Alatar wrote:I think one should be able to tell by looking at a painting or picture in isolation, what the subject was. I doubt anyone would know, by simply looking at a Cor Blok picture, that it was in any way Tolkien related, unless told so. Tolkien was perfectly entitled to like Cor Blok's artwork, and I am equally entitled to think they are dreadful. Tolkien's opinion does not trump mine.
Of course not! But you are more fair-minded about taste than many in fandom, based on my own experience. On a few other sites (a while back) I was told multiple times that I was either a pre-pubescent idiot, or an insufferable snob, for enjoying Blok's artwork. His stuff really fires up my imagination, rather than supplants it. That's me. And for some reason, that's difficult or impossible to accept for some people.
I will forever be baffled by the insistence, by many, that the quality of art should be defined by strict rules of draftsmanship. I know for a fact that Blok can draw very realistic figures, and is even classically-trained, but he certainly breaks those arbitrary rules.
Like it or not, it's art and is most certainly Tolkien art. His Hornburg and Amon Hen say more to me about those passages in the book than any other representation.
That said, the only place where he comes close to violating my imagination is through the use of strangely modern hats and masks for some of the more mysterious characters. I would prefer less detail in his characters, actually.
This is not to say I don't occasionally crave the more literal stuff from Lee or Nasmith. Those works satiate a less profound appetite for me. They are like a good hamburger, while Blok is like a mind-blowing filet minon.
For me, of course!
)
