|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Apr 3 2007, 7:35pm
Post #1 of 19
(2140 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien Illustrated: Ted Nasmith #5 – The Fellowship of the Ring, II
|
Can't Post
|
|
“His (Tolkien’s) emphasis on light and shadow in particular, whether metaphorical or literal, justifies any artist’s interest.” - Ted Nasmith; tednasmith.com Speaking of metaphorical vs. literal , let’s take a look at a few interpretations of Balrogs by Ted over the years (of note due to the distinct lack of wings!) This first picture appeared in the 1987 Tolkien Calendar: The Balrog; tednasmith.com The next one (a Silmarillion-related illustration) appeared in the 2000 Tolkien Calendar: Fingon and Gothmog; tednasmith.com The final appeared in the 2002 Tolkien/Fellowship of the Ring Calendar: At The Bridge; tednasmith.com IMHO, one of the things Ted depicts quite well is fire. The earlier and later Balrogs almost look like they have fire inside of them which is an interesting touch. Question 1 – Here’s the ‘Balrogs don’t have wings’ believers’ chance to vindicate themselves! Wings believers or not, do you like the depiction of a wingless Balrog? Question 2 – What differences do you notice in Ted’s depiction of Balrogs over time? Do you have a favorite? On to a brighter subject and more comparisons: Galadriel “I eventually embarked on a kind of a game where I would try with each successive painting to pay a little more attention to what the author said, and reconcile that to my own impression of it, because there's going to be my own ideas that I'm bringing to it, and why it inspires me, because I'm feeding some imagery that I've already got inside of me, that I'm bringing to it.” - Ad Astra science fiction convention, February 2002 The first depiction of Galadriel is from the Danbury Mint Plate Colleciton from 1995: The Mirror of Galadriel; Rolozo Tolkien No date is given on Ted’s site for this next one, though it was added to Rolozo in 2002 (sadly, his site says it's never appeared in public due to water damage): Galadriel; Rolozo Tolkien The next is from the 2002 Tolkien/Fellowship of the Ring Calendar: Lady Galadriel; tednasmith.com Question 3 – Again, what kind of progression, if any, do you see in these three different paintings of Galadriel? Question 4 - How does the difference in details affect the mood of the painting? Do you like the depictions of Galadriel's dress? Her hair?
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"All we have to decide is what to do with the boards that are given to us"
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase TORn Calendar
(This post was edited by Altaira on Apr 3 2007, 7:37pm)
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Apr 3 2007, 7:40pm
Post #2 of 19
(1910 views)
Shortcut
|
I like the first balrog and the last Galadriel best.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The other balrogs look way too meaty for my taste. I always pictured it as a thing of fire and shadow. And that middle Galadriel makes me think of Julie Andrews in the Sound of Music.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chance Meeting at Rivendell: a Tolkien Fanfic and some other stuff I wrote... leleni at hotmail dot com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Beren IV
Gondor
Apr 4 2007, 4:18am
Post #3 of 19
(1904 views)
Shortcut
|
Odd body proportions on Galadriel
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Quick note on Balrogs: I really like the "wings of shadow" on Balrogs. I suppose I am a fence-sitter: I do not like the leathery, bat-like wings that many artists put on Balrogs, but I really do not like Balrogs that are wingless. Tolkien described the Balrog in Moria as having wings of shadow, and while that is not the cliche bat-like wings that demons so often have, it seems more demonic, actually - after all, it's elemental darkness. How more quintessentially infernal can you get? Now, on to Galadriel: All of Nasmith's paintings of Galadriel place waist too high. The paintings look like close to two-thirds of the woman's height is in her legs. While I picture Elves as generally having longer leg length to body length ratios than Humans, I don't ever imagine them as being this skewed. In these paintings, Galadriel has the legs of a giant but the torso of a Hobbit, and that's skewed. Aside from that, I like the first one best. I don't see a clear trend between the first and third images, mainly because the Galadriel in the first image is far more similar to the Galadriel in the third than either is to the second. The first one looks dynamic, however: the woman is twisting her body in a realistic way, generally has hair that is more radiant, and otherwise looks more angellic than in the others, yet at the same time material and not an angel, like an elf should be. The third is also good, having the most realistic body proportions, although the position of her bust in the image implies either that she is a bustier person than I normally imagine Elves as being or else that she has almost no abdomen: her torso is all ribcage. The background is also most detailed in the first - although none of them have trees big enough.
