The Art of Lolth

[Morrigan]

It's a lesser work he produced for a smaller fee than what he normally charges. You get what you pay for, ya know? It looks like it was achieved with dyes rather than his usual oils, and then re-arranged by an art editor using some kind of software. Easley's full-scale pieces are very complex, vivid, textured and brilliant.

I'm not even complaining about the lack of technique or whatever here. Hell the scan on that link is of poor quality, but what is more offensive about this cover, and many others like it, is its contents. He had made previous book covers for the same client (TSR) that weren't as bad, and this was a book in TSR's best-selling series, so I don't buy the "cheapness" excuse.

I'm not talking about unpolished sketches, FFS...

 

[Vortigern99]

Well then, Morrigan, I simply don't know what you mean. Easley's work is painstakingly detailed, vibrant and photorealistic. His pen-and-ink stuff is quite literally the finest I have seen, and I am a pen-and-ink artist with a wide range of knowledge and familiarity in the technique. You appear to be judging his talent by a series of single images he dashed off in a matter of an hour or two, as opposed to the larger works of gorgeous complexity such as the cover to Unearthed Aracana or any of a dozens of pieces he did for the Dragonlance series.

 

[Morrigan]

The cover I showed you is supposed to be of a young dark elf. A dark elf from a popular series by the single most popular D&D author. You may have heard of him if you're passingly familiar with D&D, he has a few z's in his name. Not only is that book cover an atrocity, it's not even close to the first book of the series, so it's not as if he couldn't have been informed of what he was drawing. In fact, the first book of the series (cover illustration by Larry Elmore) showed this, a lot more accurate... Easley even illustrated some (but not all) of the previous books himself, such as this one (still bad but not as terrible), so he really had no excuse. This article states that he was an official TSR artist in the 80's, so it's not as if they hired a random guy who had no clue as to what he was supposed to paint (as happens often in fantasy art).

I'm sure he's technically very skilled, realistic, blah bla blah. But that's not all there is to being an artist, is there? Knowing what the **** you're supposed to be drawing, and not making ugly-ass book covers (as "realistic" as they might be) that seriously offend the eye, should be taken into account. I'm looking at this page and I see mostly very crappy artworks, with a few exceptions. Seriously, what's with all the females looking like Adrienne Barbeau circa 1970?

Hah, seems like he's decent at drawing monsters, but terrible at drawing people. That pic is pretty awesome, except for the sith lord wanna-be trying to look grim pretty much ruining the artwork.

 

[Mark6]

Hah, seems like he's decent at drawing monsters, but terrible at drawing people. That pic is pretty awesome, except for the sith lord wanna-be trying to look grim pretty much ruining the artwork.

I got "Access Denied" on that link.

 

[Mark6]

Seriously, what's with all the females looking like Adrienne Barbeau circa 1970?

LOL. Immediately made me think about Tika on the cover of original "Dragons of Spring Dawning". But that turned out to be by Larry Elmore.

 

[Vortigern99]

The cover I showed you is supposed to be of a young dark elf. A dark elf from a popular series by the single most popular D&D author. You may have heard of him if you're passingly familiar with D&D, he has a few z's in his name. Not only is that book cover an atrocity, it's not even close to the first book of the series, so it's not as if he couldn't have been informed of what he was drawing. In fact, the first book of the series (cover illustration by Larry Elmore) showed this, a lot more accurate...

Your idea of an artistic "atrocity" and mine are widely disparate. IMO there is nothing artistically poor about the image in question (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/File:The_Legacy.jpg), taken by itself. It's a simple bust portrait achieved in what look like ink and dyes. To my eye it appears the art editor has manipulated the image by zooming into it, perhaps cropping out a portion of the original image, and arranging the three elements of the cover (the bust, the spider and the book title) in a clumsy composition in which the artist himself, Easley, had no hand. I am familiar with his style and compositional tendencies, and do not believe that he would have placed the elements in such a poor arrangement himself.

