Tolkien Artwork

[Berzelmayr]

“Good Morning” By Cory Godbey

 

[Olorgando]

View attachment 16897
"Glorfindel" by Alberto Dal Lago

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/EJgXK

There's an error here in that the artist shows Glorfindel's horse Asfaloth with a bridle and bit - or the artist based it on the first edition, in which JRRT had "committed this error". Rhona Beare had pointed out this inconsistency in a 1958 letter to which JRT replied via letter #211 in Humphrey Carpenter' book. JRRT stated that he would "change bridle and bit to headstall." Which he then did in the second edition.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

But forgot to remove "reins".

 

[Olorgando]

But forgot to remove "reins".

... and stirrups and saddle-skirts, and even the bridle was not entirely excised. Hammond & Scull deal with these inconsistencies in their 2005 LoTR "Reader's Companion" at some length.

 

[Berzelmayr]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1590054384511356929

 

[Berzelmayr]

Artwork by Phantom City Creative

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

View attachment 16981
Artwork by Phantom City Creative

Very nice artwork... However I do wish that they had more in it. Such a cunning idea to make a scene within a scene, but it could have been so much more elaborate.

 

[Ent]

Well. As with movies and such, I've come to where I try to appreciate artwork for what it is, rather than for what it is not, or lacks I guess.
I can't produce a decent stick figure, though I do rather look like one.

Yes, when I look at some of it I think "well, my mental picture was a bit different" or "well, what if this or that was more canonical..." etc. But I'll personally rarely voice it.

Even that one picture of Sauron that looks so dreadful with the single eye in it (page 18) has some basis in 'canon' (for those who hold Silmarillion to be canon.)

"There he took up again his great Ring in Barad-dûr, and dwelt there, dark and silent, until he wrought himself a new guise, an image of malice and hatred made visible; and the Eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure." Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Silmarillion (p. 307). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Note Eye is singular, and it speaks of the Eye as connected with his "image made visible". Before a single eye ever became an extension of his visage atop the tower, it appears Sauron's new and fearful shape held only one eye.

Thus that picture led me to check whether there was any basis in canon or not for his image having a single eye, and guess what - it does.

"We see, but we do not observe." (Sherlock Holmes)

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

True indeed, Ent. I have no arguments.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

it appears Sauron's new and fearful shape held only one eye.

Oh, noooo! 😳

 

[Ent]

Oh, noooo

Oh, no need to fear or despair.
Someone will likely argue that it is used rhetorically - as a metaphor - , especially since Eye of Sauron is capitalized,.
And it would be difficult to argue one way or another given its context. It is simply not better explained.

I just happen to be a literalist.
And I don't know if the artist chose to represent the "Eye" as singular because he or she too was a literalist, or intended the depiction to be a metaphorical one,
My only real suggestion here, is "there is a canonical basis" for depicting it in the way it has been done. Did we all take time to catch it? 😁

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Well, you can append your argument here:

👁️Sauron's Form

Alright, so I’ve just finished reading the Two Towers for the umpteenth time, and I’ve caught something that bugs me a little. It has to do with Sauron and his form at the time of the War of the Ring. In the past, I’ve accepted that Sauron took the form of a great Eye that is covered in...

thetolkien.forum

Or to one of the other "Sauron the Evil Lighthouse" threads. 😃

 

[Ent]

Ah yes, that is an intriguing thread - as I'm sure the others are as well.
Yet the issue is unlikely to be resolved being speculative at its core, and my sharing above leads to no 'solution' either but only suggests a lens through which to appreciate a picture's interpretation.
So I will leave the threads where they lie - at least they were not burned down with the Great Halls of Speculation, but remain for others.
Should any care to find and pursue the view I stated above, well... "the fun is in the hunt" (Sherlock) and it can always be found here as well as in SIL.

 

[Eljorahir]

I just happen to be a literalist.

Thank Eru that Wormtongue was not depicted literally in the PJ movies. I'd have to close my eyes for those scenes.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Too true.... Yet it was well cast in the film.

 

[Annatar]

As with movies and such, I've come to where I try to appreciate artwork for what it is, rather than for what it is not, or lacks I guess.

In principle, this should be a sensible approach. At least until the (personal) threshold has been exceeded that turns the supposed work of art into a blasphemous insult (or involuntary parody).
With paintings and drawings, however, I am much less fastidious, because it is easier to ignore them and they also cause less "damage". (And you can always make the excuse: "It's (just) art, you moron!").

I'll even gladly turn a blind eye when Ted Nasmith paints the bottom wall of Minas Tirith white instead of black.

(Why did he do that? He ruined everything with that! And Peter Jackson too! Well, not really, but it contributes to the fact that Tolkien is said to "paint" in black and white. So in the sense that the good guys are white and the bad guys are black. But the good guys had a black wall too, dammit!!!)

 

[Ent]

blasphemous

I do believe, sir Annatar the Avid, with this you have hit the nail on the head.
(Or as Paul Harvey used to say, 'with your head'.)

blasphemy ˈblas-fə-mē: Noun. plural blasphemies adjective: blasphemous adverb: Blasphemously

1. the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
2. the act of claiming the attributes of a deity
3. irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

There are those who consider the works of Tolkien to be, at the very least, 'sacred or inviolable'.
Then there are those who do not.

As to paintings of things, they do not differ from cinematic portrayals. It's all art.
And artists will render things they way they choose to depict them...often by ignorance of the source matter and sometimes by intentional departure.
Yet it is no less art.

Now then: if I considered Tolkien's work to be deific or sacred or inviolable, I would be utterly incapable of receiving, accepting and enjoying that artist's efforts.

But Tolkien made many mistakes in his works...so I cannot hold them to such a standard.

Interestingly, there are many I see who are both willing to decry Tolkien's works for the many things that "don't make sense" in them, or have no foundation in science, or other such things... yet as soon as they see a bit of art (of any kind - painting, drawing, cinematic, written) - that depicts something contrary to Tolkien's writing, they cry foul and raise the banner of recrimination and revolt. The fickleness of the human race at its best.

As you know, I am not among them.

So I am thankful you have a stance on these matters - and are willing to share it. Many (if not most) walk alive yet as dead having no awareness and less care.

And I am thankful you brought the word 'blasphemous' forward as it is extremely suitable to the situation at hand with Tolkien and his followers - and many other things, frankly.

 

[ZehnWaters]

Recent art by Morgan Rogers. As always [click to enlarge]

 

[ZehnWaters]

Recent art by Morgan Rogers. As always [click to enlarge]

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Where do you find this art? Just curious.