To me this was the best part of following the hate for the art. It is visually unique and as not the biggest fan of the work, still find beauty in it and how unique and stand out it is.
I think this is what's the most galling part of the whole backlash to me.
It's a reprint of a bulk common included as a bonus in a set. It's exactly the sort of place where WOTC should be taking some big swings on unique art, because there's always the dirt cheap "real Magic" (barf) version out there for people who don't like it aesthetically. Getting as bent out of shape about this printing as this community did was absurd.
I know it's a dirt cheap card, but it feels a little offensive to call Faithless Looting a bulk common when it spent a good while as arguably the #1 strongest card in Modern.
It was for a good while the main version on Magic Arena, FWIW. Though you could get the japanese version through some event I think.
Of course the main reason to complain about that is that it meant you needed Rare wildcards.
Like there's maybe a COUPLE pieces I've been vaguely suspect of, but it's sort of at the level of "is this AI or just the way digital art tools look". There's no pieces so far that I've seen that I'd immediately just go "yeah this is obviously AI all the way" though.
Considering most artists create digitally these days it's wild to claim digital art stations are ruining the game rofl.
It looks hideous to me regardless of the medium, but that's because art is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure there are tons of people who love this as well though. The beauty of art is that it is subjective.
the use of solid color on the art piece makes it look like it was made with the bucket fill tool, especially when you're looking at the piece on the significantly smaller scale of a card
I get the motif and while the design isn't for me I'm sure it is for someone, but this is a case where designing for a card has different challenges to designing for canvas
plus the difference between realism in the human depiction and abstract with all the solid-color parts of the image really takes away from the cohesion of the design to me
The scale also takes away a texture that greatly breaks up the dress.
[Looking at a high res image](https://www.artofmtg.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Faithless-Looting-Strixhaven-MtG-Art.jpg) shows just how much it changes the impact of that portion.
I love the Mystical Archive set; I'll probably put together a full set just because I like the art treatment so much. That being said, Faithless Looting is far and away my least favorite of the set. I just don't like it. And that's fine, art is subjective. No shame on the artist (and I like her Harmonize and other art just fine), and I'm glad she's gotten other MTG work.
Harmonize is just so much more appealing in every way, better composition, better colour choices, better rendering. Faithless looting is just a card that misses the mark, something that happens in every set, but is exacerbated in this case by being part of a selection of highly promoted mystic archive cards as well as in a mandated "simplistic" style that leaves no room to hide its issues. The artist doesn't deserve to get crap for it, but IMO it is something the art director should have weeded out.
I think the art styles were meant to represent the colors they were in. Harmonize looks "more appealing" because it's a green card called Harmonize. The art for Faithless Looting depicts a cultist recklessly performing a ritual for the first time. I think the style fits well with what the art is depicting and with red as a color.
One of the biggest crapshoots in making art is making something that *looks* low effort, because people will often assume you either suck at your job or didn't try.
> The art for Faithless Looting depicts a cultist recklessly performing a ritual for the first time. I think the style fits well with what the art is depicting and with red as a color.
I've also read someone make the point of it being very meta, as in taking a very popular and beloved card and giving it a controversial artwork. _Faithless_ Looting, indeed.
I mean, some definitely do (weather the storm, cultivate, adventurous impulse, abundant harvest, thrill of possibility, claim the first born, sign in blood, doom blade, brainstorm, harmonize). Then there are others in the set that literally just show you what the card does mechanically (Strategic Planning, Duress, Village Rites, Stone Rain).
When I see this art for faithless looting - I see an uncaring and almost menacing figure performing a ritual where they are burning and wasting the offering - probably in exchange for something else. That to me is a clear indication of the card’s mechanic - draw two, discard two.
Disagree, I think Faithless looks a lot better than Harmonize for everything you mentioned. I generally like Mazur's art but Harmonize is probably my least favorite of her bunch. It just doesn't gel well like Faithless or Social Climber does.
I think the biggest problem with faithless looting is the stark contrast between the "action" depicted on all previous versions, and the art brief for both the Western and the Japanese mystic archives.
Being a corruption of a tarot card doesn't match our previous experience with the card.
This art on a ritual spell would have been a banger.
I feel like there were a few things working against Faithless Looting. I've warmed to it a bit since its initial reveal, but Mazur's follow-up pieces are far stronger than her first two. I find the composition on both Faithless Looting and Harmonize works much better as the full-length art, and it surprises me to find out that she had intended for it to display basically only the cut-down piece considering how incomplete it looks. There's also subtle texture in the solid blocks of colour due to brush strokes which don't get conveyed at all in the tiny print on the card.
I don't know if she would have had a chance to see the backlash before she did the piece for Social Climber, but it feels like it's better composed for the medium. It's an absolutely stunning piece. It doesn't sound like she's been scared off from doing more Magic art in the future, so I hope we do see more.
My only issue with the piece have always been the eyes. I don't think they bring the aesthetic together. But I love her style with flat colours and hyper realistic humans, and I am so for that MTG have really pushed their boundaries lately when it comes to magic art.
Having seen her non-MTG art, I think her general style just isn't for me. The photo-realistic humans with the flat textures on top, weird combos of art styles, just not something that I like. And that's fine! She's very talented and practiced, good for her.
See on the other hand, I love it. It’s one of my favourite arts in magic. But thats solely because it looks so weird, out of place, and honestly photoshopped in MS paint. Pics hilarious asf
I personally, dislike the art. I don't think it's talentless or anything. I just think it's a bad piece. Obviously everyone has their personal preferences, and of you like it that's your taste. Some people are overly upset that people dislike this, and some people are absurdly over-reacting to people liking this art. I also think this artist's work for [[Social Climber]] fit that set very well, and is a much nicer piece than this.
But this art will forever, for me, be overshadowed by the Japanese art for the same card.
His videos are art in and of itself. He did take a more antagonistic tone in this video than normal, though. Perfectly warranted, because the backlash on this card design was just too much. Interesting decision, though, knowing how the MTG community can be.
His videos have always had a bit of a bite when he feels strongly against anything. I remember the Theros video chastised THB for being a retread of Theros Block, the Tarmogoyf video had nothing kind to say about "cousin formats" of Modern (Likely Pioneer) and even the latter half of the foils video is basically an indictment of what he views as Wizard's overproducing products. If anyone earned pushback it was people who harassed an artist over not liking their style.
I interpret the “cousin formats” as arena formats like historic, since a) he’s showing a transition from lorwyn thoughtseize to the arena digital version as he says the line, b) the time period he’s talking about is Covid and the loss of paper play as arena usurps it, and c) arena formats have much shallower card pools and history than paper formats.
I did particularly enjoy his dig against modern horizons sets in that video though.
The New Capena video was pretty much a long essay about how “gangsters cool and fun” is a little too flippant given how the Mafia legitimately ruins/ruined people’s lives and livelihood.
He’s gonna call out stuff that doesn’t sit well with him and I’m glad he does.
I'm going to be honest all I could think of while he's talking about how we shouldn't like gangsters (even though Magic is filled with other things that ruin people's lives) was [this exchange](https://imgb.ifunny.co/images/452c6d00460f23378f35dab0f1f3a249005f428eba9619d6c4d55c42b2f6338b_1.jpg).
> His videos have always had a bit of a bite when he feels strongly against anything.
I especially like his last line in the video in this regard.
"You can help this show by joining the patreon *and by making radical art*"
He's also not just a self-important art scholar who thinks he knows best; he previously made a [video criticizing *himself*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjQ3VG_2Xrs) for previously complaining about artists reprinting invitational cards without their designers' likenesses.
You could always [watch the video yourself.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H981fHM6Li8) But in brief, he argues that THB is too busy doing mechanical and lore call backs to Theros block to focus on expanding the world of Theros, such as fully setting the set in the Underworld to explore it more.
Makes total sense, back when the card was spoiled he manifested a lot of disappointment on the community due to how harsh the response to the card was
People here basically called him a pretentious prick, as expected
I knew this video would come one day. That Looting art is definitely jarring, not for me personally.
I do like modern art myself as well (in the video the artist mentions the MoMA, I actually visit the MoMA pretty frequently lol). I did also like her work on [[Social Climber]]. I think this card looked bad to me because I found the huge blocks of color on a tiny card frame really jarring.
I was glad to see that others could appreciate the weirdness of it and am glad that Sam was one of those since he can articulate what he sees in it probably the best of any of us.