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Daughter of Nienna
Grey Havens
Apr 4 2007, 8:13am
Post #4 of 19
(1883 views)
Shortcut
|
Question 1 – Here’s the ‘Balrogs don’t have wings’ believers’ chance to vindicate themselves! Wings believers or not, do you like the depiction of a wingless Balrog? A: I do NOT like the wingless Balrog…of course they have wings…I am a total believer. Question 2 – What differences do you notice in Ted’s depiction of Balrogs over time? Do you have a favorite? A: Having said that, I really love his first Balrog…he looks so Shadowy and more illusive, and the fire look quite internal, though I would like more flames, like you say he does fire very well. The other two are too solid and muscular. I picture something that really is shadows and flames and wings of shadowy flames. Question 3 – Again, what kind of progression, if any, do you see in these three different paintings of Galadriel? Question 4 - How does the difference in details affect the mood of the painting? Do you like the depictions of Galadriel's dress? Her hair? A: Galadriel Image #1 - I like the scene in the plate, but Galadriel, though beautiful, seems to me a little too youthful, too human . . . she just seems to lack that high level of wisdom and Power. Galadriel Image #2 – I don't like tippy-toe dancing in this one any more than the Hildebrandt's…but I appreciate how she look more mature and wise, but not quite beautiful enough. It is like he was searching for just that right mixture of youth, beauty, wisdom and power but it was illusive. Galadriel Image #3 – this one I like the best and he seems much closer at finding that balance…her hair is perfect, but her jaw-line, well I don't know, it just seems a little age 20 to me. I realize Galadriel is supposed to look young, but she should also look like she has live for over 9,000 (?) years, over three ages of Middle-earth and the wisdom and power to match. That has to be very hard. The 3 versions are just a little too 'pop-culture' to me. The skirt on the first image is so wonderfully flowing, while the second is . .. well I don't even want to go there. The third gown is wonderful on the top. Now to combine gowns #1 & #3 would be perfect. In one and three: the trees look almost covered in snow…that can't be right…but that is how it looks, it must be the mist or something. Sam looks like he has a beard and shades and a players hairdo in number three. Huh!?!
Alan Lee Discussion week: starts March 25th in the Reading Room Discussion Ideas, Alan Lee–Introduction, Scanned images for Alan Lee Discussion. Art Gallery Revised, ORC pic of Hawaii friends, my drawings, Aloha & Mahalo, Websites Directory Nienna: “ those who hearken to her learn pity, and endurance in hope . . . All those who wait in Mandos cry to her, for she brings strength to the spirit and turns sorrow to wisdom." — Valaquenta
(This post was edited by Daughter of Nienna on Apr 4 2007, 8:15am)
|
|
|
Daughter of Nienna
Grey Havens
Apr 4 2007, 8:19am
Post #5 of 19
(1908 views)
Shortcut
|
"Victor, Victoria" - her hair is short enough!
Alan Lee Discussion week: starts March 25th in the Reading Room Discussion Ideas, Alan Lee–Introduction, Scanned images for Alan Lee Discussion. Art Gallery Revised, ORC pic of Hawaii friends, my drawings, Aloha & Mahalo, Websites Directory Nienna: “ those who hearken to her learn pity, and endurance in hope . . . All those who wait in Mandos cry to her, for she brings strength to the spirit and turns sorrow to wisdom." — Valaquenta
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Apr 4 2007, 9:10pm
Post #6 of 19
(1867 views)
Shortcut
|
This is a very interesting approach - looking at the progression/development of a particular motif. I'm afraid I find the paintings much weaker than those from discussion no. 4. The balrog looks too much like a typical demon in all of the paintings, even if I dislike his solidness in the latter two in particular. And why this tail, what has it got to do with it? Galadriel's body proportions (length of legs vs torso) are quite weird and she does not look particularly wise or enigmatic in either of these paintings. I guess I like the first Galadriel image the best, there are more interesting details to attend to in that painting compared to the others.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Apr 4 2007, 10:14pm
Post #7 of 19
(1886 views)
Shortcut
|
The first Balrog is a really interesting attempt to show wings of shadow.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Unfortunately the Balrog is far too large, and Nasmith's execution of his idea makes the Balrog look a bit cartoonish, with a jack o' lantern face. But I love the attempt to show shadow rising above the Balrog like wings, and the Balrog himself made out of shadow and fire. I wish he had stuck with this idea in later years, when his technique had improved. The latter Balrogs are much more conventional fire demons. They actually lend support to those who argue for wings because there is nothing in the pictures that could even metaphorically be described as wings. Maybe Nasmith couldn't figure out how to mix shadow and fire, and decided that fire was easier; but shadow is more challenging, and I think more interesting. Adding a whip and sword of fire to the first picture, for example, could have created a better balance between shadow and fire. I agree with you that Nasmith draws fire well, but I wish he hadn't sacrificed the shadow. Galadriel looks about seven feet tall in that first picture, which might not be such a bad idea, despite Tolkien once saying she was 6' 4". Since her