For what it is worth, there is a big difference between how art Was handled with Exalted and currently Is handled. Back when the setting and the characters therein were still mostly mutable impressions of things, the artists were considered to be part of the creative team, so that when they "freestyled" something off the cuff like Sophie Campbell's Djala pieces, it was just generally considered "Creation is big and weird enough to contain all this stuff, there is no reason to explain if the visuals contradict something." Artists did not "go rogue" so long as they were being Topical, and if something was liked by everyone putting the book together (like the exoticism of the Djala), it'd be requested that the artist keep doing that thing, and if not, it got folded away and ignored as a one-off. There was, by and large, vastly less focus on Signature characters and representing Places accurately, and more trying to capture the sprawling weirdness of what Exalted encompassed, even if that meant such a staggering quality variance between this piece of a Raptok Dragon King from the 1e Player's Guide and this piece showing Swar from Bastions of the North.
Back then, if an artist went "off script" with a piece, they could still use it elsewhere, in an unrelated but sensible spot. Which in fact is Entirely what they did for the 1e Storyteller's Companion, which was comprised solely of pieces like this and this which did not make the cut for the 1e Corebook, but which they had nonetheless paid good money for and needed to use Somewhere.
This is not something totally centric to White Wolf and small-press art budgets either, and WotC is particularly notable in this regard. The current consistency of MTG's artwork is Entirely a modern-era circumstance, because back when they were originally trying out their then-new method of "block-based storytelling" featuring the cast of the skyship Weatherlight, they also suffered under something of a massively-shifting perception of their primary characters, even by a pool of professional painters supplied with a heavy amount of references. One secondary character even changed species and outfits multiple times throughout the plot arc, as she was primarily identified as an indistinct "cat folk." When they had a piece of art which couldn't work, they also sat on it while commissioning a new one to better fit the role, and found new places to put that art so it would not go unused. There's many stories about this from MTG's heyday if you go looking for them, and even a recent blowup where they attempted to bring back an iconic monster type of the "Sliver" by repurposing unused artwork from a prior block theme which was stylistically similar. The reaction was Resoundingly negative, to say the least.
Thing is, WotC can make modern MTG as visually consistent as they wish Now because they have generally phased out the old art direction model, that of a varied group of high-profile artists providing each their own take on a subject or character, and instead gone with hiring exclusively from artists who are best capable of replicating the "house style" of the modern MTG art-direction. This leaves things open for allowing older stand-out artists like Terese Nielsen or Kev Walker a card or two as selling points. This is not that far different from the old Marvel comics method of keeping their books stylistically similar, except when they wanted to showcase a particular artist or storytelling style.
In the meanwhile, WW and Onyx Path have gone the route of hiring artists off of DevArt and the like, and asking them to duplicate extremely distinctive and recognizable things in ways akin to pseudo-fanart. This means if they picked the wrong person with the wrong skillset for the piece and that lack of experience with the subject means they incidentally fuck up something which is quite clearly intended to be the Scarlet Empress on her throne, it cannot be filed away for another use as "lady on throne" and another commissioned in its place. It either Has to get used, warts and all, or they get the artist to modify it in ways that will usually make it look worse "correct" than it did originally "wrong."
Back then, if an artist went "off script" with a piece, they could still use it elsewhere, in an unrelated but sensible spot. Which in fact is Entirely what they did for the 1e Storyteller's Companion, which was comprised solely of pieces like this and this which did not make the cut for the 1e Corebook, but which they had nonetheless paid good money for and needed to use Somewhere.
This is not something totally centric to White Wolf and small-press art budgets either, and WotC is particularly notable in this regard. The current consistency of MTG's artwork is Entirely a modern-era circumstance, because back when they were originally trying out their then-new method of "block-based storytelling" featuring the cast of the skyship Weatherlight, they also suffered under something of a massively-shifting perception of their primary characters, even by a pool of professional painters supplied with a heavy amount of references. One secondary character even changed species and outfits multiple times throughout the plot arc, as she was primarily identified as an indistinct "cat folk." When they had a piece of art which couldn't work, they also sat on it while commissioning a new one to better fit the role, and found new places to put that art so it would not go unused. There's many stories about this from MTG's heyday if you go looking for them, and even a recent blowup where they attempted to bring back an iconic monster type of the "Sliver" by repurposing unused artwork from a prior block theme which was stylistically similar. The reaction was Resoundingly negative, to say the least.
Thing is, WotC can make modern MTG as visually consistent as they wish Now because they have generally phased out the old art direction model, that of a varied group of high-profile artists providing each their own take on a subject or character, and instead gone with hiring exclusively from artists who are best capable of replicating the "house style" of the modern MTG art-direction. This leaves things open for allowing older stand-out artists like Terese Nielsen or Kev Walker a card or two as selling points. This is not that far different from the old Marvel comics method of keeping their books stylistically similar, except when they wanted to showcase a particular artist or storytelling style.
In the meanwhile, WW and Onyx Path have gone the route of hiring artists off of DevArt and the like, and asking them to duplicate extremely distinctive and recognizable things in ways akin to pseudo-fanart. This means if they picked the wrong person with the wrong skillset for the piece and that lack of experience with the subject means they incidentally fuck up something which is quite clearly intended to be the Scarlet Empress on her throne, it cannot be filed away for another use as "lady on throne" and another commissioned in its place. It either Has to get used, warts and all, or they get the artist to modify it in ways that will usually make it look worse "correct" than it did originally "wrong."
Last edited:
