Concept Designers Alan Lee and John Howe

 

Ian McKellen: The inspiration for the look of this film comes very much out of the imagination of Alan Lee and John Howe, which should look familiar to anybody who owns an illustrated copy of Tolkien, because it’s their drawings and paintings which began the process of imagining what Tolkien’s words would look like.

squire: A. Is McKellen right?

Darkstone: Hmmmm... I guess.

Daughter of Nienna: Lee: scenes . . . Howe: scenery I never really saw much of their work (or anyone’s) before I heard the films were being made. Then as I was re-reading prior to film release, I also started internet searching, then came across images. I think I was clueless then as to the magnitude of their work’s ‘influence’ (for lack of a better word at the moment) on the world of Tolkien literature: books, calendars, etc. I had no idea how long standing or far-reaching it all was. Or how many artists there really are who do Tolkien art world wide.

At that time I only saw a few. But I don’t think any of it affected me watching the films. I had in my own head already certain things what were realized in the films. I just think these artist are good at capturing what is in the imagination (perhaps even our collective imaginations) and visualizing it on paper. I know I left the theater feeling that it! That’s what I saw in my own mind’s eye. The Cave Troll, though I like him well enough, did not fit my imagination, though almost all the rest did.

N.E. Brigand: Out of my depth. I don't own an illustrated LotR, though I got Pictures by J.R.R. Tolkien as a gift about 25 years ago, and sometime in the 1990s I bought a collection of images by other illustrators (Realms of Tolkien?). The former contains very few LotR pictures, the latter a good deal more than Lee and Howe (if they appear at all), including Cor Blok's oliphaunt, one of my favorites.

squire: The Odd Couple, and a few other opinions I think McKellen is kind of promoting Lee and Howe for the viewers.

squire: Did the films look “familiar” to you?

Darkstone: Not really.

 

FarFromHome: I've never owned an illustrated copy of LOTR because I preferred what I saw in my own imagination. So it's odd, really, that the first LOTR movie imagery I saw - standees of Gandalf and the hobbits, in my local mega-bookstore - somehow did look very familiar. I guess those images must have sunk in anyway. Having said that, very little of the films themselves looked "familiar" - with the notable exception of the Doors of Moria, but that's obviously straight from Tolkien himself.

 

Elf_Maven: The look was not familiar to me, because the only illustrations I had seen really were the Hildebrandt ones. Those were so discouragingly unpleasant to my tastes, that I immediately decided no one was going to be able to illustrate Tolkien to my satisfaction. Seeing what was done with these films has lifted that discouragement: I now think that some of the illustrators, some of the time, get it just right. Not necessarily exactly as I had imagined it, no, but often better, with that certain indescribable "something" that captures the tone, the depth, or the "look" better than I can imagine with my always literal mind.


I was glad to have heard all these discussions because hearing their rationales helped me to solidify mine, whether I agreed or the opposite.


Some of the stories were amusing, some less so, and some were downright "catty." The catty ones made me uncomfortable.

 

Elostirion74: working on different parts of the story? Well, in general, no, but some images were like an exact copy of Lee's paintings, for instance the ranks of orcs pouring through the breached wall at Helm's Deep, the look of Edoras from a distance. Otherwise I did not recognize Lee's influence, with the exception of Galadriel and the scene by the mirror and partly the look of Arwen. The look of Fangorn also seemed to owe something to Lee’s paintings. Howe's influence could be detected in the look of Gandalf and in certain architectural details, like the bestial statues in front of Minas Morgul.


N.E. Brigand: The films didn't look particularly familar to me: early in FotR, for instance, the Shire didn't look right, though Bag End wasn't bad.

squire: How many viewers do you think recognized Howe’s and Lee’s influences, if they knew the illustrators but did not know they had worked on the film?

Darkstone: Probably a lot.

 

Elostirion74: On the other hand, I would say that Lee's paintings are very illustrative and graceful, they complement the text instead of distracting you from it, so although they are beautiful and very special it's not so easy to recognize his influence on the film. When I look at some particular works and details, though, like the murals in Rivendell, they don't look like his style to my eye.

 

N.E. Brigand: I would guess that a relatively small percentage of the audience was familiar with Lee's or Howe's illustrations.


squire: I don't think the film looks particularly like either illustrator. Howe has more of a hard edge to his subjects, but he's too bright and flashy for the films; while Lee's palette is actually captured by the color-grading that characterizes the films, but his paintings are too soft-focus and low-contrast to really be recognizable in the sets. Orthanc is a big exception to this, actually -- that's one set that you would recognized as Lee's if you had ever seen the sketch.

squire: (and why is Ian McKellen the designated illustration expert here?)