Insofar as Easley did not accurately depict the physical characteristics of the subject Drizz't (sp.?) I will join you in decrying the work as substandard. I suspect, however, that either the editor did not inform Easley of those characteristics prior to the commission of the work, or the editor(s) simply appropriated a pre-existing piece and slapped it on the cover, hoping that the artist's name recognition would suffice to sell the product. In short, I don't blame Easley for getting the traits wrong. His numerous other works of book illustration with which I am familiar have always been accurate to the authors' details.

Easley even illustrated some (but not all) of the previous books himself, such as this one (still bad but not as terrible), so he really had no excuse. This article states that he was an official TSR artist in the 80's, so it's not as if they hired a random guy who had no clue as to what he was supposed to paint (as happens often in fantasy art).

Here is where the question of subjectivity in aesthetics arises. The piece you decry as "still bad but not terrible" I find sublime and masterful. The colors are vivid, the textures varied, the figures dynamic and powerful, the technique in oils unmatched.

I'm sure he's technically very skilled, realistic, blah bla blah. But that's not all there is to being an artist, is there? Knowing what the **** you're supposed to be drawing, and not making ugly-ass book covers (as "realistic" as they might be) that seriously offend the eye, should be taken into account. I'm looking at this page and I see mostly very crappy artworks, with a few exceptions. Seriously, what's with all the females looking like Adrienne Barbeau circa 1970?

Oh, well. You and I have different opinions about what constitutes great fantasy artwork. What you call "crappy" I call masterful. That said, I don't think his Forgotten Realms covers are as sublime or flawless as his TSR game-book covers; the former lack the vivid color and superlative technique of the latter. As to the women, he seems to like depicting them with curly mop hairdo's. Not having read the works in question I cannot say whether that is an accurate rendition of the characters.

Hah, seems like he's decent at drawing monsters, but terrible at drawing people. That pic is pretty awesome, except for the sith lord wanna-be trying to look grim pretty much ruining the artwork.

Totally disagree with the first sentence. I can't respond to the second, since the link is not working and I cannot view the image in question.

 

[Morrigan]

Again, I'm not disputing his technical skill. But for crying out loud, when has that ever been the sole factor in determining artistic quality? What about, you know, content? I just don't get this mentality at all. It's like saying that an art student's photorealistic depiction of a banana in some school exercise makes for better art than, say, the Mona Lisa. Or that Zakk Wylde's wanking guitar solos make better music than Pink Floyd's Echoes because it's harder to play. Wot.

I am familiar with his style and compositional tendencies, and do not believe that he would have placed the elements in such a poor arrangement himself.

Argument from incredulity noted...

Insofar as Easley did not accurately depict the physical characteristics of the subject Drizz't (sp.?) I will join you in decrying the work as substandard. I suspect, however, that either the editor did not inform Easley of those characteristics prior to the commission of the work, or the editor(s) simply appropriated a pre-existing piece and slapped it on the cover, hoping that the artist's name recognition would suffice to sell the product. In short, I don't blame Easley for getting the traits wrong. His numerous other works of book illustration with which I am familiar have always been accurate to the authors' details.

Did you fail to read my previous post, because I don't know how to explain it again without repeating myself. That book is the 7th volume in the series. Previous volumes, in fact, the first two volumes, illustrated by Larry Elmore and Clyde Caldwell respectively, have accurate depictions. Then the next four books, all illustrated by Easley, have far less accurate depictions (though they aren't all equally offensive-looking). So you're telling me that during all this time, he never so much as glanced at the covers of the previous books, that despite working for TSR for a decade he has never inquired as to what a drow/dark elf looks like (not even realizing they have black skin?!)? Come on now. Especially when all he had to do was glance at book 1 or book 2 just to get an idea of what the dude looks like. Young bloke, black skin, long white hair. (Purple eyes, green cape and scimitar preferred, but optional.) Well, one out of three ain't bad, I guess.
And I'd like to believe that TSR was cheap and just re-used an old unrelated piece that wasn't meant to be Drizzt in the first place, but the problem is that the old creep on the cover still looks too much like his previous iterations (only seemingly aged up three generations for no bloody reason), down to that ridiculous golden cap he keeps putting on the character's head for no reason.