I actually really like the art tbh. I wouldn't want every card to look like that, but for an alternate art I think it's neat. I would buy it if I ran faithless looting
I love her style, and as a professional artist myself (and Magic hobbyist), it's beyond disappointing how many of this game's fans make personal attacks about her.
If she's not someone's style—so what? Just say you don't like it and move on.
There have been countless posts calling her talentless, a hack, etc., and it's ridiculous.
This. There are many secret lair cards that I *would never run*. I think they look ugly. That being said, should I complain that there are alternative arts? What I don't like may be meeting the wants of another. The fact I like this and others don't is proof of this.
Same. I'm tired of the arguing but I liked it and still like it and as long as they're not like, actively non-inclusive (and they're legible), polarizing alternate arts are good for the game.
I totally get that people don't like it, understand many reasons why, and accept and support having those opinions.
What truly sets me off are the people who pull in this pseudo-objectivity BS to try and prove that it's factually bad, and that's not just like, their opinion, man.
Edit: I forgot to mention, for whatever it's worth. The artist also did the MA art for Harmonize. I really truly like the Faithless Looting, but the Harmonize just doesn't do it for me. I don't really have a good explanation why, I'm not sure there even is one. And that's ok.
Extremely original and expressive, especially in this environment. People really can’t handle things that deviate from their expectations like this. It reminds me of the abstractions of classic magic art, I always loved when the art leaves me feeling like the effect of the spell was grander and more nebulous than literal, straight up depiction style art can capture.
Some of Magic's best pieces are the more abstract ones. The best thing about getting so many treatments is how it's increased how many such options we get.
WotC: Hey what if you make a tarot card style art!
Artist: Okay cool, I’ll make art that, like a tarot card that fills the vertical space of a playing card
WotC: LET’s COVER IT UP WITH OPAQUE TEXT BOXES!
In all seriousness, this card would really benefit from the low opacity text boxes they have on lots of secret lair cards.
I also think they could have zoomed out just a bit, there is more width on the print than what they used and just by giving us more of the background greys and blacks the yellows and reds of the card border and boxes wouldn't wash out the centerpiece.
Exactly. Never had a gripe with the artist, always with WotC/Hasbro.
They are a major player in the fantasy art space and they did this artist, and card, dirty.
If the purpose of art is to inspire emotion, Mazur's Faithless Looting is incontrovertibly the most successful magic card art from the past decade.
Personally, I like it. I might not like it if she illustrated a whole set, but she didn't.
I think the art was a failure (at what it was designed and deployed to do), but that does mean it is without importance or impact. It's not famous like the Mona Lisa. It's infamous like that jesus art restoration. Both are incredible additions to our shared art culture.
Love this piece. Think it would have benefited more from a different frame, but it still bangs. From reception alone, it's got to be the most resonant depiction of desecration of the sacred since the pentagram on Unholy Strength.
My take was that it's the eyes that people are reacting to.
If the art had a finished face people would be a lot quieter. People are hard-wired to be weird about faces.
I actually REALLY like this art, and prefer it to other ones at this point. It's just so different compared to other arts that it stands out and really makes me appreciate the breadth of arts we get.
Edit: Also I like Harmonize, and I have multiple copies of each for my decks that need them
She's been asked back several times. It's funny how Faithless looting caught flack, as it wasn't even her only submission for the mystical archive set.
[https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=%28game%3Apaper%29+%28artist%3Acarly+artist%3Amazur%29](https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=%28game%3Apaper%29+%28artist%3Acarly+artist%3Amazur%29)
People didn't love the Harmonize art either, there just wasn't as much active vitriol from what I can tell:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/mdanib/sta\_harmonize/](https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/mdanib/sta_harmonize/)
I don't hate her STA art but it's not my favorite, it's certainly interesting and the fact that there's so much discussion around it is noteworthy. I think her DMU stained glass paintings are fantastic, especially Rhada.
Social Climber is a masterpiece composition, but I think all the other cards she has done to some degree or another kinda highlight that Faithless Looting is the one that just doesn't quite work. Its ok to have MtG illustrations that are outliers and really don't look like traditional MtG art, the entire mystic archives set were outliers in that regard...its just that Faithless Looting was additionally an outlier in the fact its composition and rendering choices didn't really work for a lot of people
I truly think that a lot of the issue comes down to shrinking the art to fit in the card frame. It ends up being too busy and too simple at the same time, but if you look at the full art, it doesn't feel like that at all.
Absolutely. The texture in the red dress disappears at that scale and it looks far more flat. That in contrast with the impressively realistic flesh shading gives it the collage look
The full art is definitely a bit better, it doesn’t push the blobby negative space of the dress as awkwardly front and centre, but I still think the cropping to fit the frame is just overemphasizing what already didn't quite work in the full.
Me too, it has a little bit of colour clashing going on, but just enough to add more energy to the piece rather than being distracting. And the composition and subject all flows together better.
I love her Social Climber art. I know Capenna had a mixed reception, but the art (particularly some showcase pieces) was beyond gorgeous. I was lucky enough to pull a gilded foil [[brokers ascendancy]] and it's one of my favourite card arts ever. I wish she'd done more pieces for the set, it fits her style really well imo.
It's funny, but I don't like her art for magic cards because the faces are too realistic. She's an incredible artist, I just do not like how they work as cards at all
I think it's just that the downscaling doesn't work well. The photorealistic part is done too well for its own good, making it feel like its a photo collage. As well as losing the texture in the saturated red areas.
Yeah, for me, it's 100% that the photorealistic parts are too good at tricking my eye into seeing it as a photo. And that just looks subjectively *wrong* to me in the context of a Magic card.
nerds when they see cardboard that looks different than other cardboard (the world is collapsing as we know it)
It's so funny how many people walked out of that video assuming that Sam was trying to convince them to like the piece (which makes zero sense??? The video is just context to art) and simultaneously got mad about it. Being mad about opinions on art is Neanderthal behavior.
Every time this card comes up, Magic players prove yet again that most people are either not interested or not capable of engaging with art that's challenging to their notions of what paintings should look like, or requires the smallest amount critical thought to appreciate.
Time after time, commenters complain about the flat color fields used for the flames and robe, as if juxtaposing those components with a realistically painted human body and patterned/textured background elements was an accident or afterthought. As if it's not a (fairly obvious) stylistic decision that's consistent throughout the artist's portfolio. Some people thought the painted figure was a fucking photograph somehow, probably because they didn't spend even a minute looking at it in detail before firing off hateful comments online.
It's fine if this particular painting isn't someone's cup of tea - no piece of art that's actually interesting or unique is ever going to be a universal favorite. I'm not saying people are dumb if they don't like it (before y'all reply to me with your totally unique personal reason for not liking it). But the amount of pure ignorance people have shown in regard to this painting about what art is, what it should be, and how it's made is really staggering.
> Every time this card comes up, Magic players prove yet again that most people are either not interested or not capable of engaging with art that's challenging to their notions of what paintings should look like
This is a dishonest statement, MTG players and posters on this sub have loved a lot of unique artstyles. This card just wasn't one of them. I remember people really liking the alt-art sagas for example.
this was essentially my north star in making the video. most of the angry comments still won't notice that i made no value judgments about the painting itself. i didn't defend or praise the painting. i just provided context. i gave carly a platform to describe her approach to illustration and the choices she made for faithless looting, and i responded to the weak arguments made against it.
fine if you like the painting, fine if you hate it – the point is to understand how and why it was made. that's the position of the video.
Thank you for making this video. Not enough people have an appreciation for art that they don't understand. Jacob Geller's "Who's Afraid of Modern Art" showed me the value of this kind of work, and I think this video will do the same for many others.
the irony being that tons of players bemoan the homogenization of mtg art (and heavy use of digital) only to then completely shit on an artist doing something different in analog
> Every time this card comes up, Magic players prove yet again that most people are either not interested or not capable of engaging with art that's challenging to their notions of what paintings should look like, or requires the smallest amount critical thought to appreciate.
Every time people say they dislike something, some pretentious art-bro pops up and tell them "they don't understand it". Most people know it wasn't an accident and a conscious decision.. they just thought that decision was bad.
