of style, and not just freedom of perspective with the same style. A lot of the art looks like the same camera snapped another picture in the same world, just at a different angle, with only some exceptions.

I was actually going to point out Kragma Warcaller as a variation from the Theros pack, too — a variation that I don't like specifically, but again, I appreciate because it is a variation.

Interesting to hear that some artists will offer prints on canvas; I had some anime cell prints on canvas some years ago when I lived in Nebraska (that I eventually gave to friends). When that's the only option, I do like it, even if the texture is a bit more flat than hand done. I would probably purchase a canvas print of Angelic Destiny were the option available. It depends on how it would turn out and how large of a print I could get.


Both of your statements indeed make sense. They are absolutely things for me to consider

And you are welcome to have it, but I'm afraid you simply cannot state your opinion as if it were fact when there are more qualified individuals who have actually studied art telling you that the things you don't like aren't objectively bad just because you don't like them.
Everything you have problems with are things others like, and your opinion doesn't invalidate theirs, nor does it make you right in comparison just in the same way that their opinion does not invalidate yours. This is why I specified the subjectivism of the subject, but you're speaking in absolutes, and that's just insulting to those you're debating.

The older arts aren't better simply because you don't care for the medium, particularly certain artists.
If you wish to compare between pieces, you can only really measure the progress of an artist against that artist's other works. Kev Walker, for example, doesn't seem to turn in work that is as strong as it was.

Does anyone else get really frustrated with debates about different periods in Magic art because Mirrodin and Onslaught blocks are afflicted by awful scans in Gatherer? Seriously, every single card from those sets looks like absolute pants and I really have no idea why. This is leaving aside the fact that Gatherer has frustratingly small card scans to begin with...