Ted Nasmith at Tolkien Thing
It's Tolkien Thing time again! Next weekend, the German branch of the Tolkien Society will meet in Diez in a castle - nowadays it's run as a youth hostel. After Alan Lee last year, this year's special guest is Ted Nasmith.
(Edit: Sorry I didn't cut this post! Didn't mean to clog your f-list.)
While I look forward to meet him, I'm not in a state of giddyness like last year. That is because of the 'big three' official illustrators of Tolkien's works - Howe, Lee and Nasmith - Nasmith is the one least close to my heart. His art fails to engage me as the others' do.
He is a brilliant artist, and I admire his skill, knowledge, devotion to canon and sheer artistic mastery in every aspect. I had a hard time to define of why exactly I don't like his work as well as other's, but a quote from his website helped me to get it clearer.
"The Hildebrandts’ three calendars in 1976, ’77, and ’78 particularly excited me to work seriously towards publication, since their work was realistic and detailed. However, I felt I had qualities in my own work that surpassed theirs, and their work helped me define a vision of my own style and interpretations, as did other more traditional illustrators and painters of the past century and a half. I would describe it as a style that echoes the luminist landscapes and Victorian neo-classical styles. I felt these would well complement the grandeur of The Lord of the Rings, and I’d always been attracted to this kind of art."
There are several interesting aspects in this quotation. First, the encouraging effect of someone else's mediocre work. As creative people, writers, artists or musicians, we are supposed to be inspired by the best of best in our field and learn from them. But while this is doubtless true and you need to know the masters, comparison with them can also discourage us greatly about our own humble efforts. "I can never hope to be that good" is a downright creavity killer. On the other hand, nothing is more motivating than the thought "I can do this just as well and better!" It will make you grab your pencil, brush, computer or guitar on the spot - even if it's not exactly true and you have still a lot to learn.
The second aspect is, I am not surprised about Nasmith's mention of and ambivalence about the brothers Hildebrandt. As he claims rightly, his work surpasses theirs in quality. But still, in style and intention I see more likeness between Nasmith and the Hildebrandts than in Nasmith and Howe and Lee.
Nasmith's style aims for grandeur, as he states himself, and while I agree this is compatible to Tolkien's works, especially to the Silmarillion, I am a little reserved about it. Because I feel there is also a great modesty about Tolkien that gets all too easily lost in too 'grand' illustrations. Alan Lee is the artist who captures this modesty best.
If Nasmith aims for grandeur, I'd say that Howe aims for drama and Lee aims for atmosphere as primary goals in their Tolkien illustrations. I prefer drama and atmosphere to grandeur every time.
(The brothers Hildebrandt aim for grandeur too, but they don't make it farther than theatrical staging, which leads to kitsch and unintended funnyness.)
Nasmith refers to luminist landscapes and Victorian neo-classical styles, and I can see this influence in his work. He puts much work and care on light and intricate detailing, in a masterful way. But this is another aspect of what puts me off his style. His light appears overly bright to me, bringing out every detail to stinging sharpness from foreground to farthest horizon, but killing the sense of mystery that gives depth to Tolkien's world.
In my opinion, the best paintings don't show each and everything, but leave some room for the viewer's eye and imagination to add the missing detail, to fill the gaps that are not really gaps. It's a bit hard to explain, but it's like the difference between a monologue and a dialogue.
Nasmith's characters... again, they rarely touch me on an emotional level, a fact that has nothing to do wether I find them close to my own imagination or no.
Even when Nasmith takes great efforts to achieve emotion, like in some scenes of the hobbit's journey through Mordor or Boromir threatening Frodo, they leave me quite cold. All I can see is the visible effort. Probably all too visible? Especially when grand and heroic characters are depicted, genuine life and expression turns into stage acting all too easily.
On the other hand, I greatly appreciate that Nasmith's hobbits are tough adults, not cute kiddies. In this anime infested post-film era, it's like a breath of fresh air to find hobbits that don't make the slightest effort to appear childish or pretty! :-)
Well, all I have said so far is an expression of my personal tastes, not a judgement of quality. From his website I take it that Nasmith is a very nice guy, not to mention a dyed-in-the-wool Tolkien fan - which he must be if he is willing to come from Canada to Germany just to spend a weekend at a youth hostel with 120 Tolkien fans!
