Customer Reviews

Fantasy Art Masters: The Best Fantasy and Science Fiction Artists Show How They Work

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This Book is Fantastic. I know some people may have been dissapointed that it didnt mention as many Fantasy artists, but for that, you need to buy the "Spectrum" fantasy books. This book is Fantastic BECAUSE It took a few of the many great artists, and let them tell about themselves and how they made it to where they are and what theyve done, as well as some sketches and behind the masterpiece work. There was a wide variety of both fantasy and science fiction, paint, drawing and digital. Great for detail. But if you want an overview of MANY artists, its not what youre looking for, (as I said). The color and layout of the book is done well. Great book to have, especially if you're an aspiring fantasy artist.

Fantasy Art Masters presents many classic and renowned art masters such as Lee, Brom, Berry, Burns, Stone and many others, grouped into three subdivisions: those who work solely in "physical paint" - hairy sticks and pigments, as Don Meitz puts it; those who augment their work through digital means - Jim Burns and Rick Berry are good examples; and, finally, those who work solely in the digital - like Steve Stone and Dave McKean. The book displays some of their best art - from Howe's "Gandalf on Errand" through Burns's "Kaeti on Tour". The transition to paper has been made extraordinarily well, with no discolouration or smudging of any sort, and most of the pieces are followed by descriptions of what led to their creation. Also, the artists share their own insights into the technique of art and the future of fantasy art in general.

This is a marvelous compilation of the highest-quality art in the field. I consider this work a must-have for anyone interested in the field of science fiction and the visual imagery in such.

"Fantasy Art Masters" has a lot of different media and a wide variety of fantasy art methods. This book has everything from futuristic, sci-fi art to The Hobbit. Some are a little over the top. The color is fantastic as is the quality. The style of writing leaves a little to be desired, though.

When I first recieved this book I was very disappointed. I've gone back to the book on a few occasions and I've come to the conclusion that, for me, it's decent enough. Some of the work in here doesn't come close to being considered masterpieces. While some of it is very good (Brom, Alan Lee, John Howe and Rick Berry particularly look good) some of the other work looks contrived and uninspiring.I'm not going to lambast the artists who created the work I didn't like. There's no point in being rude and I respect that these artists may very well have labored sincerely at their craft. Some of their work was even decent. On the other hand, I have to ask myself if they were the person on the street would they respond to images that look like spliced photos of leather clad fetish inspired fembots with what looks like gun barrels (?) for heads? I had to study that piece to make out that they were female even as they they had the basic scrawny model physique. While some of the work I didn't like communicated ideas I could relate to, others married the shocking with visuals in attempts to call itself art. Sensory response can be achieved by kicking a dog, however it's not likely to be considered art.Too make matters worse, while some of the work is graphic it's also over-stylized. If fantasy, as it's known to be, can be shocking (or just disturbing) as some of this work is, than once again we reduce the form to the lowest common denominator. "Wow! This is so cool." "Why?" "Cause I never saw this before." Is fantasy art be lowered to that most contrived form of visual impact that is called "conceptual art"? Please, count me out. Even worse is the fact that, for me, the unusual pieces were later viewed as just tacky and even later, boring. That's where I use the "contrived" label. Most of the other digital art was nothing short of boring even as it was unusual. What's the point of being unusual if it's still boring? Most of the traditional paintings were all right but, again, some of it was boring. What was the point the writer and editor were trying to highlight? In conclusion, there is some very good work in this book but there are also some works that left me wishing for straight up paintings and drawings again. The digital age has promised a lot and delivered very little. And none of it has inspired me to buy a print, frame it and display it. I'm still hopeful that it progresses beyond what's presented here.

"Fantasy Art Masters" is something of a misrepresentation. Sure, I'll accept Alan Lee as a "master", but Gambino or Stone or Maitz? Hardly. There is some excellent art printed throughout the book, but there are also an equal number of works that could best be described as unintentional kitsch, starting with the cover. And if this book is meant to represent fantasy artists "worldwide" (with less than a dozen contributors, all from the U.S. or England), where are the creators from Japan or Germany or Spain? "Shadowfire" may dis the "Spectrum" books for reasons known only to him/herself, but "Spectrum" certainly features a much wider selection AND larger quantity of EXCELLENT art than can be found in "Fantasy Art Masters."

A wonderful resource for the fantasy/sci-fi artist, or art-lover. Packed with inspiration from some of the greatest artists in the field, with beautiful color art and pages of information quoted from the artists themselves. It shows the process of idea forming, creation and much more.

It was one of the first books I purchased when I became interested in the fantasy/sci-fi art field, and proved to be very insightful when looking at the various ways artists approach their work. As a competitive and often undervalued genre in the traditional and digital art worlds, it was extremely helpful to find a book that was written from several different perspectives and an excellent display of the variety that can be found in fantasy art today.

I wouldn't consider this book to be a "showcase" of art strictly, but there is still a good selection of pieces from each of the artists that are highlighted. If you're looking for a collection of fantasy art without so much of the written explanations, try one of the Spectrum collections, Spectrum 8 being the most recent.

I was pretty excited when I saw this book, but it was quite a let down when I received it. Over half of the book deals with science-fiction instead of fantasy and it also includes lots of computer made art. The best artists of the fantasy art world were left out. There are some interesting pieces in this book, but it was not really what I was hoping for.

Despite the negativitiy of some of our reviewers, this is an excellent collection of fantasy art. Many of the artists that people have mentioned that they think should be in this book already have had volumes published anyway. I especially loved seeing intial sketches and thumbnails and reading about how each artist worked. AND despite the naysaying of "traditionalists," computer art is here to stay... and this is coming from a person with a traditional fine arts background.

This 4.5 star book covers a wide variety of illustrators of traditional and computer media. Although this book is lacking in showing how the illustrators work it shows a good amount of artwork in progress by each of the illustrators shown. In my opinion Don Maitz and Brom are the only ones in this book that deserve the title on the books cover.

the painted art side of this book is classic fantasy art - the I.T. based creations are dated , but nevertheless interesting .... made me decide to take a course in I.t. art .
The text , though , despite being detailed and full of information , is the usual dancing to architecture ; you can either draw or you can't , and no book can change that .