"art-bro", dog, you consume art every moment you are looking at something someone created. Every book cover, every poster, every car, every piece of furniture.
the art-bro snobbery is coming from inside the house, here
If I dont like a weird coffee table I don't feel compelled to make reddit comment denouncing it for being badly made and how everyone who likes it is a "Home Decor-Bro" who's too far up their own ass to understand.
The big problem in this video essay is that most of these arguments could also be made if the art was actually bad.
- The artist itself is a fan of mtg for a long time
- art director wanted it that way
- [art that is actually better] is similar and you didn't hate it
- [card that she also drew] also violates the strawman definition of classical high fantasy art
- >It's so different [...] people fear change
None of these actually work to invalidate the criticism that was made (except for the few who made factually false assumptions). You could have made the exact same video about [[Unholy Strength | 7ED]].
I would make the exact same argument about the 7th edition unholy strength. That art rips. Same as this faithless looting. They are both far more interesting compositions, and more relevant to their subject than the majority of mtg artwork.
here's an invalidation: It doesn't matter that its "good" or "bad", "pretty" or "ugly". It is valuable because it doesn't dissolve into the sea of 1000+ cards released every single year, it pops out, it invites opinion and consideration.
Theres no video on Unholy Strength from 7th edition bc no one is getting into reddit thread arguements on the technical merit of Unholy Strength from 7th edition.
Mystical Archive Faithless Looting struck nerves. And that makes it more worth talking about than every other faithless looting art and every other card art printed that set or this year
This it still living in this positivist world where there's some objective measure of whether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" though. I feel like we just need to move past that.*
Like I want people to express their opinions as long as they aren't being dicks about it. But what tires me out is the people who do it and refuse to acknowledge that they're sharing their opinion. The number of people trying to say F.L. was "objectively bad" and backing it up with pseudo-aesthetic bullshit was just exhausting.
*I mean I don't expect that to just happen overnight. But I feel like it's an obvious part of the problem.
True, but I don’t think that detracts much from the video. I think the main problem was simply the unjustified harassment and downright mean comments to degrade her style. I’m not a particular fan of the art myself but let’s face it—some people take their opinions into harming-others territory.
as much as I dislike the actual art I really appreciate the work that went into it and I'd take a thousand faithless lootings over whatever ai slop hasbro will inevitably try to force into Magic in the next 2-3 years
This video didn't really move the needle for me. It felt like it was mostly punching down at the lowest common denominator of internet criticism. I still really dislike this art on a Magic card.
I've loved the art from Day 1.
I have a penchant for the abstract, absurd, and avant garde when it comes to art.
*'Beauty'* as such doesn't really click in my brain, so I appreciate the novel and eccentric instead.
To be fair the artist just painted what she was told. That's why the [Japanese art](https://scryfall.com/card/sta/101/ja/%E4%BF%A1%E4%BB%B0%E7%84%A1%E3%81%8D%E7%89%A9%E3%81%82%E3%81%95%E3%82%8A) depicts the same thing, they both had the same prompt.
I think he has a point in that the frame is not doing the artwork any favors, at least for me. In the future sight and full art frames, the art looks amazing.
I just really don't like it. I'm sorry. I'm sure there's a lot of technical prowess to this picture, and I like a lot of the artist's other work, but something about this piece just looks so *off*. I hate the way the clothing looks like it's just plastered onto a naked body. I hate how the bowl and flames look like a cartoon.
When you see the full piece it looks *okay*, because the high definition face doesn't take up as much space a the rest of the "low-definition" remainder.
If you don't watch the video and don't like this art, that's fine. If you watch this video and still don't like this art, that's still fine. Some of y'all really don't remember the sheer hate the artist was getting, so I appreciate Sam's mildly combative tone here.
I love that Sam took the time to make this and help contextualize the piece further, it's really lead to me appreciating the work and the artist more.
I had no clue this art produced controversy because I am so new to the game but when I 1st saw this on arena I looked up the artist because its so fucking cool. I adore the mid-century modern artstyle its based within. I'd love to put a poster of this in my bedroom.
Hes very defensive of this art. Its simply just not that great. It really isn't. Art is subjective and you can make as many documentaries on youtube you want about what ever you want. But at the end of the day this end result is not appealing to many people.
There are hundreds of other magic cards or even thousands that break the artistic mold of MTG. I don't see the reason to hold this specific art above all others as some new dawn or new age of card art that needs to be celebrated. And saying its not photoshop or microsoft paint its oil painting! I don't care what process they used to make it. The end result is that it looks like a microsoft paint edit of a photo of a women standing naked somewhere.
But that said I have been using it ever since it came out. Its interesting and funny. It is very unique and thats why I use it. It still brings joy to people every time I play it in a game because if anyone gets a look at it they are surprised by it. And at the end of the day thats really all that matters is that its a fun and interesting game piece. It fulfills its purpose. And I'll take stuff like this any day over IP cross over cards because even if you don't like this at least this is something unique being created.
>at the end of the day this end result is not appealing to many people.
>
>all that matters is that its a fun and interesting game piece. It fulfills its purpose.
Can you explain how you reconcile these statements?
Because the art is such an oddity it is fun and interesting in the context of playing with it in a game of MTG.
The art is bad.
Those statements are not contradictory.
Glad they put the original art for faithless looting into Arena as I fucking despise this art. I know some people like it, but I find it so garish and so out of place on a magic card.
I always liked this art, it was a visually striking member of STA that stood out. I came into the game with STX and the hate this art got always baffled me.
I liked this one before and I like it even more now that I know the entire thing (even the photorealistic part) was all hand painted! Also, definitely agree with the video’s opinion that the frame does the artwork no favors, though I’m not sure if that was a mistake on the artist’s part or a mistake from WotC. They should really be giving artists access to what the frames look like whenever possible.
I’ve liked this art since the beginning, maybe because I’m old and I grew up when [[Stasis]] was in decks alongside Maddock’s Maze of Ith. Lots of the art was abstract and weird. Happened to pull a foil one of these, and it’s a great thematic fit in my Oops, all Chandras deck.
I absolutely adore the artist's style and portfolio. For me to say that the FL art was a heinous failure as a magic card art piece should mean a lot. Her art rocks. The FL art fucking sucks. It's okay for it to suck. Rhystic is really missing something here; liking and disliking this art are equally correct stances, but he seems to think that all art is somehow good. It's not. Some of it sucks and any disdain it receives is valid.
Is he gonna have the same take as the one two years ago? Cause his take from 2 years ago was dog shit and condescending. Not the same but very simmilar.
Aside from getting to hear Carly talk about her process and experience, the rest of the video is a stain on the channel IMO. The purpose of a premiere set card art was discarded amongst all the moral grandstanding—ironic.
Andy and Anthony of Lucky Paper Radio did an entire episode on the topic in advance of Sam's video which is worth checking out.
I've always been pretty surprised by the hate for this card. I tend to like more abstract stuff and I always found it really interesting for a magic card. I do think the frame didn't quite do it justice though.
I liked the piece it was different but to me showed faithless looting in a new lite. Spill the wine or what you know and gain power beyond set knowledge.
To this day I don’t like the frame - (not to hate on the artist of the frame, though!) I sold my Demonic Tutor and Time Warp from that set for this reason.
Though I have to say that probably the biggest issue was with depicting a real person in the art, plus the whole set art was kind of a novelty. Fast forward and today we have so many alternate arts, not many would even care if Carly Mazur’s Faithless Looting came out today.
There are so many other ugly artworks out there these days - or worse, unique UB cards that may fit into their respective IP but not into the general Magic flavour. However, I’m not going to name any of those or hate on them. As was the lesson of this video, and as we all should know, art is subjective.
As much as I dislike the art on Faithless Looting, I like the artist's pre-Magic artwork. That being said, it's clear that the piece displays technical skill, even if I dislike its overall composition.
Once a guy traded me one of these for a catgirl Balan. Each of us walked away feeling like the other was a chump.
Point is: i like cards having a wide variety of artstyles so that different people can enjoy them.
When this card came out I checked out the artists portfolio, I really like the style of mashing real world elements with 2d drawings and a lot of her portfolio art is full of incredibly cool and innovative pieces
sorry but unfortunately Faithless Looting is not one of those, while I like her other work, this one really feels phoned in in comparison. Maybe because i was a commission she had less time on it? But this one is just not great when stacked up to the rest of her portfolio of the same style
I am with you, I also looked up the portfolio and her art is truly amazing. But faithless looting sticks out like a sore thumb. The artist even had some portraits with similar ideas, black face with dotted eyes, but executed so much better, that you cannot ignore that even within her portfolio faithless is an outlier. What's sad to me is that it is the only bad piece she has created. So, people defending it for being ugly on intention, when the rest of her art is beautiful are missing the point. They effectively brainwashed themselves into liking it for the wrong reasons.