Darkstone: He’s the designated Voice of Authority.

 

Elf_Maven: I don't think they're presenting McKellen as an expert, but just that he's so very good at doing exposition dialogue. Was this scripted? I don't know, but you can tell some of the discussions are.


squire: As has been mentioned, McKellen has a voice of authority as an older actor and as "Gandalf". But it seems like an odd subject for him to be an expert in. What I don't know is to what degree the interview subjects were prompted to say things, or whether McKellen actually came up with that one himself, and the documentary makers jumped on it. I wish Christopher Lee, who really was a Tolkien fan, had appeared in this documentary - I would like to know what he thought of the sets.

FarFromHome: Ian McKellen seems to prefer to talk about objective things, rather than his acting experiences. He talks about the design of Minas Tirith in some detail as well, and about New Zealand. My impression, having watched all the documentaries at some time or other, is that they were edited together out of fairly free-ranging interviews that were done with everyone individually. Other little documentaries, such as the ones on the theatrical edition DVDs, often use clips from the same interviews, although edited differently to emphasise whatever topic the documentary is about. So I think it's less "let's use McKellen to introduce Lee and Howe", and more "let's put together whatever we have about Lee and Howe", and it turns out that McKellen has spent some time talking quite cogently about them.

squire: Good point about the interviews You make a good point about the interviews covering a wide range of subjects and then being culled for each special feature. That is the impression I had, but I haven't watched all the other features like you have.

FarFromHome: Again, having watched all the docs, I don't get the impression that anything is scripted. Obviously, the choice of questions (which we don't hear) must have led the discussions in certain directions, but the answers seem to be the participants' own, and after a while you start to see a pattern in the kinds of things different people like to talk about, and the attitudes that they project.

squire: Although they may not have been scripted, I did get the distinct impression that the design team were asked for "funny stories". That's why I highlighted them in my posts: I noticed one in practically every chapter about all the different sets.

 
Now, of course funny stories come up in the course of reminiscences anyway. But I did note Grant Major saying "this is a good one" when he starts in on the battering ram.


Of course it was the editor of the documentary who put the funny story close to the end of each piece, to keep the audience from being completely driven away by the "technical" talk in this Design special feature.

FarFromHome: Funny stories are certainly in there to lighten up all the technical stuff - but whether the interviewees needed to be prompted to come up with them I'm not sure. I think it's a natural impulse for techie people to do this when they are explaining their work to laypeople, and besides, I sometimes think that Kiwis seem to have inherited the habit of bantering and preference for "light words" that Tolkien's Englishmen/hobbits have. And people with this habit often use their lightest words and jokes to refer to the things they care most deeply about.
 

John Howe: Peter actually got quite a good deal by hiring on Alan and I because he was able to dip into all this material that we’d spent a decade doing before. So he got, you know, two for the price of one.

squire: B. Do you suppose the use of past images was assumed and included in their fees as consultants on the film?

Darkstone: Suppose so.  Jackson says he was very interested in seeing the top of Alan Lee’s Orthanc.

 

FarFromHome: I get the impression that it was the classic Howe and Lee images that Peter Jackson really wanted. He asked Howe to show him the top of Orthanc (as Darkstone mentioned) and asked Lee to show him what Bag End looked like when you turn around from his classic view of the hallway and front door. That seems to have been the hardest thing for the artists - having to view the whole of something, rather than just the bits that caught their imagination.

Daughter of Nienna: I kind of view this differently. Not so much the actual use of past pictures . . . perhaps to draw on them for inspiration and to develop some ideas further if desired, naturally. But, also to draw on the seeds already planted in the minds of the audience already having seen their images. I think PJ was aware of the power of that. It has always been my sense that that was part of why they chose them, after all they were the already experiencing that power themselves while developing the story having all those images surrounding them. Having access to the prior images, perhaps, would be a bonus.

N.E. Brigand: Yes.

squire: I certainly hope so. Somewhere I read that Jackson just wanted the rights to their existing images as insurance against the off chance Lee or Howe proved impossible to work with during production!


But what I'd like to have heard from the artists is how their vision of Tolkien's world may have changed because of the pressure-cooker, high-volume, collaborative nature of designing the film. I wonder how they would draw some of their earlier subjects now?


Mumak, by John Howe

 

squire: C. John Howe: What is his style?

Darkstone: Smooth, lush, colorful.  Plus I think Howe is more a "This looks sooooo cool!" type of illustrator.

 

FarFromHome: John Howe seems very "fantasy" to me.


Daughter of Nienna: I love them both and for different reasons. Howe is more precise, clean edges, brilliant colors.