(Small wonder all those horrid covers have been completely re-done for the reprints. Compare this reissue to, uh, Return of the Old Pedo Creep: The Golden Cap's Revenge. xD)

Here is where the question of subjectivity in aesthetics arises. The piece you decry as "still bad but not terrible" I find sublime and masterful. The colors are vivid, the textures varied, the figures dynamic and powerful, the technique in oils unmatched.

And Zakk Wylde's picking is very tight, and his arpeggios are sweeping. Unfortunately, the character's still an elderly white guy with a stupid metal cap ruining the scenery. Oops. xD

You can polish a turd, but at the end of the day it's still a turd.

As to the women, he seems to like depicting them with curly mop hairdo's. Not having read the works in question I cannot say whether that is an accurate rendition of the characters.

Of course they don't (yeah, I read my share of FR novels as a kid... hey, girls back then read romance novels instead, and these days they read Twilight, so I did okay xD).
A crappy, out-of-touch artist would just keep drawing all his women the same way, with ugly, ridiculous-looking hair that have been out of fashion for over four decades. But hey, he's a master of colouring technique, so he must be great...!

Totally disagree with the first sentence. I can't respond to the second, since the link is not working and I cannot view the image in question.

I have no idea what happened with the first link O_O but I found the same image again here (hope this one stays alive): http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6145623240_ef1109ac0c_o.jpg


Hmm, let's do a little test here. Which of these artworks do you think is better? This one, or that one?

 

[Vortigern99]

Again, I'm not disputing his technical skill. But for crying out loud, when has that ever been the sole factor in determining artistic quality? What about, you know, content? I just don't get this mentality at all. It's like saying that an art student's photorealistic depiction of a banana in some school exercise makes for better art than, say, the Mona Lisa. Or that Zakk Wylde's wanking guitar solos make better music than Pink Floyd's Echoes because it's harder to play. Wot.

I'm not saying any of that. As a degreed artist, I tend to discuss art from a standpoint of aesthetic beauty. To my eye and from a purely subjective point of view, Easley's works are more aesthetically beautiful than those of any other fantasy artist.

Also to my eye and mind, technical considerations such as composition, use of color and the degree of realism (which includes perspective, anatomy, drapery, chiaroscuro, etc.) are of paramount importance. This is what I mean when I classify Easley as the greatest living fantasy artist.

To you, evidently (I don't mean to put words in your mouth or craft a straw man, so correct me if this is off) the accuracy of an illustration compared to the author's written description takes precedence over aesthetic and technical concerns. For me personally, this is not the case. I can appreciate a work of illustrative art even if the details are inaccurate compared to the author's description.

I first noted this when I was a young boy reading Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain. The cover paintings of the late 1970s editions of those works were not entirely faithful to the author's descriptions of the characters or events, as my critical young mind fastidiously noted. But I loved the realistic and painterly style of those pieces; and to this day, even though there have been more accurate book covers in subsequent printings, my heart (and aesthetic judgment) lies with those painterly, slightly "wrong" illustrations.

In short, I laud beauty over accuracy. Beauty is not the sole factor in determining quality; accuracy is also a factor. But beauty and technique, for me personally, are more important than accuracy.

Argument from incredulity noted..

What do you mean by that? This is not a scientific or logical discussion; we're discussing aesthetics, which is almost entirely subjective. I may state a personal belief without appealing to reason or evidence. Neither did you make some claim which I then disputed by employing a logical fallacy.

To clarify, I stated that knowing Easley's body of work as I do, I do not "believe" that he composed that cover himself. he certainly may have done, but it looks to my eye as though an art editor arranged it from a pre-existing piece. You're welcome to disagree.

Did you fail to read my previous post, because I don't know how to explain it again without repeating myself. That book is the 7th volume in the series. Previous volumes, in fact, the first two volumes, illustrated by Larry Elmore and Clyde Caldwell respectively, have accurate depictions. Then the next four books, all illustrated by Easley, have far less accurate depictions (though they aren't all equally offensive-looking). So you're telling me that during all this time, he never so much as glanced at the covers of the previous books, that despite working for TSR for a decade he has never inquired as to what a drow/dark elf looks like (not even realizing they have black skin?!)? Come on now. Especially when all he had to do was glance at book 1 or book 2 just to get an idea of what the dude looks like. Young bloke, black skin, long white hair. (Purple eyes, green cape and scimitar preferred, but optional.) Well, one out of three ain't bad, I guess.