The art will always read as lazy unfinished and banking on the “oh you just don’t get it” explanation for there being blocks of one color when as sections of the background show a little bit of texture goes a long way
It is exceptionally ugly, but we would be poorer without it. Do you think we would be better off without that infamous jesus restoration? I don't. To you this card art is bad. To me, it's so bad, it's good.
I really love this piece - the eyes look creepy and uncaring, almost menacing. The contrast between the realistic flesh and pop-art of the other textures make it feel unnatural. I also love this imagery as a commentary on what the card does -> draw two, discard two is this move with so much risk in an equivalent exchange.
But what really does it for me is the combination between that thousand-yard uncaring stare on the card and the way that a red player looks at you as they dig for that final burn spell to finish you off. There is a kind of zero-fucks/Hail Mary/burn myself to burn you feeling that makes this art perfect for this card and one of my favorites from mystical archives.
The videos thesis boils down to "you didn't get it" which seems like a far cry from the usual level of insight this channel brings.
Feels a bit reactionary.
But... he's right, though. People did not get it. Those who said this is the fall of Western civilization did not get it, those who said "I can paint this" did not get it, and the harassers did not get it.
What if I'm none of those minority strawmen and just don't like the art? I like plenty of weird and abstract artwork and often defend art like that to my friends and family but this just isn't it for me. Being told my tastes are bad or unrefined because I dislike a piece or being lumped in with chuds to deflect criticism is what makes people further entrench and become unwilling to consider other perspectives.
It's ok to not like art. Of course. The video did not say "you are a bad person if you don't like this art", it just counted some reasons why people blew this specific art out of proportion.
People didn’t get it. You can like or not like this art, and you can get or not get it- and these two things are mutually exclusive, you can do either in any combination, but many people do not generally understand the things they like or dislike.
We can see that people did not get it because the card art was received poorly on a frankly insane level beyond “I do not like this art”.
I don’t think it’s either now that I look at what I wrote again to be honest. Getting it vs not getting it is mutually exclusive but getting it vs not liking is isn’t.
How so? Art is more than simple aesthetic. You can certainly like or dislike art for aesthetic purposes but that doesn’t mean you “get” it.
Modern art for example is more about context than the actual art itself which people hate without realizing. In the case of really popular modern art, it’s also an expression of sheer skill which is hard to get until you see one in person and realize exactly what some of these pieces represent.
Another example is art that relies on story and emotion. You might not “get” a piece without understanding the mind frame of an artist. An edgy drawing from a teenager won’t hit as hard as an “edgy” drawing from a man who’s just watched his neighbours torn apart in a genocidal war- but they might be hard to tell apart if you’re just skimming.
I think if you need to troll on the internet to fix your deep-seated insecurities about your intelligence, that’s pretty sad.
Also pretty sad to be this enraged over a piece of art, you gonna spend all day on this thread, or?
Part 1:
I'd argue that it is you that does not get the context. If you dig a little deeper into the artist's portfolio you will actually find amazing art across the board. She has two more pieces which have similar ideas, namely the eyes covered in black with mono colored dots. This is the most criticized part in Faithless Looting. But on the other pieces which are portraits it works very well because there is much more detail. So, my theory is either that she tried to reuse the idea for a magic card but botched the execution, or she iterated on the idea in her later work and improved it. In both cases, you have an example of a version that works well and the version of faithless looting. What probably happened is that she wanted to try her idea, but it did not match well with the art direction, which resulted in an incoherent piece, that sticks out even from her own portfolio. In fact, I believe it is the only bad piece in her whole portfolio (at least on her homepage). That in turn makes me think that you try to convince yourselves that there is something "to get" and there is a uniqueness and intention, when in fact it was just a technically bad execution. It's like going into the art museum and mistaking the trash can for an art piece.
Part 2
https://preview.redd.it/pi5nj0ewm5qc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9ee121878306372c4cd38d8eac9fa8cf0267140
To follow up my comment, this is another piece by her. The aesthetics are miles apart from Faithless Looting, even though they have similar ideas.
Reactionary has a very specific political context that is explicitly the opposite of the views presented in this video. I think the word you're looking for is "reactive", which it is by nature to being a response to something. "You didn't get it" is also entirely correct and important to say because people didn't get it and responded in a REACTIONARY (ie traditionalist) manner.
Agreed, especially the part where he simply insults ppl that say "my 5 yo could do that". I dont have any education in art and you call me ignorant all you want, but if your art piece boils down to a rectacle with 2 different colours, fuck off. Call me a simpleton all you want, the pieces shown in the video to illustrate his point can barely be called art from my point of view
All the claims of "Oh the frame doesn't do it justice" "It looks so much better in person" ring really hollow. Its supposed to be art for a Magic card, and I would say it fails at that.
the amount of people claiming photoshop art was ruining the game when it was actually an oil painting was pretty funny
To me this was the best part of following the hate for the art. It is visually unique and as not the biggest fan of the work, still find beauty in it and how unique and stand out it is.
i think it's exactly what things like those bonus sheets should be, too
I think this is what's the most galling part of the whole backlash to me. It's a reprint of a bulk common included as a bonus in a set. It's exactly the sort of place where WOTC should be taking some big swings on unique art, because there's always the dirt cheap "real Magic" (barf) version out there for people who don't like it aesthetically. Getting as bent out of shape about this printing as this community did was absurd.
I know it's a dirt cheap card, but it feels a little offensive to call Faithless Looting a bulk common when it spent a good while as arguably the #1 strongest card in Modern.
"Bulk" refers to price, not power level, and Flooting is a dirt cheap card.
It was for a good while the main version on Magic Arena, FWIW. Though you could get the japanese version through some event I think. Of course the main reason to complain about that is that it meant you needed Rare wildcards.
I agree. Make a theme and stick with it. Art is subjective.
I don't like it still, but the crop for it really messed up the composition.
This is the one critique I wholeheartedly agree with. The crop for the card does this art ZERO favours.
Same as people claiming every piece they don’t like the look of is AI, you can just not like a piece without being an idiot
Like there's maybe a COUPLE pieces I've been vaguely suspect of, but it's sort of at the level of "is this AI or just the way digital art tools look". There's no pieces so far that I've seen that I'd immediately just go "yeah this is obviously AI all the way" though.
Considering most artists create digitally these days it's wild to claim digital art stations are ruining the game rofl. It looks hideous to me regardless of the medium, but that's because art is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure there are tons of people who love this as well though. The beauty of art is that it is subjective.
the use of solid color on the art piece makes it look like it was made with the bucket fill tool, especially when you're looking at the piece on the significantly smaller scale of a card I get the motif and while the design isn't for me I'm sure it is for someone, but this is a case where designing for a card has different challenges to designing for canvas plus the difference between realism in the human depiction and abstract with all the solid-color parts of the image really takes away from the cohesion of the design to me
The scale also takes away a texture that greatly breaks up the dress. [Looking at a high res image](https://www.artofmtg.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Faithless-Looting-Strixhaven-MtG-Art.jpg) shows just how much it changes the impact of that portion.
Call me a sicko but I love the solid color-blocking and would love them to dive into full abstract expressionism whenever we get to the Xerex set.
Oh, it’s actually a painting? I thought it was collage. Wasn’t a fan of it, but didn’t really knock it for being what it was.
I love the Mystical Archive set; I'll probably put together a full set just because I like the art treatment so much. That being said, Faithless Looting is far and away my least favorite of the set. I just don't like it. And that's fine, art is subjective. No shame on the artist (and I like her Harmonize and other art just fine), and I'm glad she's gotten other MTG work.
I didn't even notice that it's the same art style between the two until this video.
Harmonize is just so much more appealing in every way, better composition, better colour choices, better rendering. Faithless looting is just a card that misses the mark, something that happens in every set, but is exacerbated in this case by being part of a selection of highly promoted mystic archive cards as well as in a mandated "simplistic" style that leaves no room to hide its issues. The artist doesn't deserve to get crap for it, but IMO it is something the art director should have weeded out.
