J.R.R.Tolkien: Artist & Illustrator

Merry · Post by **Merry** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:39 am

It's hard for me to separate out when I like an illustration because I love the book or scene from when I like an illustration for its own sake. I looked through Hammond and Scull tonight trying to see the art for what it was, and not what it illustrated. I have two favorites: the first is the dragon (#48 and on the back cover). It has a great graphic quality. The second is 'The Gardens of Merking's Palace" (#76), which is fantastic in both meanings of the word.

Iolanthe, did you see #19, the drawing of Turl Street? If that was drawn from his dorm window at Exeter, I bet we could have figured which room it was!

Last but not least, I've always been disappointed in his drawing of Lothlorien, and in most other artists' attempts. Maybe nothing can match it in my imagination.

Iolanthe · Post by **Iolanthe** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:03 am

I had a good look at the Turl Street picture when we got back from the Conference! His window was pointed out to us by the guide on the walking tour you missed and I remember the absolute delight of one of the French delegates when he found he was actually staying in Tolkien's room. He was very envied

.

I have different page numbers in my book to you, but I think your dragon is on my page 52. Is it on its own, all curled around itself like the illustration in a mediaeval manuscript? If that's the one I love it too. Not only is it a clever dsign it's got a nice smile!

I do like his 'Forest of Lothlorien in Spring' because the light is so golden and it's very delicately done, but I know what you mean. And the trees are quite small scale compared to his description. I think he created something beyond most artists ability to capture, including his. Lothlorien has a spiritual quality and a light that no paint will ever do justice too.

I would like to have seen him rework it in watercolour, though, to the standard of the others we've talked about above. While we are on trees I also like 'Tumble Hill near Lyme Regis' (also in pencil) it's illustration no. 27 on my page 30.

Merry · Post by **Merry** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:48 pm

Sorry, Iolanthe: my numbers weren't page numbers. The pictures themselves are numbered in my book.

I'm really glad to find out one of our French amis was in Tolkien's room! I found them to be bright and earnest and amiable and delightful, and I'm sure that provided a memorable experience.

I can see what you mean about the light in the Lothlorien picture. And yes, that's the dragon that I like.

Iolanthe · Post by **Iolanthe** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:55 pm

I should have known it was picture number! Much more sensible than me

.

Looking through the early part of the book again I'm astonished by how accomplished his pen and ink sketches are, especially those of places and buildings. And I love the delicate coloured pencil drawing of Tumble Hill near Lyme Regis (no. 27). It's such a pretty drawing and I really want to follow the path to the sea. How different from Taur-na-Fuin (Fangorn Forest) (no. 54), which is another painting of his that I really like. This is so much more stylized and I love the colours and the way the pale tree trunks stand out against the inky black background. I rather wish he'd left out the elves - Beleg and Flinding - although I know he hardly ever drew them so I suppose we should be grateful. It was a long long time before I spotted the second elf lying under the greatest tree (centre right), even after reading the text! They are too much like fairytale elves for me, only just bigger than the toadstools, with the red pointed shoes.

marbretherese · Post by **marbretherese** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:30 am

I agree, Taur-Na-Fuin doesn't need the figures. Tolkien used this picture as the basis for one of his Hobbit illustrations (can't give you a reference because I'm posting from work again, but I'm sure you'll know the one I mean!!). I read through the Hobbit chapter of the book thiis weekend - it makes the point that by not including figures (for whatever reason, most likely that he felt he couldn't draw them well enough) Tolkien leaves us to exercise our imagination regarding the characters in the story. Interestingly, in the one or two pictures where he has included Bilbo, such as 'Bilbo comes to the Huts of the Raft-Elves' Tolkien has drawn him with boots on, whereas in the tale itself at that point Bilbo was barefoot on his own furry hobbit feet . . . according to the book, Tollkien's Hobbit illustrations were more or less the last watercolours that he painted. Apparently he mainly worked in pencils after that . . . such a shame!

Merry · Post by **Merry** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:53 pm

I think you're right, marbretherese: at least I think I remember that I read somewhere that he thought he could not draw figures well at all. The only figures I think are somewhat successful are those in the Father Christmas drawings, and those are really a different genre than the landscapes.

marbretherese · Post by **marbretherese** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:16 pm

I've finished the book

In the final chapter Hammond & Scull offer a further insight into why Tolkien didn't continue with watercolour illustrations of his work: in his lecture "On Fairy Stories" he declared that

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words . . . the radical distinction between all art (including drama) that offers a visible presentation and true literature is that it imposes one visible form.

