Login

Or
Register Now


Already have an account?
Username:

Password:

Remember me

Lost Your Password?
Main Menu
Collector's Guide Table of Contents
Recent Visitors

EliseRalst
6 minutes ago

LoisKreide
1 hour 12 minutes ago

TerryLZSL
1 hour 21 minutes ago

tolkienbrasil
1 hour 24 minutes ago

TyreeBower
1 hour 58 minutes ago

wellinghall
3 hours 24 minutes ago

Stu
3 hours 29 minutes ago

Jlong
5 hours 57 minutes ago
Report message: *
 
* = Required

Re: New Book Releases

Subject: Re: New Book Releases
by Stu on 2011/11/8 2:57:30


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