siblings were some of the tallest elves who ever lived, and elves are taller than humans, I think she should have been at least seven feet tall, unless she shrunk with age. But putting it in the story is one thing; seeing it in an illustration is a bit disconcerting. Also, this is the moment in the story where she seems to grow even taller, so perhaps Nasmith takes that literally, and perhaps Tolkien meant it literally. Since elves have the power of enchantment, I suspect Galadriel could look as tall or short as she liked in the eyes of the hobbits. On the other hand, the first Galadriel's robe looks way too long. And why doesn't she have sleeves? It seems a bit like a too-long toga. I like the fact that Galadriel's hair shines in the first picture. I don't know what happens to it in the second -- it disappears. In the third picture her hair is disappointingly dark. It's hard to see the detail in the first picture of Galadriel. I can't make out much expression in her face, or in the faces of the hobbits, who should react in some manner, one would think. In the second picture Galadriel looks far too much like a ballerina, as opposed to a queen. She's beautiful, but is she Galadriel? There's something wrong about the hobbit faces in the third picture, and as usual that becomes even more evident when the picture is enlarged. They look like wooden heads, or zombies -- they just don't look natural. Galadriel's face is better, but still a bit pale and not perfectly formed -- and Galadriel's face should be perfectly formed. I do like the effect of starlight and mist in the third picture. I like the atmosphere in all the pictures, although the vegetation in the first and last pictures seems a little woody and barren for spring time in Lothlorien. I also like the fountain in the first two pictures. As usual, Nasmith has good ideas and good but not great execution, especially when it comes to faces. He loves playing with light and color, but is less adept with lines and drawing. The middle picture of Galadriel actually is the best executed, but the concept of Galadriel as ballerina bugs me.
|
|
|
Beren IV
Gondor
Apr 4 2007, 10:26pm
Post #8 of 19
(1885 views)
Shortcut
|
Before we go in further on the height of Elves and Men, I should point out that the average man in Elizabethan England was 5'7". At 6'4", Galadriel would have almost a foot on him. Modern humans are quite big, by the standards of humans in most of the agricultural past.
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Apr 5 2007, 10:30am
Post #9 of 19
(1893 views)
Shortcut
|
Elendil was almost 8 feet tall. Huor was taller than Elendil.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tuor was taller than Huor. Turgon was taller than Tuor, second only to Thingol among elves and men, and he was Galadriel's first cousin. The average man of Gondor in the Third Age was 6' 4", and the men of Gondor were shorter than the Numenoreans of the Second Age who were in turn shorter than the heroes of the First Age. Suddenly 6'4" doesn't look so tall. We aren't talking history, here, we're talking mythology.
|
|
|
Beren IV
Gondor
Apr 6 2007, 2:28am
Post #10 of 19
(1860 views)
Shortcut
|
Where are you getting these numbers? The High Men of Gondor may be that tall, but most of them aren't - and I don't think they're any taller than the Men of Númenor. I've heard tell that Thingol is nine feet. I find this absurd. I don't know where the number comes from - but I find it hard to believe, even if Tolkien did say it.
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Apr 6 2007, 9:54am
Post #11 of 19
(1878 views)
Shortcut
|
And it's all fiction, remember. None of it is true. Tolkien made it up. On the other hand, Tolkien was wise to be vague in his stories, or else other readers might have had your same reaction. "Elves? Dragons? Dwarves? Ents? All highly plausible. But a nine-foot elf? Now that's absurd."
|
|
|
OhioHobbit
Gondor
Apr 6 2007, 1:39pm
Post #12 of 19
(1845 views)
Shortcut
|
I like the third Galadriel the best, but it still isn’t quite there for me. People are difficult enough, but Galadriel is a whole different ball game. I think that you not only need to depict the person of Galadriel but also the idea of Galadriel. Perhaps the best way to do that is to be more vague and just suggest, leave her a little more mysterious. On the subject of height, I think that I would just lower the point of view. Then you couldn’t really tell how tall she is. The first painting seems a bit frosty to me. The second one is strictly Art-Deco. She looks like a statuette that you might find sitting in Hercule Poirot’s office.
|
|
|
Beren IV
Gondor
Apr 8 2007, 12:48am
Post #13 of 19
(1852 views)
Shortcut
|
Yeah - but where's the NUMBER?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Here's what I'm getting at: Man-High is 6'4". Okay, highly plausible. Aragorn and Eomer are taller than Man-High. Plausible - 6'8" is taller than 6'4". Some of the First Age Elves were taller yet - okay, let's say 7'. Thingol was the tallest of them all, so let's make him 7'4". Human beings have health problems if they are too tall having to do with their nerves not reaching the full lengths of their bodies. Elves would have to be similar. It is certainly possible that the range of heights in Elves be different from Humans, but Elves aren't that much taller than Humans - we know, for instance, that male Elves are typically Man-High by the standards of the Men of the West, i.e. 6'4". A healthy, well-fed human on Earth is about 6'. So Elves up to 7'6" or so are physiologically reasonable. Elves 9' tall just aren't.
