Thank you for commenting, Aelfgifu. Yes, "wrong," is worse to look at than anything. But what constitutes "wrong" is up to each viewer. Most can agree whether the actual execution of an art work is good or bad, but what has the right "feel" depends on the imaginings the viewer brings inside her own head. No matter how well-done a picture is, if it is seriously at odds with my own inner Tolkien world, it can't "work" for them as an illustration.
For me, the cartoon genre as a genre doesn't "work" for me. I have guessed from your very interesting icon that you well appreciate at least some cartoon illustrating for Tolkien.
It is not as though I cannot see that cartoon art has merit. I can see that this or that cartoon-based piece is very good or not that good as art, they just don't work for me as illustrations. I think I don't like to see the Tolkien world made to look like cartoons simply because I associate cartoons with simplification, with reduction of complexity to more easily-recognized components.
I much prefer the work of Alan Lee, for instance, because it is full of visual subtlety, with his use of delicate, earth-toned very subtle colour work, and the use of a lot of tiny faint lines. It makes all of his illustrations as detailed as those of a naturalist, yet they are at the same time vague and a little unfocussed -- vague enough -- almost misty in their faintness, sometimes -- to suggest "otherwordliness" along with fidelity to the natural world. Cartoons, with their strong outlines and blocks of single colours, do just the opposite. But others may see in LotR other features that suit that: strong themes, clearly delineated good and evil (in characters, buildings, landscapes, etc.), marvels, etc.
John Howe's work, the other LotR artist, on the other hand, is almost "cartoonish" in that way. Even though he is an illustrator who uses a more pictorial, story-book-based style, he tends to use starker, bolder colors and stronger, clearer lines (how he loves diagonals!) that gives added drama to any scene he illustrates, but at the expense of subtlety. That's probably why I usually always prefer Lee's to Howe's work as illustration for Tolkien.
Hildebrant's drawings mostly make me laugh. Although they use a lot of detail, I think of them as cartoony in an early Disney-ish way with their cutesy hobbits, the quaint costuming and props, and the overall "children's storybook" look they have. Mainly I dislike the static quality in the brother's pictures. Maybe they are going for a sense of nobility, but I think of their compositions come off as artificial and stagey. They do have a few works that I really do like, but they are more vaguely rendered and the characters so small they are more suggestions than full renderings. I am thinking of their illustration of Sam, Frodo and Gollom in the Dead Marshes. It's awfully good and worlds away from their silly-looking Cara Galadhon or the one of the Fellowship that makes me guffaw on the cover of "The Complete Guide to Middle-earth."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-19 01:41 pm (UTC)For me, the cartoon genre as a genre doesn't "work" for me. I have guessed from your very interesting icon that you well appreciate at least some cartoon illustrating for Tolkien.
It is not as though I cannot see that cartoon art has merit. I can see that this or that cartoon-based piece is very good or not that good as art, they just don't work for me as illustrations. I think I don't like to see the Tolkien world made to look like cartoons simply because I associate cartoons with simplification, with reduction of complexity to more easily-recognized components.
I much prefer the work of Alan Lee, for instance, because it is full of visual subtlety, with his use of delicate, earth-toned very subtle colour work, and the use of a lot of tiny faint lines. It makes all of his illustrations as detailed as those of a naturalist, yet they are at the same time vague and a little unfocussed -- vague enough -- almost misty in their faintness, sometimes -- to suggest "otherwordliness" along with fidelity to the natural world. Cartoons, with their strong outlines and blocks of single colours, do just the opposite. But others may see in LotR other features that suit that: strong themes, clearly delineated good and evil (in characters, buildings, landscapes, etc.), marvels, etc.
John Howe's work, the other LotR artist, on the other hand, is almost "cartoonish" in that way. Even though he is an illustrator who uses a more pictorial, story-book-based style, he tends to use starker, bolder colors and stronger, clearer lines (how he loves diagonals!) that gives added drama to any scene he illustrates, but at the expense of subtlety. That's probably why I usually always prefer Lee's to Howe's work as illustration for Tolkien.
Hildebrant's drawings mostly make me laugh. Although they use a lot of detail, I think of them as cartoony in an early Disney-ish way with their cutesy hobbits, the quaint costuming and props, and the overall "children's storybook" look they have. Mainly I dislike the static quality in the brother's pictures. Maybe they are going for a sense of nobility, but I think of their compositions come off as artificial and stagey. They do have a few works that I really do like, but they are more vaguely rendered and the characters so small they are more suggestions than full renderings. I am thinking of their illustration of Sam, Frodo and Gollom in the Dead Marshes. It's awfully good and worlds away from their silly-looking Cara Galadhon or the one of the Fellowship that makes me guffaw on the cover of "The Complete Guide to Middle-earth."