In other words, he preferred the reader to use their own interpretation. H & S suggest that he found illustrating The Hobbit an emotional and physical burden and decided that his words were enough (which, of course, they are!). He did continue to draw & sketch right until the end of his life, but not for publication.

It's a brilliant book and I want to thank Iolanthe again for giving it to me!!

Merry · Post by **Merry** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:48 pm

That's a great insight, isn't it? No wonder he chose philology.

Iolanthe · Post by **Iolanthe** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:47 am

Interesting - and I can really see his point! But his own views of what Middle-earth might have looked like are so fascinating I'm glad we have what we do. And they haven't changed how I see Middle-earth at all, my own vision of it from my first reading reigns supreme. Even the film hasn't changed it - if I read I go back to how it always looked for me (even Aragorn

).

To be honest, even my paintings aren't really my vision of what it looks like, more a distillation seen through a special window

.

marbretherese · Post by **marbretherese** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:03 pm

Iolanthe wrote: To be honest, even my paintings aren't really my vision of what it looks like, more a distillation seen through a special window .

My paintings aren't my vision, either - but that's just my lack of technique

Seriously, I think Tolkien has a point about dramatic interpretations (including film) and possibly book illustrations, which might distract the reader (although they fascinate me, particularly if by Alan Lee!). But individual sketches or paintings, separate from the book, aren't a distraction at all - it's good to share!

Iolanthe · Post by **Iolanthe** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:36 pm

And Tolkien did say that he hoped his mythology would inspire art

!

marbretherese · Post by **marbretherese** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:03 pm

I've just read Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories" and found this passage in the Notes:

The verbal ending . . . 'And they lived happily ever after' is an artificial device . . . to be compared to the margins and frames of pictures, . . . no more to be thought of as the real end of any particular fragment of the Web of Story than the frame is of the visionary scene or the casement of the Outer World. These phrases may be plain or elaborate, simple or extravagant, as artificial and as necessary as frames plain, or carved, or gilded. . . . It was an irresistible development of modern illustration (so largely photographic) that borders should be abandoned and the 'picture' end only with the paper. This method may be suitable for photographs; but it is altogether inappropriate for the pictures that illustrate or are inspired by fairy-stories. An enchanted forest requires a margin, even an elaborate border. To print it conterminous with the page, like a 'shot' of The Rockies in Picture Post, as if it were indeed a 'snap' of fairyland or a 'sketch by our artist on the spot' , is a folly and an abuse.

So it's frames for my paintings from now on . . .!!

I would urge anyone who hasn't read the essay to do so if they get the chance. It was originally a lecture delivered at the University of St Andrews in 1939 and gives the reader an idea of what it must have been like to have studied with the great man himself! Fascinating insights and a sense of humour into the bargain!

marbretherese · Post by **marbretherese** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:47 pm

Since my last post (above) I've taken another look at the illustrations in The Children of Hurin. I knew there was something unusual about them that I couldn't quite define when I first saw them - they don't have borders! Most of the full page colour illustrations I've seen by Alan Lee do have borders on them. So I wonder if he fancied doing something different or whether someone at HarperCollins wanted them borderless?

Iolanthe · Post by **Iolanthe** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:56 pm

Good point about the borders in the Children of Hurin! I never noticed the lack of borders until you pointed it out. Lee normally does borders, you're quite right. Perhaps he felt the dark quality of the story worked better without a frame?

Tolkien's comment is very intresting. I always put borders around my Tolkien paintings and the other 'symbolic' ones I do and have never wanted to do otherwise. In fact I've never thought of not doing it. To me they are like windows into another world. I also wanted somehow to suggest that they go beyond the frame of our perceptions...

marbretherese · Post by **marbretherese** » Sat May 12, 2007 4:05 pm

I think "windows into another world" sums it up perfectly, and accurately reflects Tolkien's view, too. I've been tempted to use borders on my own paintings a few times, principally because I feel the need to go larger but I'm consicous of (a) still wanting to be able to scan and post them on MEJ and (b) the need for discipline, if you like . . . of course it's possible that Alan Lee did put borders on his paintings for The Children of Hurin and someone at HarperCollins thought they should be left off!