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
GaladrielTX
Tol Eressea
Apr 8 2007, 3:20am
Post #14 of 19
(1856 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, the sun and moon aren't fruit IRL, either. ;o)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I do agree that the heights given are, well, a little freakish, though, whereas a fruit and a flower in the sky is a bit more poetic.
~~~~~~~~ I used to be GaladrielTX, but it's springtime and I'm shedding.
(This post was edited by Galadriel on Apr 8 2007, 3:22am)
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Apr 8 2007, 3:31am
Post #15 of 19
(1837 views)
Shortcut
|
is in Unfinished Tales. Sorry, I don't have time right now to cite chapter and verse, but trust me, it's there. Elendil is 7' 11" tall, and he is shorter than several -- if not all -- First Age heroes.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Apr 8 2007, 4:36am
Post #16 of 19
(1874 views)
Shortcut
|
In "Númenórean Linear Measures", an appendix to "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth, Tolkien discusses rangar, a term which means "full paces"; a ranga is specifically "the length of the stride, from rear heel to front toe, of a full-grown man marching swiftly but at ease". He explains that "the Númenórean ranga ws slightly longer than our yard, approximately thirty-eight inches, owing to their greater stature". He adds that "two rangar was often called 'man-high', which at thirty-eight inches gives an average height of six feet four inches", but goes on to say that this was true of latter-day, diminished Númenóreans, and "the great people of the past... were more than man-high." Elendil the Tall was "said to be 'more than man-high by nearly half a ranga' .... the tallest of all the Númenóreans who escaped the Downfall". That works out to about seven feet, eleven inches. Tolkien's phrasing suggests that there were taller Númenóreans than Elendil. And in The Silmarillion, I think Tolkien says that the two tallest Children of Ilúvatar were Thingol and Turgon, in that order. I don't know that he specifies nine feet anywhere. It might be something less than eight-and-a-half and yet be noticeable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tolkien Illustrated! Jan. 29-May 20: Visit the Reading Room to discuss art by John Howe, Alan Lee, Ted Nasmith and others, including Tolkien himself. Apr. 2-8: Ted Nasmith.
|
|
|
Beren IV
Gondor
Apr 8 2007, 5:38am
Post #17 of 19
(1842 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks - but why did Tolkien [i]do[/i] this?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well, this implies that there are several more races in Middle Earth that we don't know about. Certainly there is variation in Men - Hobbits are maybe one ranga tall, two and a half. However, this explains why Dwarves are so strong and still Dwarves - a Dwarf could still be five feet, even six feet, and be short compared to the Elves. I don't know why Tolkien did what he did with hieght. It seems to be a metaphor for power, and a metaphor for grace. But why? Tolkien obviously was more than sophistocated enough to know that even in a fight there is more to being competant than just being tall. I am struck by the unrealism that he seems to so often use. I don't doubt for a moment that an Elven host of the First Age could utterly lay waste to a modern army with tanks and machine guns, if you asked Tolkien - although I am mighty curious as to how he imagined them doing that. It is obvious that he wasn't thinking of D&D type magic as a weapon, and being fifteen feet tall isn't going to help you there.
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Apr 9 2007, 11:07pm
Post #18 of 19
(1857 views)
Shortcut
|
As I said before, those exact figures N.E.B. so nicely quotes were not published in Tolkien's lifetime. In his stories, he is deliberately vague about size, with the exception of the hobbits themselves. Everyone else is just big, bigger, and giant, except when size isn't mentioned at all, which is most of the time. As for the general idea of everyone and everything shrinking over time, that's pretty common in mythology, or even just in human psychology. "They were giants in those days" is a cliche even today, when in reality those legends of earlier generations were probably smaller than today, and certainly smaller than they seem in the stories told by grandpas. We have become used to historians knocking legendary heroes off their pedestals, but Tolkien was all for keeping them up there, at least in his fictional world, so everything was bigger in the First Age than in the Second, and in the Second Age than in the Third. We are the hobbits, of course, small in comparison to our heroic ancestors, but still capable of a different kind of heroism dependent on humility and spiritual strength. It's a nice enough metaphor, as long as no one brings out the measuring tape. As for Elves laying waste to modern weaponry, we have the example of the Ents storming Isengard, and of course the Ringbearer himself, who unmakes the evil that makes Sauron's weaponry possible. In the Second Age we have the Fall of Numenor, in which something like a modern armada is destroyed by supernatural means. In the First Age we have Luthien singing all the forces of Angband to sleep.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Apr 10 2007, 12:16am
Post #19 of 19
(1874 views)
Shortcut
|
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
I met a Balrog on the stair He had some wings that weren't there. They weren't there again today. I wish he would just fly away.
|
|
|
|
|