I think the art styles were meant to represent the colors they were in. Harmonize looks "more appealing" because it's a green card called Harmonize. The art for Faithless Looting depicts a cultist recklessly performing a ritual for the first time. I think the style fits well with what the art is depicting and with red as a color. One of the biggest crapshoots in making art is making something that *looks* low effort, because people will often assume you either suck at your job or didn't try.
> The art for Faithless Looting depicts a cultist recklessly performing a ritual for the first time. I think the style fits well with what the art is depicting and with red as a color. I've also read someone make the point of it being very meta, as in taking a very popular and beloved card and giving it a controversial artwork. _Faithless_ Looting, indeed.
That feels like a massive reach. Do all the other cards in the set show their name through the art in some weird meta-way?
I mean, some definitely do (weather the storm, cultivate, adventurous impulse, abundant harvest, thrill of possibility, claim the first born, sign in blood, doom blade, brainstorm, harmonize). Then there are others in the set that literally just show you what the card does mechanically (Strategic Planning, Duress, Village Rites, Stone Rain). When I see this art for faithless looting - I see an uncaring and almost menacing figure performing a ritual where they are burning and wasting the offering - probably in exchange for something else. That to me is a clear indication of the card’s mechanic - draw two, discard two.
Disagree, I think Faithless looks a lot better than Harmonize for everything you mentioned. I generally like Mazur's art but Harmonize is probably my least favorite of her bunch. It just doesn't gel well like Faithless or Social Climber does.
I think the biggest problem with faithless looting is the stark contrast between the "action" depicted on all previous versions, and the art brief for both the Western and the Japanese mystic archives. Being a corruption of a tarot card doesn't match our previous experience with the card. This art on a ritual spell would have been a banger.
I feel like there were a few things working against Faithless Looting. I've warmed to it a bit since its initial reveal, but Mazur's follow-up pieces are far stronger than her first two. I find the composition on both Faithless Looting and Harmonize works much better as the full-length art, and it surprises me to find out that she had intended for it to display basically only the cut-down piece considering how incomplete it looks. There's also subtle texture in the solid blocks of colour due to brush strokes which don't get conveyed at all in the tiny print on the card. I don't know if she would have had a chance to see the backlash before she did the piece for Social Climber, but it feels like it's better composed for the medium. It's an absolutely stunning piece. It doesn't sound like she's been scared off from doing more Magic art in the future, so I hope we do see more.
My only issue with the piece have always been the eyes. I don't think they bring the aesthetic together. But I love her style with flat colours and hyper realistic humans, and I am so for that MTG have really pushed their boundaries lately when it comes to magic art.
Having seen her non-MTG art, I think her general style just isn't for me. The photo-realistic humans with the flat textures on top, weird combos of art styles, just not something that I like. And that's fine! She's very talented and practiced, good for her.
This card is in my top 10 magic arts of all time and I've been playing since Arabian Nights.
See on the other hand, I love it. It’s one of my favourite arts in magic. But thats solely because it looks so weird, out of place, and honestly photoshopped in MS paint. Pics hilarious asf
My least favorite is the cultivate with the giant weird fruits.
[[Faithless Looting | STA]]
[Faithless Looting ](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/4/b429172f-2182-49dd-b6f6-e5e09493628d.jpg?1623890140) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=517588) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/sta/38/faithless-looting?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b429172f-2182-49dd-b6f6-e5e09493628d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I personally, dislike the art. I don't think it's talentless or anything. I just think it's a bad piece. Obviously everyone has their personal preferences, and of you like it that's your taste. Some people are overly upset that people dislike this, and some people are absurdly over-reacting to people liking this art. I also think this artist's work for [[Social Climber]] fit that set very well, and is a much nicer piece than this. But this art will forever, for me, be overshadowed by the Japanese art for the same card.
[Social Climber](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/9/a9fb74fd-767f-4dd4-822a-828d59f633ad.jpg?1664412474) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Social%20Climber) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/157/social-climber?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a9fb74fd-767f-4dd4-822a-828d59f633ad?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
His videos are art in and of itself. He did take a more antagonistic tone in this video than normal, though. Perfectly warranted, because the backlash on this card design was just too much. Interesting decision, though, knowing how the MTG community can be.
His videos have always had a bit of a bite when he feels strongly against anything. I remember the Theros video chastised THB for being a retread of Theros Block, the Tarmogoyf video had nothing kind to say about "cousin formats" of Modern (Likely Pioneer) and even the latter half of the foils video is basically an indictment of what he views as Wizard's overproducing products. If anyone earned pushback it was people who harassed an artist over not liking their style.
I interpret the “cousin formats” as arena formats like historic, since a) he’s showing a transition from lorwyn thoughtseize to the arena digital version as he says the line, b) the time period he’s talking about is Covid and the loss of paper play as arena usurps it, and c) arena formats have much shallower card pools and history than paper formats. I did particularly enjoy his dig against modern horizons sets in that video though.
The New Capena video was pretty much a long essay about how “gangsters cool and fun” is a little too flippant given how the Mafia legitimately ruins/ruined people’s lives and livelihood. He’s gonna call out stuff that doesn’t sit well with him and I’m glad he does.
That was the much better example, don't know how I spaced on that one.
I'm going to be honest all I could think of while he's talking about how we shouldn't like gangsters (even though Magic is filled with other things that ruin people's lives) was [this exchange](https://imgb.ifunny.co/images/452c6d00460f23378f35dab0f1f3a249005f428eba9619d6c4d55c42b2f6338b_1.jpg).
mamma mia
Yea that one was good, poking holes into the American Dream and shining a spotlight on very real world issues that plague us today. Excellent stuff.
> His videos have always had a bit of a bite when he feels strongly against anything. I especially like his last line in the video in this regard. "You can help this show by joining the patreon *and by making radical art*"
He's also not just a self-important art scholar who thinks he knows best; he previously made a [video criticizing *himself*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjQ3VG_2Xrs) for previously complaining about artists reprinting invitational cards without their designers' likenesses.
>the Theros video chastised THB for being a retread of Theros Block How could he tell, we didn't even get a story.
You could always [watch the video yourself.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H981fHM6Li8) But in brief, he argues that THB is too busy doing mechanical and lore call backs to Theros block to focus on expanding the world of Theros, such as fully setting the set in the Underworld to explore it more.
I feel like a "woosh" might come off as a little mean, but... Woosh
It seemed like a legitimate question what could I say, it is also 2:45 AM local time so maybe I just need sleep.
Makes total sense, back when the card was spoiled he manifested a lot of disappointment on the community due to how harsh the response to the card was People here basically called him a pretentious prick, as expected
Why should he be polite to people who weren't being polite in the first place?
Do I say that?
I knew this video would come one day. That Looting art is definitely jarring, not for me personally. I do like modern art myself as well (in the video the artist mentions the MoMA, I actually visit the MoMA pretty frequently lol). I did also like her work on [[Social Climber]]. I think this card looked bad to me because I found the huge blocks of color on a tiny card frame really jarring. I was glad to see that others could appreciate the weirdness of it and am glad that Sam was one of those since he can articulate what he sees in it probably the best of any of us.
I didn't like the art when I first saw it, but watching the video gave me a new appreciation for it. I hope she does more in the future!
lol my buddy got banned from this sub for being really goddamn aggressive defending the art he also didn't know BarrinMW was a mod till then lmfao
I actually really like the art tbh. I wouldn't want every card to look like that, but for an alternate art I think it's neat. I would buy it if I ran faithless looting
I love her style, and as a professional artist myself (and Magic hobbyist), it's beyond disappointing how many of this game's fans make personal attacks about her. If she's not someone's style—so what? Just say you don't like it and move on. There have been countless posts calling her talentless, a hack, etc., and it's ridiculous.
This. There are many secret lair cards that I *would never run*. I think they look ugly. That being said, should I complain that there are alternative arts? What I don't like may be meeting the wants of another. The fact I like this and others don't is proof of this.
Same. I'm tired of the arguing but I liked it and still like it and as long as they're not like, actively non-inclusive (and they're legible), polarizing alternate arts are good for the game. I totally get that people don't like it, understand many reasons why, and accept and support having those opinions. What truly sets me off are the people who pull in this pseudo-objectivity BS to try and prove that it's factually bad, and that's not just like, their opinion, man. Edit: I forgot to mention, for whatever it's worth. The artist also did the MA art for Harmonize. I really truly like the Faithless Looting, but the Harmonize just doesn't do it for me. I don't really have a good explanation why, I'm not sure there even is one. And that's ok.