Sure, I understand. I already hypothesized that "the editor(s) [may have] simply appropriated a pre-existing piece and slapped it on the cover, hoping that the artist's name recognition would suffice to sell the product". Apparently neither of us knows the history of the piece, so given the accuracy of Easley's work in general, I think my hypothesis is a reasonable one.

But even if Easley was specifically commissioned to do a Drizzt portrait and lazily neglected to consult his friends' and fellow former-TSR artists' previous Drizzt pieces, thereby producing a woefully inaccurate portrait, I say: "So?" It's one subpar piece out of hundreds of master works. Even Michelangelo's chisel slipped a time or two in the span of an otherwise breathtaking career.

And I'd like to believe that TSR was cheap and just re-used an old unrelated piece that wasn't meant to be Drizzt in the first place, but the problem is that the old creep on the cover still looks too much like his previous iterations (only seemingly aged up three generations for no bloody reason), down to that ridiculous golden cap he keeps putting on the character's head for no reason.

(Small wonder all those horrid covers have been completely re-done for the reprints. Compare this reissue to, uh, Return of the Old Pedo Creep: The Golden Cap's Revenge. xD)


And Zakk Wylde's picking is very tight, and his arpeggios are sweeping. Unfortunately, the character's still an elderly white guy with a stupid metal cap ruining the scenery. Oops. xD

You can polish a turd, but at the end of the day it's still a turd.

I dislike the gold cap too, and for the record I heartily dislike the "Legacy" bust portrait under review. But to me this does not exclude Easley from the running of "greatest" or convert his entire oeuvre to substandard-ness. It's one weak piece among hundreds of superb ones, IMO.

Of course they don't (yeah, I read my share of FR novels as a kid... hey, girls back then read romance novels instead, and these days they read Twilight, so I did okay xD).
A crappy, out-of-touch artist would just keep drawing all his women the same way, with ugly, ridiculous-looking hair that have been out of fashion for over four decades. But hey, he's a master of colouring technique, so he must be great...!

He likes curly mop-tops. You don't. It's a question of personal aesthetics.

I have no idea what happened with the first link O_O but I found the same image again here (hope this one stays alive): http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6145623240_ef1109ac0c_o.jpg

Ahhhhh, that is one of my favorite Easley's. If I'm not mistaken the human figure is Raistlin from the Dragonlance series. And since it was painted in the 80s, years before the word "Sith" was known outside of a small community of Star Wars nerds (inc. myself!), I defy your characterization of it as a "sith lord wanna-be trying to look grim pretty much ruining the artwork".

Hmm, let's do a little test here. Which of these artworks do you think is better? This one, or that one?

I don't know what this "test" is intended to prove or demonstrate, but I like them both about equally. They're both rather flat in terms of value and color, and weakened by jumbled compositions. If I had to choose one over the other it would be the one that reads "Suikoden" in red, because the individual portraits are nicely achieved and the style is generally realistic. I tend to dislike Manga style, so the circular piece loses me in the big eyes and cartoonish style.

So go ahead and tell us what you think that shows.

 

[Mark6]

Ahhhhh, that is one of my favorite Easley's. If I'm not mistaken the human figure is Raistlin from the Dragonlance series. And since it was painted in the 80s, years before the word "Sith" was known outside of a small community of Star Wars nerds (inc. myself!), I defy your characterization of it as a "sith lord wanna-be trying to look grim pretty much ruining the artwork".

Yes it is Raistlin, and it is probably my favorite Dragonlance illustration ever. How else is a black-robed, white-haired, and yes grim wizard is supposed to hold himself?

"Grim" is a perfect description for Raislin's demeanor, at least at the point in the series to which illustration applies (book 1 of second trilogy).