Finally, I should mention that Ted Nasmith is also a musician. He has published his first CD with songs from LotR and we will have the pleasure to hear him at Tolkien Thing.
Ted Nasmiths website is: tednasmith.com
(Edit: Sorry I didn't cut this post! Didn't mean to clog your f-list.)
While I look forward to meet him, I'm not in a state of giddyness like last year. That is because of the 'big three' official illustrators of Tolkien's works - Howe, Lee and Nasmith - Nasmith is the one least close to my heart. His art fails to engage me as the others' do.
He is a brilliant artist, and I admire his skill, knowledge, devotion to canon and sheer artistic mastery in every aspect. I had a hard time to define of why exactly I don't like his work as well as other's, but a quote from his website helped me to get it clearer.
"The Hildebrandts’ three calendars in 1976, ’77, and ’78 particularly excited me to work seriously towards publication, since their work was realistic and detailed. However, I felt I had qualities in my own work that surpassed theirs, and their work helped me define a vision of my own style and interpretations, as did other more traditional illustrators and painters of the past century and a half. I would describe it as a style that echoes the luminist landscapes and Victorian neo-classical styles. I felt these would well complement the grandeur of The Lord of the Rings, and I’d always been attracted to this kind of art."
There are several interesting aspects in this quotation. First, the encouraging effect of someone else's mediocre work. As creative people, writers, artists or musicians, we are supposed to be inspired by the best of best in our field and learn from them. But while this is doubtless true and you need to know the masters, comparison with them can also discourage us greatly about our own humble efforts. "I can never hope to be that good" is a downright creavity killer. On the other hand, nothing is more motivating than the thought "I can do this just as well and better!" It will make you grab your pencil, brush, computer or guitar on the spot - even if it's not exactly true and you have still a lot to learn.
The second aspect is, I am not surprised about Nasmith's mention of and ambivalence about the brothers Hildebrandt. As he claims rightly, his work surpasses theirs in quality. But still, in style and intention I see more likeness between Nasmith and the Hildebrandts than in Nasmith and Howe and Lee.
Nasmith's style aims for grandeur, as he states himself, and while I agree this is compatible to Tolkien's works, especially to the Silmarillion, I am a little reserved about it. Because I feel there is also a great modesty about Tolkien that gets all too easily lost in too 'grand' illustrations. Alan Lee is the artist who captures this modesty best.
If Nasmith aims for grandeur, I'd say that Howe aims for drama and Lee aims for atmosphere as primary goals in their Tolkien illustrations. I prefer drama and atmosphere to grandeur every time.
(The brothers Hildebrandt aim for grandeur too, but they don't make it farther than theatrical staging, which leads to kitsch and unintended funnyness.)
Nasmith refers to luminist landscapes and Victorian neo-classical styles, and I can see this influence in his work. He puts much work and care on light and intricate detailing, in a masterful way. But this is another aspect of what puts me off his style. His light appears overly bright to me, bringing out every detail to stinging sharpness from foreground to farthest horizon, but killing the sense of mystery that gives depth to Tolkien's world.
In my opinion, the best paintings don't show each and everything, but leave some room for the viewer's eye and imagination to add the missing detail, to fill the gaps that are not really gaps. It's a bit hard to explain, but it's like the difference between a monologue and a dialogue.
Nasmith's characters... again, they rarely touch me on an emotional level, a fact that has nothing to do wether I find them close to my own imagination or no.
Even when Nasmith takes great efforts to achieve emotion, like in some scenes of the hobbit's journey through Mordor or Boromir threatening Frodo, they leave me quite cold. All I can see is the visible effort. Probably all too visible? Especially when grand and heroic characters are depicted, genuine life and expression turns into stage acting all too easily.
On the other hand, I greatly appreciate that Nasmith's hobbits are tough adults, not cute kiddies. In this anime infested post-film era, it's like a breath of fresh air to find hobbits that don't make the slightest effort to appear childish or pretty! :-)
Well, all I have said so far is an expression of my personal tastes, not a judgement of quality. From his website I take it that Nasmith is a very nice guy, not to mention a dyed-in-the-wool Tolkien fan - which he must be if he is willing to come from Canada to Germany just to spend a weekend at a youth hostel with 120 Tolkien fans!
Finally, I should mention that Ted Nasmith is also a musician. He has published his first CD with songs from LotR and we will have the pleasure to hear him at Tolkien Thing.
Ted Nasmiths website is: tednasmith.com