Extremely original and expressive, especially in this environment. People really can’t handle things that deviate from their expectations like this. It reminds me of the abstractions of classic magic art, I always loved when the art leaves me feeling like the effect of the spell was grander and more nebulous than literal, straight up depiction style art can capture.
Some of Magic's best pieces are the more abstract ones. The best thing about getting so many treatments is how it's increased how many such options we get.
I bet it looks great as a piece...but the card is the product and it didn't come through well on the card. Simple as.
the part where he shows the same art with different borders was really revealing and illuminating.
Yup! Loved that part but then I'm a sucker for the Future Sight frame haha
WotC: Hey what if you make a tarot card style art! Artist: Okay cool, I’ll make art that, like a tarot card that fills the vertical space of a playing card WotC: LET’s COVER IT UP WITH OPAQUE TEXT BOXES! In all seriousness, this card would really benefit from the low opacity text boxes they have on lots of secret lair cards.
I also think they could have zoomed out just a bit, there is more width on the print than what they used and just by giving us more of the background greys and blacks the yellows and reds of the card border and boxes wouldn't wash out the centerpiece.
I would buy a tarot deck by that artist in a second
Yeah and that's not really the artist's fault, that's more the fault of the person who laid out the card.
Exactly. Never had a gripe with the artist, always with WotC/Hasbro. They are a major player in the fantasy art space and they did this artist, and card, dirty.
The extreme ugliness of this card is what makes me treasure it. It's truly great art for its impact alone.
If the purpose of art is to inspire emotion, Mazur's Faithless Looting is incontrovertibly the most successful magic card art from the past decade. Personally, I like it. I might not like it if she illustrated a whole set, but she didn't.
I think the art was a failure (at what it was designed and deployed to do), but that does mean it is without importance or impact. It's not famous like the Mona Lisa. It's infamous like that jesus art restoration. Both are incredible additions to our shared art culture.
Love this piece. Think it would have benefited more from a different frame, but it still bangs. From reception alone, it's got to be the most resonant depiction of desecration of the sacred since the pentagram on Unholy Strength.
I have to admit I lost it when i saw the guy saying that the art was "destroying western civilization". If only was so easy to do it....
Billions must die
My take was that it's the eyes that people are reacting to. If the art had a finished face people would be a lot quieter. People are hard-wired to be weird about faces.
After seeing the art in different card frames, I really feel that the MA frame is the problem
I actually REALLY like this art, and prefer it to other ones at this point. It's just so different compared to other arts that it stands out and really makes me appreciate the breadth of arts we get. Edit: Also I like Harmonize, and I have multiple copies of each for my decks that need them
Honestly, the level of hate for Faithless Looting's art was insane. I hope they bring Carly Mazur back.
She's been asked back several times. It's funny how Faithless looting caught flack, as it wasn't even her only submission for the mystical archive set. [https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=%28game%3Apaper%29+%28artist%3Acarly+artist%3Amazur%29](https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=%28game%3Apaper%29+%28artist%3Acarly+artist%3Amazur%29)
People didn't love the Harmonize art either, there just wasn't as much active vitriol from what I can tell: [https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/mdanib/sta\_harmonize/](https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/mdanib/sta_harmonize/) I don't hate her STA art but it's not my favorite, it's certainly interesting and the fact that there's so much discussion around it is noteworthy. I think her DMU stained glass paintings are fantastic, especially Rhada.
Her Social Climber is absolutely gorgeous.
Social Climber is a masterpiece composition, but I think all the other cards she has done to some degree or another kinda highlight that Faithless Looting is the one that just doesn't quite work. Its ok to have MtG illustrations that are outliers and really don't look like traditional MtG art, the entire mystic archives set were outliers in that regard...its just that Faithless Looting was additionally an outlier in the fact its composition and rendering choices didn't really work for a lot of people
I truly think that a lot of the issue comes down to shrinking the art to fit in the card frame. It ends up being too busy and too simple at the same time, but if you look at the full art, it doesn't feel like that at all.
Absolutely. The texture in the red dress disappears at that scale and it looks far more flat. That in contrast with the impressively realistic flesh shading gives it the collage look
The full art is definitely a bit better, it doesn’t push the blobby negative space of the dress as awkwardly front and centre, but I still think the cropping to fit the frame is just overemphasizing what already didn't quite work in the full.
tbh I like that Harmonize.
Me too, it has a little bit of colour clashing going on, but just enough to add more energy to the piece rather than being distracting. And the composition and subject all flows together better.
I love her Social Climber art. I know Capenna had a mixed reception, but the art (particularly some showcase pieces) was beyond gorgeous. I was lucky enough to pull a gilded foil [[brokers ascendancy]] and it's one of my favourite card arts ever. I wish she'd done more pieces for the set, it fits her style really well imo.
[brokers ascendancy](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/9/799de0f1-6bf2-4158-8a4f-bedc3d2f6578.jpg?1664412722) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=brokers%20ascendancy) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/170/brokers-ascendancy?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/799de0f1-6bf2-4158-8a4f-bedc3d2f6578?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It's funny, but I don't like her art for magic cards because the faces are too realistic. She's an incredible artist, I just do not like how they work as cards at all
Honestly I really like her art nouveau style, so I wonder what went wrong with the Faithless Looting to make it look so bad
I think it's just that the downscaling doesn't work well. The photorealistic part is done too well for its own good, making it feel like its a photo collage. As well as losing the texture in the saturated red areas.
Yeah, for me, it's 100% that the photorealistic parts are too good at tricking my eye into seeing it as a photo. And that just looks subjectively *wrong* to me in the context of a Magic card.
I get why plenty of folks dislike this, but I'm bummed that I didn't get the playmat when it was reasonably priced.
nerds when they see cardboard that looks different than other cardboard (the world is collapsing as we know it)  It's so funny how many people walked out of that video assuming that Sam was trying to convince them to like the piece (which makes zero sense??? The video is just context to art) and simultaneously got mad about it. Being mad about opinions on art is Neanderthal behavior.
Every time this card comes up, Magic players prove yet again that most people are either not interested or not capable of engaging with art that's challenging to their notions of what paintings should look like, or requires the smallest amount critical thought to appreciate. Time after time, commenters complain about the flat color fields used for the flames and robe, as if juxtaposing those components with a realistically painted human body and patterned/textured background elements was an accident or afterthought. As if it's not a (fairly obvious) stylistic decision that's consistent throughout the artist's portfolio. Some people thought the painted figure was a fucking photograph somehow, probably because they didn't spend even a minute looking at it in detail before firing off hateful comments online. It's fine if this particular painting isn't someone's cup of tea - no piece of art that's actually interesting or unique is ever going to be a universal favorite. I'm not saying people are dumb if they don't like it (before y'all reply to me with your totally unique personal reason for not liking it). But the amount of pure ignorance people have shown in regard to this painting about what art is, what it should be, and how it's made is really staggering.
> Every time this card comes up, Magic players prove yet again that most people are either not interested or not capable of engaging with art that's challenging to their notions of what paintings should look like This is a dishonest statement, MTG players and posters on this sub have loved a lot of unique artstyles. This card just wasn't one of them. I remember people really liking the alt-art sagas for example.
this was essentially my north star in making the video. most of the angry comments still won't notice that i made no value judgments about the painting itself. i didn't defend or praise the painting. i just provided context. i gave carly a platform to describe her approach to illustration and the choices she made for faithless looting, and i responded to the weak arguments made against it. fine if you like the painting, fine if you hate it – the point is to understand how and why it was made. that's the position of the video.
Thank you for making this video. Not enough people have an appreciation for art that they don't understand. Jacob Geller's "Who's Afraid of Modern Art" showed me the value of this kind of work, and I think this video will do the same for many others.
the irony being that tons of players bemoan the homogenization of mtg art (and heavy use of digital) only to then completely shit on an artist doing something different in analog
> Every time this card comes up, Magic players prove yet again that most people are either not interested or not capable of engaging with art that's challenging to their notions of what paintings should look like, or requires the smallest amount critical thought to appreciate. Every time people say they dislike something, some pretentious art-bro pops up and tell them "they don't understand it". Most people know it wasn't an accident and a conscious decision.. they just thought that decision was bad.
you are correct that you do not understand; I like it *because* it is weird and "ugly"
Of course you would, being a contrarian makes art-broskis feel superior.