 

[Morrigan]

To you, evidently (I don't mean to put words in your mouth or craft a straw man, so correct me if this is off) the accuracy of an illustration compared to the author's written description takes precedence over aesthetic and technical concerns. For me personally, this is not the case. I can appreciate a work of illustrative art even if the details are inaccurate compared to the author's description.

Well, accuracy is not the biggest deal in the world if the artwork is really good, provided that the inaccuracies are minor. Artistic license and all that. For example, some of my favourite portraits of Jaime Lannister show him with straight hair and Jaime is described has having "golden curls". I also saw portraits of Daenerys with her newborn dragons where her hair was very long, but as we all know, her hair burnt to cinders after the pyre scene. If the portrait looks good, I don't care. Those are minor details. But if I ever saw a really well-drawn cover art where the guy is supposed to be Jaime (and we know this because, say, he's missing a hand and he has the white cape of the Kingsguard) and the guy is of the wrong race, well... and if the painting is just awful to look at, then I'm gonna immediately disqualify whoever drew it from any "greatest artist" list, for sure.

Sure, I understand. I already hypothesized that "the editor(s) [may have] simply appropriated a pre-existing piece and slapped it on the cover, hoping that the artist's name recognition would suffice to sell the product". Apparently neither of us knows the history of the piece, so given the accuracy of Easley's work in general, I think my hypothesis is a reasonable one.

No, I already explained why that portrait (pre-existing for a previous product or not) was indeed supposed to be Drizzt, whether it was for a book cover or not. That doesn't matter, it's still an awful piece. Maybe it'd be a decent portrait of an ugly, creepy old decrepit wizard, but I don't judge technical skill and beauty too, I judge content, and as a portrait of a young dark elf, any young dark elf, it fails on just about every level. The only thing he got right is the character's gender. The piece isn't just "inaccurate", because that implies relatively minor differences... it's completely off in every way.

I say: "So?" It's one subpar piece out of hundreds of master works. Even Michelangelo's chisel slipped a time or two in the span of an otherwise breathtaking career.

Well, I checked that gallery and as I said, I saw mostly generic garbage and ugly, uninspired portraits. He's good at drawing non-people, I'll give him that. He should stick to drawing monsters and scenery. But a "greatest fantasy artist ever" should be able to draw people too, and all his drawn characters look the same, and they're all particularly ugly.

He likes curly mop-tops. You don't. It's a question of personal aesthetics.

Right. I like long-haired bearded dudes. If I were an artist and I drew all my male characters with long hair and beards (regardless of whether they are supposed to look like that or not), would you say "oh, it's personal preference" or perhaps you'd tell me to get some practice at drawing things outside my personal aesthetical taste and comfort zone if I want to be a better artist... at least I hope you would.

Ahhhhh, that is one of my favorite Easley's. If I'm not mistaken the human figure is Raistlin from the Dragonlance series. And since it was painted in the 80s, years before the word "Sith" was known outside of a small community of Star Wars nerds (inc. myself!), I defy your characterization of it as a "sith lord wanna-be trying to look grim pretty much ruining the artwork".

Why in the seven hells does the timeline of the word "sith" matter? He still looks stupid and he still kinda ruins the scenery. At least, the picture would be improved if he were completely omitted.

I don't know what this "test" is intended to prove or demonstrate, but I like them both about equally. They're both rather flat in terms of value and color, and weakened by jumbled compositions. If I had to choose one over the other it would be the one that reads "Suikoden" in red, because the individual portraits are nicely achieved and the style is generally realistic. I tend to dislike Manga style, so the circular piece loses me in the big eyes and cartoonish style.

So go ahead and tell us what you think that shows.

The first art, the one you prefer, is generally regarded in the gaming community as being one of the worst box art in the history of gaming (examples here, here, here, on various forums, and I remember routinely seeing in "top worst box arts" back when print magazines were still common, such as in Gamefan, Gamer's Republic etc.).

