Friday, October 5, 2018
Different Perspectives on the Art
Yesterday during class we talked about art and how it adds to the mythology while also taking away from it. I have seen artworks surrounding Tolkien's stories before so I had an idea of what to expect with the readings for yesterday's class. However, I had never thought about how the works could take away from the stories. I liked seeing the works, as art alone but also as depictions of the actual stories created by Tolkien. As much as I love the images that I could come up with in my head (or the images put there by the movies), I know that they aren't anywhere close to what Tolkien had in his head when he was writing/creating/sharing his tales. So in being able to see art created him Tolkien himself, or people who probably understand the texts better than I, helps me feel like I'm finally seeing what Tolkien wanted us to see. Which I personally believe brings me closer to the myth. However, in class it seemed that the majority felt that these pieces of art almost had an opposite effect. So I guess, I'm really just asking you guys, how do y'all feel about the works? For you personally, did they add to or take away from the myth and if you don't mind: please explain why.
3 comments:
I think in some ways, like you said, Tolkien’s art is wonderful and does a great job helping you picture his work how he saw it. In many cases, however, I think Tolkien did not have the skill with visual artwork to keep up with the images he created in his writing. That is probably why he thought so poorly of his art. He did create some very beautiful stuff, but he was also lacking some of the technical skills. But beyond that many of the places seem like they couldn’t be put into an image by even the most skilled artist without losing some of their magic.
So I think it’s interesting to see some differences or similarities between Tolkien’s images of the places he wrote about and our mental images, but the artworks should not be taken as a perfect image of what he had in his head.
I think that the artwork helped the myths and enhanced the story as a whole. For example the maps Tolkien drew out were wonderful for the mythmaking. They added to the depth of the world and showed that everything was well thought out. The attention to details such as the maps are important to the lore I feel because they solidify the world he built not only for himself but others. It solidifies where everything is and gives credibility to the stories taking place in this highly developed world.
There seems to be something in simply allowing one's imagination to roam free and take it's own liberties when interpreting works. Each person is likely to have their own vision for what constitutes beauty, terror, darkness, "good", or "evil". The mind is a powerful thing, and more often than not, allows us to go farther than we can in reality. For this reason, I tend to be disappointed when authors don't leave freedom for interpretation (J.K. Rowling, J.R.R. Tolkien, etc.) If literature is suppose to be an art all in itself, one shouldn't need to fulfill every portion of "art" to justify or describe any singular form of art. Certainly, Tolkien's work is beyond good enough to stand alone without visual art.
With that being said, Tolkien is also a completely different story. When he describes "fairie" he often calls it mystical, magical, and realistic. It is so much more to Tolkien than can be parsed together in any singular way! He was going for reliability and something that would stand against critics trying to find a plot hole in his work. He was making a history as well as a fantasy. What would history be without visual representations of the world then, of living conditions, of the world before urbanization, or of something as simple as fashion trends of another time? For this reason, while I tend to enjoy my own version of Tolkien's work better (because his literary descriptions are phenomenal), I can still appreciate the art work he left behind in an attempt to show precisely how things are meant to be (regardless of how "good" his visual art is--which is still far better than the average Joe can come up with in contemporary society).
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.