There have been multiple threads in here (or elsewhere) that rank Pokemon artworks or ask users what their favorite cards are. Art is subjective and tastes differ, so you would expect these threads to look different every time. But that’s not entirely true. There are some cards that get listed almost anytime, often by more than one person. Neo Espeon, Shining Gyarados, Crystal Celebi, Gold Star Rayquaza to name a few. This implies that these cards have something that goes beyond the preference of the individual, a combination of factors that a statistically significant group finds aesthetically pleasing.
But what is it? Comparing the 4 cards I mentioned, they don’t look very similar. So the question remains: What makes a Pokemon artwork desirable beyond personal preference?
I’d say for an artwork to be widely popular, it essentially needs to showcase some sort of emotion (angry, sad, chill, happy etc.) of the Pokemon, which then in return evokes an emotion in the viewer. It needs to be able to tell a story or describe a characterization of the Pokemon’s nature.
Other important factors can be background context (naturalistic or stylized), dynamic art or the general distinct style of the artist that cultivates a fan base around their work.
I personally love any art that features other pokemon / characters in it.
Love the tag team cards but even just the cameo appearances. With the new spoilers coming out, all the collectors watching to see if their chosen collection card is hidden somewhere in any of the new cards XD
To add to what others have said - some cards just seem to have more effort applied to the art. Mitsuhiro Arita’s Silvally SM64 just doesn’t compare to his secret rare Mewtwo GX from the same year.
I have no idea, but presumably artists are paid something that roughly equates to their time, for a flagship secret rare they’re probably expected to put a little more time in?
Are some artists on salary and so directly directed?
Probably an unpopular opinion, but that’s something that does literally nothing for me. Most of the time I don’t even notice shinyness when it’s not mentioned in the name.
One big reason why I’m completely indifferent towards Hidden Fates. In that set in particular it seemed as though the artists felt like they could get really lazy since the shinyness does all the work on its own.
It was interesting seeing the behind the scenes voting process for the recent art thread. Often times you saw the artworks that had the most personality or had some sort of narrative get the most votes time and time again.
People might list composition, linework, etc, but I think it really comes down to a few factors:
Personal style - does the artist have a “signature LOOK” that you can consistently tell who made it (thoughts of Nishida, Himeno, Masago, Komiya to name a few)?
Narrative - does the artwork tell some kind of story that seems to imply a larger world?
Personality - do the characters featured in it share some kind of awareness of said world?
Quirkiness - Does the art stand-out in a way that goes above and beyond the typical feature?
Look at some of the cards you mentioned: Neo Discovery Espeon is a great example - it has a lot of personal style, the narrative of the image seems to showcase that it’s entering or apart of some dream-like world. Personality - the Pokemon seems to be aware of the world it’s in and is involved in it. It’s only lacking quirkiness (think cards like alt-art moderns).
People love University Karp for the quirkiness factor especially as another light example. People will always spot a Komiya from a mile away and SOMEONE will always highlight it.
Yeah, something like this is probably the case. If I was tapped to create a prominent card, whether I’m offered a higher commission or not, I would certainly step up my game since it would likely help my career and rep.
As a fellow member with a display picture of pokemon afraid of the rain I salute you! Without stating the obvious, those cards are lovely because of the assumptions - Erika = grass, fire > grass = water > fire - grass taking pity on fire, it’s amazing how much imagery one picture can show.
Was there ever a charmander in the rain card? That was obviously the classic, tail go out = death story?
I think Azul and muk gave brilliant explanations. I’d like to add that part of what makes artists’ look or style so memorable and loved is their use of color. Striking use of color to enhance or depict the Pokemon beautifully goes a long way. Komiya does a phenomenal job of both stylized depiction, but also incredible color. Color is very memorable and part of our significant associations just like smell is to our memory. So in this you also have use of light and shadow. Nishida makes them look like actual photographs with stylized use of lenses and filters such as light diffusion. That appeals to people even if it is purely subconscious—it just speaks to our souls.
Lastly, contrast and compliments. This helps artwork pop and spring into your eyes and creates focal points and interesting variations throughout. This is the reason why for many people darker or brighter overall artwork is more appealing. This is even the reason for holofoil being appealing (other than shininess).
Art that is unlike any other TCG cards. (ex. Exchange Please, Mario Pikachu)
Art that is representative of its unique release. (ex. Lucky Stadium/Pokemon Center black star promos)
Personal favorite:
Art that is highly detailed with a lot of sharp outlines (ex. Vending kusube Abra, koizumi)