The manga-style one is, of course, the game's original cover, and the other one is the American one. Obviously, the in-game characters look closely like those on the original box art, making the cover well-fitting, and it's also a reference to an in-game moment where in the story, a character produces a painting of the cast in such a manner. The style is a bit cartoony (somewhat moreso than the in-game art) and it's nothing great or mind-blowing, but it fits, and it's aesthetically pleasant, and stylistically cool and original.

The American cover, on the other hand, is... complete nonsense. I know the game and its huge cast very well, and I cannot for the life of me, identify any of the characters on that box (well, the dragonrider is too tiny to make out in detail but he can't be anyone else but Futch, haha). Which would not be so bad if they looked good/cool and/or were drawn well, but... they aren't. The proportions are terrible. Just look at the arms on that archer, and WTF is up with his neck? The characters mostly look ridiculous, especially the archer, the vaguely imperial-looking bloke with the black fingernails (??? maybe he's the Emperor of Emo-Goths ), the douchebag in the top right corner with the atrocious greaser haircut and ridiculous outfit... and of course the totally random and gratuitous cleavage on those ladies (who the **** are they supposed to be, I haven't the foggiest). That art looks like the cover of a cheesy 3rd-rate fantasy/romance hybrid novel.

I'm not the biggest fan of manga-style art myself, really, I find some of them pretty annoying to look at (Akira Toriyama can DIAF), but that American cover is just bad in every possible way. I wasn't really trying to prove anything, so much as I was curious to see if we'd at least agree on at least one particularly terrible piece of art. But apparently not... My guess is either a strong anti-manga or pro-"realistic" bias, probably. I dunno. I guess some people like cheesy, ridiculous fantasy art so long as it's drawn in a non-cartoon style, regardless of the artwork's content.

FWIW I had no idea the guy on that artwork was meant to be Raislin, but I maintain that he looks stupid and cheesy on that artwork and I have seen many better portraits of him.

 

[Dragoonster]

Bill Willingham was my favorite D&D module artist. I also loved his later comics series The Elementals.

One great thing about being a teen during the D&D (and pre-internet porn) explosion was all the nipples the artists would show.

Halfcentaur--I think that Lolth painting is by Jason Manley. I really loved his art for the Icewind Dale and Vampire: The Masquerade computer games. Can't find a good comprehensive site but you can find more good stuff with a Google search.

 

[Molinaro]

Hmmm....

Should I run through the quest and Fraps the ending so you can see what Lolth looks like in game? Anyone interested in that?

 

[Marduk]

I played the Fonkin Hoddypeak character for years after D1/D2/D3, my interest in AD&D died before he did

Fonkin Hoddypeak, R.I.P. killed by my puberty 1984

 

[Jarlaxle]

BTW, does anyone know who did the artwork for Gary Gygax's original modules? As you can see in the link above, it was awful.

Many different artists worked on the early AD&D stuff...only Jeff Easley comes to mind offhand.

Russ Nicholson did the illustration in the Fiend Folio...I have no idea who illustrated the G-D-Q modules.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The cover I showed you is supposed to be of a young dark elf. A dark elf from a popular series by the single most popular D&D author. You may have heard of him if you're passingly familiar with D&D, he has a few z's in his name. Not only is that book cover an atrocity, it's not even close to the first book of the series, so it's not as if he couldn't have been informed of what he was drawing. In fact, the first book of the series (cover illustration by Larry Elmore) showed (link snipped), a lot more accurate... Easley even illustrated some (but not all) of the previous books himself, such as (link cut) (still bad but not as terrible), so he really had no excuse. This article states that he was an official TSR artist in the 80's, so it's not as if they hired a random guy who had no clue as to what he was supposed to paint (as happens often in fantasy art).

I'm sure he's technically very skilled, realistic, blah bla blah. But that's not all there is to being an artist, is there? Knowing what the **** you're supposed to be drawing, and not making ugly-ass book covers (as "realistic" as they might be) that seriously offend the eye, should be taken into account. I'm looking at ...(I'm a noob here & can't link)...Adrienne Barbeau circa 1970?

(snipped for space)

Night Masks and Sylvan Shadows are pretty good covers...the depiction on the cover natches the written description of Danica pretty well.