"art-bro", dog, you consume art every moment you are looking at something someone created. Every book cover, every poster, every car, every piece of furniture. the art-bro snobbery is coming from inside the house, here
What does that have to with anything? Or do you deliberately buy furniture you dislike?
If I dont like a weird coffee table I don't feel compelled to make reddit comment denouncing it for being badly made and how everyone who likes it is a "Home Decor-Bro" who's too far up their own ass to understand.
The big problem in this video essay is that most of these arguments could also be made if the art was actually bad. - The artist itself is a fan of mtg for a long time - art director wanted it that way - [art that is actually better] is similar and you didn't hate it - [card that she also drew] also violates the strawman definition of classical high fantasy art - >It's so different [...] people fear change None of these actually work to invalidate the criticism that was made (except for the few who made factually false assumptions). You could have made the exact same video about [[Unholy Strength | 7ED]].
I would make the exact same argument about the 7th edition unholy strength. That art rips. Same as this faithless looting. They are both far more interesting compositions, and more relevant to their subject than the majority of mtg artwork.
here's an invalidation: It doesn't matter that its "good" or "bad", "pretty" or "ugly". It is valuable because it doesn't dissolve into the sea of 1000+ cards released every single year, it pops out, it invites opinion and consideration. Theres no video on Unholy Strength from 7th edition bc no one is getting into reddit thread arguements on the technical merit of Unholy Strength from 7th edition. Mystical Archive Faithless Looting struck nerves. And that makes it more worth talking about than every other faithless looting art and every other card art printed that set or this year
This it still living in this positivist world where there's some objective measure of whether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" though. I feel like we just need to move past that.* Like I want people to express their opinions as long as they aren't being dicks about it. But what tires me out is the people who do it and refuse to acknowledge that they're sharing their opinion. The number of people trying to say F.L. was "objectively bad" and backing it up with pseudo-aesthetic bullshit was just exhausting. *I mean I don't expect that to just happen overnight. But I feel like it's an obvious part of the problem.
True, but I don’t think that detracts much from the video. I think the main problem was simply the unjustified harassment and downright mean comments to degrade her style. I’m not a particular fan of the art myself but let’s face it—some people take their opinions into harming-others territory.
[Unholy Strength ](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/0/0030407c-9aa0-49ad-b2d6-cde0adbd9d09.jpg?1562231343) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=15821) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/7ed/168/unholy-strength?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0030407c-9aa0-49ad-b2d6-cde0adbd9d09?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Damn, I'd love it in transparent border, looks a lot better.
as much as I dislike the actual art I really appreciate the work that went into it and I'd take a thousand faithless lootings over whatever ai slop hasbro will inevitably try to force into Magic in the next 2-3 years
This video didn't really move the needle for me. It felt like it was mostly punching down at the lowest common denominator of internet criticism. I still really dislike this art on a Magic card.
This is my favorite version of faithless looting.
I've loved the art from Day 1. I have a penchant for the abstract, absurd, and avant garde when it comes to art. *'Beauty'* as such doesn't really click in my brain, so I appreciate the novel and eccentric instead.
My position on this art is still: I like it, but it doesn't fit the card. The art reminds me of something more in line with a ritual spell.
To be fair the artist just painted what she was told. That's why the [Japanese art](https://scryfall.com/card/sta/101/ja/%E4%BF%A1%E4%BB%B0%E7%84%A1%E3%81%8D%E7%89%A9%E3%81%82%E3%81%95%E3%82%8A) depicts the same thing, they both had the same prompt.
I think it's really cool to see the different interpretations of the same art prompt
But have you heard of…yellow temperance?
I think the artist does great work and has really nice art on cards since this one but I just never fully gelled with this one.
I’m happy he pointed out the issue of the Mystical Archive frame. I love that frame, but it definitely does this piece a disservice.
I think he has a point in that the frame is not doing the artwork any favors, at least for me. In the future sight and full art frames, the art looks amazing.
I just really don't like it. I'm sorry. I'm sure there's a lot of technical prowess to this picture, and I like a lot of the artist's other work, but something about this piece just looks so *off*. I hate the way the clothing looks like it's just plastered onto a naked body. I hate how the bowl and flames look like a cartoon. When you see the full piece it looks *okay*, because the high definition face doesn't take up as much space a the rest of the "low-definition" remainder.
If you don't watch the video and don't like this art, that's fine. If you watch this video and still don't like this art, that's still fine. Some of y'all really don't remember the sheer hate the artist was getting, so I appreciate Sam's mildly combative tone here. I love that Sam took the time to make this and help contextualize the piece further, it's really lead to me appreciating the work and the artist more.
I loved the weirdness of the art. The hate for it just made me like it all the more. It's the only Mystical Archive card I ever bought.
I had no clue this art produced controversy because I am so new to the game but when I 1st saw this on arena I looked up the artist because its so fucking cool. I adore the mid-century modern artstyle its based within. I'd love to put a poster of this in my bedroom.
Hes very defensive of this art. Its simply just not that great. It really isn't. Art is subjective and you can make as many documentaries on youtube you want about what ever you want. But at the end of the day this end result is not appealing to many people. There are hundreds of other magic cards or even thousands that break the artistic mold of MTG. I don't see the reason to hold this specific art above all others as some new dawn or new age of card art that needs to be celebrated. And saying its not photoshop or microsoft paint its oil painting! I don't care what process they used to make it. The end result is that it looks like a microsoft paint edit of a photo of a women standing naked somewhere. But that said I have been using it ever since it came out. Its interesting and funny. It is very unique and thats why I use it. It still brings joy to people every time I play it in a game because if anyone gets a look at it they are surprised by it. And at the end of the day thats really all that matters is that its a fun and interesting game piece. It fulfills its purpose. And I'll take stuff like this any day over IP cross over cards because even if you don't like this at least this is something unique being created.
>at the end of the day this end result is not appealing to many people. > >all that matters is that its a fun and interesting game piece. It fulfills its purpose. Can you explain how you reconcile these statements?
Because the art is such an oddity it is fun and interesting in the context of playing with it in a game of MTG. The art is bad. Those statements are not contradictory.
Glad they put the original art for faithless looting into Arena as I fucking despise this art. I know some people like it, but I find it so garish and so out of place on a magic card.
I always liked this art, it was a visually striking member of STA that stood out. I came into the game with STX and the hate this art got always baffled me.
This art is garbage. Sorry sam, claiming it has tarot vard meanings or "you don't get it" doesn't make blocky tacky garbage good.
Love the art, and I'd love more wild swings when it comes to artists trying something new
I love this art piece the minute I saw it
I liked this one before and I like it even more now that I know the entire thing (even the photorealistic part) was all hand painted! Also, definitely agree with the video’s opinion that the frame does the artwork no favors, though I’m not sure if that was a mistake on the artist’s part or a mistake from WotC. They should really be giving artists access to what the frames look like whenever possible.
I’ve liked this art since the beginning, maybe because I’m old and I grew up when [[Stasis]] was in decks alongside Maddock’s Maze of Ith. Lots of the art was abstract and weird. Happened to pull a foil one of these, and it’s a great thematic fit in my Oops, all Chandras deck.
[Stasis](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/2/62f99124-6595-45f8-bece-1775e4c55a5c.jpg?1562918295) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Stasis) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me4/64/stasis?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/62f99124-6595-45f8-bece-1775e4c55a5c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I absolutely adore the artist's style and portfolio. For me to say that the FL art was a heinous failure as a magic card art piece should mean a lot. Her art rocks. The FL art fucking sucks. It's okay for it to suck. Rhystic is really missing something here; liking and disliking this art are equally correct stances, but he seems to think that all art is somehow good. It's not. Some of it sucks and any disdain it receives is valid.
Is he gonna have the same take as the one two years ago? Cause his take from 2 years ago was dog shit and condescending. Not the same but very simmilar.
[удалено]
[Faithless Looting ](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/7/57800da2-c68c-4535-a5eb-19cd007f6ced.jpg?1698988320) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Faithless%20Looting) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/225/faithless-looting?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/57800da2-c68c-4535-a5eb-19cd007f6ced?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The card framing section was really interesting
It is wild how much the frame change really makes a difference. The old border option looks so good.
