Well my copy of "The Art of The Hobbit" turned up today (not bad speed to Australia, considering I chose the free supersaver shipping with Amazon), and I have to say that it is a really nice book. Having skimmed through it a couple of times, I'm very much looking forward to reading it properly over the next few days. Thanks to Wayne and Christina for your efforts on this one.
Stu
Stu
Yes AotH is a beautiful book.
My only gripe is the fold out pages. The fold out part is almost the same length as the fixed part of the page making them difficult to open and almost as difficult to turn back in properly. If you aren't careful you could easily damage the folded edge. I thought at first that the page edges hadn't been cut.
Still a wonderful book though.
My only gripe is the fold out pages. The fold out part is almost the same length as the fixed part of the page making them difficult to open and almost as difficult to turn back in properly. If you aren't careful you could easily damage the folded edge. I thought at first that the page edges hadn't been cut.
Still a wonderful book though.
I also got today my slipcased edition of the AotH.
It really is a beautiful book.
Many thanks to Wayne and Christina!
It really is a beautiful book.
Many thanks to Wayne and Christina!
I agree Deagol, the fold-outs are quite delicate. Also, the pages preceding the fold-outs, at the fore-edge, are marginally folded/bent (or are going to become so), as they have nothing to support them; as the fold-outs themselves do not run to the same breadth. That aside (which is only an observation), it's a lovely book; & HarperCollins really kept the price down, at £15.54. I'm carefully perusing it as we speak...
BH
BH
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
BH
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
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.
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
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