I still say that far & away the best TSR covers are done by Brom for Elaine Cunningham's Starlight & Shadows series.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Bill Willingham was my favorite D&D module artist. I also loved his later comics series The Elementals.

One great thing about being a teen during the D&D (and pre-internet porn) explosion was all the nipples the artists would show.

Halfcentaur--I think that Lolth painting is by Jason Manley. I really loved his art for the Icewind Dale and Vampire: The Masquerade computer games. Can't find a good comprehensive site but you can find more good stuff with a Google search.

Actually it's from Justin Sweet, he does very impressionistic paintings with a lot of dabs which end up creating this glassy filtered effect. He has worked in Icewind Dale art I believe.

 

[Dragoonster]

Actually it's from Justin Sweet, he does very impressionistic paintings with a lot of dabs which end up creating this glassy filtered effect. He has worked in Icewind Dale art I believe.

Ah, thanks for the correction! His stuff is terrific, and reminds me a bit of a looser Frazetta.

 

[kleinjahr]

Whilst I am not that familiar with most of these artists, from what I see here they all owe a debt to the true master and maker of the genre.http://frankfrazetta.org/

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did you fail to read my previous post, because I don't know how to explain it again without repeating myself. That book is the 7th volume in the series. Previous volumes, in fact, the first two volumes, illustrated by Larry Elmore and Clyde Caldwell respectively, have accurate depictions. Then the next four books, all illustrated by Easley, have far less accurate depictions (though they aren't all equally offensive-looking). So you're telling me that during all this time, he never so much as glanced at the covers of the previous books, that despite working for TSR for a decade he has never inquired as to what a drow/dark elf looks like (not even realizing they have black skin?!)? Come on now. Especially when all he had to do was glance at book 1 or book 2 just to get an idea of what the dude looks like. Young bloke, black skin, long white hair. (Purple eyes, green cape and scimitar preferred, but optional.) Well, one out of three ain't bad, I guess.
And I'd like to believe that TSR was cheap and just re-used an old unrelated piece that wasn't meant to be Drizzt in the first place, but the problem is that the old creep on the cover still looks too much like his previous iterations (only seemingly aged up three generations for no bloody reason), down to that ridiculous golden cap he keeps putting on the character's head for no reason.

Several reasons...
One, black skin showed poorly on covers. This has changed, but bear in mind: these were printed 20+ years ago on equipment that was not new even then.
Two: Legacy's cover was planned to be Matron Baenre.

(Small wonder all those horrid covers have been completely re-done for the reprints. Compare this reissue to, uh, Return of the Old Pedo Creep: The Golden Cap's Revenge. xD)

Different publishing company, different art. No mystery.

Of course they don't (yeah, I read my share of FR novels as a kid... hey, girls back then read romance novels instead, and these days they read Twilight, so I did okay xD).
A crappy, out-of-touch artist would just keep drawing all his women the same way, with ugly, ridiculous-looking hair that have been out of fashion for over four decades. But hey, he's a master of colouring technique, so he must be great...!

He got Danica exactly as described...much closer than Lockwood managed!

 

[Morrigan]

Several reasons...
One, black skin showed poorly on covers. This has changed, but bear in mind: these were printed 20+ years ago on equipment that was not new even then.

Even if that's true (and uh, seriously? I very very much doubt that the reason was "black skin showed poorly on covers", come on, how ridiculous), that's no excuse for getting it so wrong.

Two: Legacy's cover was planned to be Matron Baenre.

So that's why you got an old man with sideburns instead. Wait, what.

Different publishing company, different art. No mystery.

Didn't say it was a "mystery". I was merely expressing the sheer difference in quality.

He got Danica exactly as described...much closer than Lockwood managed!

Not quite as I seem to recall her hair went past her shoulders (though I admit it's been about 15 years since I read those awful books ), so I'm pretty sure it's just his Farrah Fawcett/Adrienne Barbeau fetish going on, but I'll concede that it's more accurate than Lockwood's version (which I had to google), though at least Lockwood got the half-Asian oriental look. Overall I find him a much, much better artist anyway.