Khamul wrote:
I just read John Rateliff's blog [review] of Tolkien Tapestry --how phenomenally negative. It makes me wonder whether he has a high opinion of any Tolkien-inspired art? If he does not, this critique makes sense --although the point in criticising one particular artist seems rather pointless (if you don't rate any of them.)

BH

Obviously John Rateliff definitely doesn't like Cor Blok's work (and to be honest, I think there are more people who dislike it than like it), but I didn't see any evidence in that review that he dislikes all Tolkien-inspired art.

I personally think HC have probably overexposed Blok's work, when it was only ever going to be something to the taste of a fairly small minority. Two Cor Blok calendars in a row is *really* pushing it for most people and I suspect many will have already seen enough without needing to get the book.

Nothing like art to be divisive!

Stu

Wayne and Christina have posted about the release of the Art of the
Hobbit

Link

Dior

I like Cor Blok's paintings. Some remind me of Breughel. I've read Tolkien bought two of his paintings after Blok visited him in the early sixties, i.e. "The Battle of the Hornburg" and "The Dead Marshes". So if anything, we can conclude that Tolkien had better taste than Rateliff has when it comes to art.

In other news I also received The Art of the Hobbit and it looks great. Also backordered the Tolkien Companion and Guide. Now I only have to find the time to read all the 2000+ pages.

Stu, I did say it makes me wonder...

What I was really edging towards saying was --if Rateliff (watch that spelling SonOfDolf! ) just doesn't like Blok's art personally (otherwise known as personal taste), he should just plainly state this. Instead it's dressed up in some fairly harsh criticism of the art itself. It was the tone more than anything.

That aside, I wonder who he does rate. I think, personally, that Tolkien saw in Blok's art something he liked --hence buying a few. Blok reminds me of Baynes (& more recently Ruth Lacon) in lacking realism. Somehow I don't think (just speculation, mind) Tolkien would have much liked Howe, Nasmith, or even perhaps Lee. I'm just curious as to whether Rateliff rates any of the big three...

BH

watch that spelling SonOfDolf

I liked my original spelling better, but I corrected it anyway

John Rateliff describes some of the changes in the one volume History of the Hobbit.

http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... obbit-second-edition.html

Khamul wrote:

What I was really edging towards saying was --if Rateliff (watch that spelling SonOfDolf! ) just doesn't like Blok's art personally (otherwise known as personal taste), he should just plainly state this. Instead it's dressed up in some fairly harsh criticism of the art itself. It was the tone more than anything.
BH

To be fair to Rateliff, I think that any discussion of art (beyond any technical comments on a particular technique) would be considered to personal taste. I'm not sure it is necessary for comments to be prefaced as such.

Khamul wrote:

That aside, I wonder who he does rate. I think, personally, that Tolkien saw in Blok's art something he liked --hence buying a few. Blok reminds me of Baynes (& more recently Ruth Lacon) in lacking realism. Somehow I don't think (just speculation, mind) Tolkien would have much liked Howe, Nasmith, or even perhaps Lee. I'm just curious as to whether Rateliff rates any of the big three...

BH

I'm not sure that it really matters that much what Tolkien would have liked as to whether the art has merit for someone else. Given the personal nature of art appreciation, the fact that someone else draws value from something doesn't necessarily mean a great deal - whether that 'someone else' is Tolkien or Rateliff.

With regards to the review, I agree that it was perhaps a tiny bit mean in tone, but fundamentally it was an "opinion piece" and should be treated as such.

And to declare my own personal position, I quite like some of Blok's pictures and others not at all. They seem to be a mixed bag, quality-wise. I think the book is actually the right format for them, rather than the calendar which I think is more of a throwaway item for the masses and should have more mainstream appeal.

Stu

I agreed with most of what you say Stu.

I just thought "glorious awfulness" was a little uncalled for; & stating that the most worthwhile thing about this book was Tolkien's letter --well, that's a little unfair. If that's what he thinks, why buy it?, since he clearly dislikes Blok's work with a passion.

BH

Another post from Wayne & Christina

http://wayneandchristina.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/geek-out/

John Rateliff posts on the new release of Mr Bliss (the title mentions the Art of the Hobbit but that will be in his next post).

http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... -hobbit-and-mr-bliss.html