 

Elostirion74: As others have commented Howe’s style is more tidy, his shapes more delineated, his colours also look brighter and clearer, reminding me of some parts of RoTK or the colours of the Shire.

squire: What do you think of his work?

Darkstone: Nice.

 

FarFromHome: I find his stuff a bit too exaggerated for my taste.


Daughter of Nienna: Sometimes I look at one of his pictures and I am wowed.

 

Elostirion74: His motifs are at times very showy and I’m not a great fan of his style, although I think he would do a good job on the look of some of the beasts and the artefacts of evil creatures. I also imagine that the look of the dwellings of the Rohirrim would suit his style.
 

squire: Everyone here had very good and perceptive comments on Howe and Lee. The spiky thing is big with Howe. I generally think of him as being more "fantastic", i.e., coming up with forms and images that are not found in historical or natural reality. His general sensibility is "heightened" -- but he is also a mature and knowledgeable artist who never goes off the deep end, like so many Tolkien artists.


Mumak, by Alan Lee

 

squire: D. Alan Lee: What is his style?

Darkstone: More Romantic than Howe.  Plus he doesn’t seem to use ink lines. 

 

FarFromHome: Alan Lee's work is more lush and organic.

Daughter of Nienna: Alan Lee is my ideal. His drawing talent is something that I aspire to. He captures characters very well, and the power of moments and emotions. His style is more an intuitive drawing, kind of loose style. He uses a lot of tones rather than intense colors. And, I always get the sense there is a bigger world outside the edges.

 

Elostirion74: Lee’s illustrations are more dreamlike, quiet, graceful and captures so well the romantic side of Tolkien - I guess he would be assigned to do much of the concepts for the elven architecture. As I remember him, he often used frames with patterns to demarcate his illustrations.

squire: What do you think of his work?

Darkstone: Nice.


FarFromHome: His sketches for the end credits of ROTK are lovely.
 

Daughter of Nienna: Aesthetically they appeal to me strongly. I could go on, but I won’t.


Elostirion74: I think his illustrations are often lovely, and I like how he portrays characters – they’re not always so easy to get to or immediately likeable. He’s much one of the few illustrators I’ve seen who’s able to do some trustworthy illustrations of hobbits.
Looking back at the times when I used to watch the commentaries I remember in particular the use of Alan Lee’s illustrations from the centenary LoTR-edition in connexion with the features on Tolkien and on script. Along with the audio-book reading (I guess that’s what it was) they felt particularly fitting, and brought me right into the story and the world of M-E.


N.E. Brigand: Based on these two Oliphaunt illustrations, and knowing nothing of art, I would say that Howe is more photo-realistic than Lee, whose image looks a bit sketchy. Neither shows the scene as I imagined it, though Howe is closer (except for the water). Howe seems more interested in light than Lee. (But are his shadows those of the noon sun, when the ambush happened?)
 

squire: Again, refer to everyone's comments. I love Alan Lee's work to death, because it's so understated. However, I have always admired his pencil work more than his watercolors, which always suffer a kind of muddiness by comparison. That said, what I like about him the most is the underlying rather tragic emotion that his work conveys. Without being at all morbid, he is the illustrator of Middle-earth that best captures for me the essence of Tolkien's remark that on some level, The Lord of the Rings is about death.


I recommend his LotR Sketchbook to everyone, by the way, and I wish Howe would do a similar one.

squire: E. What other artists, living or dead, could Jackson have used instead?

darkstone: Mike Ploog, the Brothers Hildebrandt, Boris Vallejo, Olivia, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, and of course Tolkien himself.

 

FarFromHome: I always enjoy the images you provide in the RR, but I've no idea about names. Other than the infamous Hildebrandts, of course. Now that would have been interesting...
On the other hand, I've made the claim before that some of the scenes seem to be inspired by Renaissance and Classical works, my favourite comparison being Fra Angelico's Annunciation in the Prado, as an influence on the look of Arwen's vision of her son. So there's a vast range of possible influences that could be considered.

 

Weaver: Given all of the controversy about changes in the films, can you imagine the debate if Jackson chose some obscure artist's work for the films that didn't resonate with a lot of fans already? And doesn't Jackson say somewhere that he tried very hard make Middle Earth look as Tolkien described it, thinking that if he did that, fans would be more forgiving of changes in plot or character?
Howe and Lee were smart and safe choices, I think.


Daughter of Nienna: I like too many artist to pick out another.