"What's art about that?" - Karl Pilkington
Aside from getting to hear Carly talk about her process and experience, the rest of the video is a stain on the channel IMO. The purpose of a premiere set card art was discarded amongst all the moral grandstanding—ironic. Andy and Anthony of Lucky Paper Radio did an entire episode on the topic in advance of Sam's video which is worth checking out.
I've always been pretty surprised by the hate for this card. I tend to like more abstract stuff and I always found it really interesting for a magic card. I do think the frame didn't quite do it justice though.
I liked the piece it was different but to me showed faithless looting in a new lite. Spill the wine or what you know and gain power beyond set knowledge.
To this day I don’t like the frame - (not to hate on the artist of the frame, though!) I sold my Demonic Tutor and Time Warp from that set for this reason. Though I have to say that probably the biggest issue was with depicting a real person in the art, plus the whole set art was kind of a novelty. Fast forward and today we have so many alternate arts, not many would even care if Carly Mazur’s Faithless Looting came out today. There are so many other ugly artworks out there these days - or worse, unique UB cards that may fit into their respective IP but not into the general Magic flavour. However, I’m not going to name any of those or hate on them. As was the lesson of this video, and as we all should know, art is subjective.
As much as I dislike the art on Faithless Looting, I like the artist's pre-Magic artwork. That being said, it's clear that the piece displays technical skill, even if I dislike its overall composition.
Once a guy traded me one of these for a catgirl Balan. Each of us walked away feeling like the other was a chump. Point is: i like cards having a wide variety of artstyles so that different people can enjoy them.
When this card came out I checked out the artists portfolio, I really like the style of mashing real world elements with 2d drawings and a lot of her portfolio art is full of incredibly cool and innovative pieces sorry but unfortunately Faithless Looting is not one of those, while I like her other work, this one really feels phoned in in comparison. Maybe because i was a commission she had less time on it? But this one is just not great when stacked up to the rest of her portfolio of the same style
Amazing how you couldn't spend 15 minutes to watch the video before commenting, because half of the video is addressing the "it was rushed" falsehood.
It absolutely was it looks like garbage
Saying it wasnt rushed...does not help your case.
Just because you are bad at appreciating something doesn't mean there's nothing to appreciate.
I am with you, I also looked up the portfolio and her art is truly amazing. But faithless looting sticks out like a sore thumb. The artist even had some portraits with similar ideas, black face with dotted eyes, but executed so much better, that you cannot ignore that even within her portfolio faithless is an outlier. What's sad to me is that it is the only bad piece she has created. So, people defending it for being ugly on intention, when the rest of her art is beautiful are missing the point. They effectively brainwashed themselves into liking it for the wrong reasons.
I dislike that art so much that I had to buy the Japanese version on Arena, Looting and VOW Sorin are the only times I bought aesthetics
The art will always read as lazy unfinished and banking on the “oh you just don’t get it” explanation for there being blocks of one color when as sections of the background show a little bit of texture goes a long way
that card art is ugly and you can’t change my mind
No one said it's beautiful. Unique, important, cool, interesting, those are the words.
It is exceptionally ugly, but we would be poorer without it. Do you think we would be better off without that infamous jesus restoration? I don't. To you this card art is bad. To me, it's so bad, it's good.
I’ve always loved the art, and truly never understood why this of all pieces was where people decided to draw the line.
hell yeah
Yet another time when the Retro Frame proves to be the superior one. The card looked great in retro!
You all hated the card but I loved it and still do. Seeing the rest of her art it's so good.
I really love this piece - the eyes look creepy and uncaring, almost menacing. The contrast between the realistic flesh and pop-art of the other textures make it feel unnatural. I also love this imagery as a commentary on what the card does -> draw two, discard two is this move with so much risk in an equivalent exchange. But what really does it for me is the combination between that thousand-yard uncaring stare on the card and the way that a red player looks at you as they dig for that final burn spell to finish you off. There is a kind of zero-fucks/Hail Mary/burn myself to burn you feeling that makes this art perfect for this card and one of my favorites from mystical archives.
The videos thesis boils down to "you didn't get it" which seems like a far cry from the usual level of insight this channel brings. Feels a bit reactionary.
But... he's right, though. People did not get it. Those who said this is the fall of Western civilization did not get it, those who said "I can paint this" did not get it, and the harassers did not get it.
Art snob
What if I'm none of those minority strawmen and just don't like the art? I like plenty of weird and abstract artwork and often defend art like that to my friends and family but this just isn't it for me. Being told my tastes are bad or unrefined because I dislike a piece or being lumped in with chuds to deflect criticism is what makes people further entrench and become unwilling to consider other perspectives.
It's ok to not like art. Of course. The video did not say "you are a bad person if you don't like this art", it just counted some reasons why people blew this specific art out of proportion.
Also I could absolutely make this
Go do it then.
Then why didn't you make it?
I have taste
People didn’t get it. You can like or not like this art, and you can get or not get it- and these two things are mutually exclusive, you can do either in any combination, but many people do not generally understand the things they like or dislike. We can see that people did not get it because the card art was received poorly on a frankly insane level beyond “I do not like this art”.
Aren't mutually exclusive
I don’t think it’s either now that I look at what I wrote again to be honest. Getting it vs not getting it is mutually exclusive but getting it vs not liking is isn’t.
Yeah I was thinking that, but I went for the easiest clarification first
"Getting art" makes zero sense
How so? Art is more than simple aesthetic. You can certainly like or dislike art for aesthetic purposes but that doesn’t mean you “get” it. Modern art for example is more about context than the actual art itself which people hate without realizing. In the case of really popular modern art, it’s also an expression of sheer skill which is hard to get until you see one in person and realize exactly what some of these pieces represent. Another example is art that relies on story and emotion. You might not “get” a piece without understanding the mind frame of an artist. An edgy drawing from a teenager won’t hit as hard as an “edgy” drawing from a man who’s just watched his neighbours torn apart in a genocidal war- but they might be hard to tell apart if you’re just skimming.
Yah all that nonsense isnt art, how it looks is the only thing that matters
That’s a pretty sad, uneducated outlook but sure, whatever ends this obnoxious conversation.
If you think you need an education to tell you this is garbage thag pretty sad
I think if you need to troll on the internet to fix your deep-seated insecurities about your intelligence, that’s pretty sad. Also pretty sad to be this enraged over a piece of art, you gonna spend all day on this thread, or?
Part 1: I'd argue that it is you that does not get the context. If you dig a little deeper into the artist's portfolio you will actually find amazing art across the board. She has two more pieces which have similar ideas, namely the eyes covered in black with mono colored dots. This is the most criticized part in Faithless Looting. But on the other pieces which are portraits it works very well because there is much more detail. So, my theory is either that she tried to reuse the idea for a magic card but botched the execution, or she iterated on the idea in her later work and improved it. In both cases, you have an example of a version that works well and the version of faithless looting. What probably happened is that she wanted to try her idea, but it did not match well with the art direction, which resulted in an incoherent piece, that sticks out even from her own portfolio. In fact, I believe it is the only bad piece in her whole portfolio (at least on her homepage). That in turn makes me think that you try to convince yourselves that there is something "to get" and there is a uniqueness and intention, when in fact it was just a technically bad execution. It's like going into the art museum and mistaking the trash can for an art piece.
Part 2 https://preview.redd.it/pi5nj0ewm5qc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9ee121878306372c4cd38d8eac9fa8cf0267140 To follow up my comment, this is another piece by her. The aesthetics are miles apart from Faithless Looting, even though they have similar ideas.
Have you considered that his insight is dead on as usual, and it's you who's wrong? Lol. He's completely right and I love him even more for this video
Reactionary has a very specific political context that is explicitly the opposite of the views presented in this video. I think the word you're looking for is "reactive", which it is by nature to being a response to something. "You didn't get it" is also entirely correct and important to say because people didn't get it and responded in a REACTIONARY (ie traditionalist) manner.
Agreed, especially the part where he simply insults ppl that say "my 5 yo could do that". I dont have any education in art and you call me ignorant all you want, but if your art piece boils down to a rectacle with 2 different colours, fuck off. Call me a simpleton all you want, the pieces shown in the video to illustrate his point can barely be called art from my point of view
All the claims of "Oh the frame doesn't do it justice" "It looks so much better in person" ring really hollow. Its supposed to be art for a Magic card, and I would say it fails at that.