 

N.E. Brigand: I think Cor Blok is still alive, though I'm not sure how is more stylized approach would adapt to film (maybe as animation, after the manner of some Zagreb or UPA artists).
 

squire: Ted Nasmith leaps to mind, of course. His work has improved noticeably over the past ten years. His ability to paint land, sea and sky is unparalleled. But his architectural imagination is impoverished, I think, at least in comparison to Lee and Howe. What seems to have been the case with the films, I believe, is that he just wasn't available to go to New Zealand for a few years. He denies kicking himself ever since -- and his illustrated Silmarillion shows that he harvested at least one juicy Tolkien commission during the years Lee and Howe were out of town!

squire: Are you aware of the claim that some of Ted Nasmith’s images were appropriated by the New Line films without compensation to Nasmith?

darkstone: I view it as an homage.  Jackson made an offer to Nasmith to come down with Lee and Howe.  Nasmith turned it down because of personal problems.  Just think.  The Big Three working of the films would have been awesome.

 

Daughter of Nienna: I was not aware, but I often thought looking at his images…"that was in the movie. I cant think of which ones at the moment (I did not see them on that page). I wish he was on it too.

 

N.E. Brigand: Interesting about Nasmith. I heard him sing in Toronto. Of course, artists working more-or-less faithfully from Tolkien's descriptions will share some aspects of the image. The website you cite goes too far: the eagle flying from Orthanc is not "the exact same shot angle" as the perspective of Nasmith's painting, and some of the other images are either not very alike (in several places, the site tries to cover by saying other inexplicably unavailable frames are more similar to Nasmith's work) or easily explained as being both derived from the book. That said:

- the positioning of the figures at the film's Ford of Bruinen echoes (but is not "identical" to) Nasmith;
- the cliff on Caradhras is shown remarkably as Nashmith portrays it;
- the angle of the watcher's attack and of Gandalf's encounter with the balrog copies Nasmith (Nasmith's balrog, while not perfect, is much better than the film's);
- the ents' attack on Isengard is similar in the film and in Nasmith (and I like neither).

I was most amused by the comment, "I guess most depictions of the Argonath are similar." Similar and wrong, I think you'd add!
 

squire: The case of the imitated images seems bogus to me - Jackson may well have been influenced by Nasmith, but try to prove it! Ha ha ha!

squire: F. What other visual styles than historicized realism might a film of The Lord of the Rings successfully adopt?

darkstone: Successfully?  Who knows?  I’d think something fantastical like Legend, or maybe surreal like the Salvador Dali/Walt Disney collaboration Destino.

 

FarFromHome: I don't think historicized realism is used throughout the movies we have. I know Jackson wanted a depth of realism to give the movies the weight of history, but there are lots of "fantasy" style scenes too - for example, the mountain pass where the storm hits the Fellowship is startlingly different in style from the ultra-real location just preceding it (where Boromir picks up the Ring).

 

Daughter of Nienna: I like that ‘historicized realism’ style because it fits Tolkien’s ability to make his fantasy so real. I would not change that. I think that PJ actually put in a lot more fantastical elements than are noticed because it seem so realistic.
 

squire: There is a long tradition of approaching Tolkien with "high fantasy" and science-fiction looks. I don't care for it, generally, but I don't think you couldn't make a LotR movie with that look. It would require a very strong and dedicated designer at the top! But as I said above, John Howe is on the edge of that tradition, as witness his Minas Morgul and Barad-dur sets (which I dislike but put up with). Lee obviously pulled him back a bit. Richard Taylor also has a rather ripe taste, as evidenced by his early designs, and frankly I think Peter Jackson also basically loves that stuff. There was a lot of restraint shown all around, really. I should like to know what Grant Major's drawings look like.

squire: What did Tolkien think of the entire subject?

Darkstone: Well, he preferred Pauline Baynes because she would listen and incorporate his ideas in her illustrations.  Plus Lewis said she was “far too pretty”, which one assumes was another appealing asset.  It’s interesting that he thought Queen Margrethe’s was most like his own style.  That says something.

Elf_Maven: Do you have a link? Is there anything posted on the Net where I could see the illustrations by Queen Margrethe II of Denmark? I don't think I had even heard about hers before reading your post.

Darkstone: No. Apparently the Queen's copyright is tightly protected by her lawyers. You can see her illustrations in the 1977 edition of LOTR, though. She's done other art as well under a pseudonym.

N.E. Brigand: Tolkien's thoughts were aired here, in a great discussion that you led in 2004. I have the whole thing transcribed to Word; anyone who wants it can e-mail me. I wonder: what other styles besides realism work for any film (at least in color)?

squire: G. How was the difference in the two concept artists’ styles reconciled when it came time to translate their sketches into scenery?

darkstone: Well, it seems usually Lee would do one location while Howe would do another.  Plus their ideas seemed to have been further filtered through the art department.

 

FarFromHome: Perhaps the two artists' visions aren't really reconciled. There is quite a range of styles used for the various episodes of the story, I think.

Daughter of Nienna: Lee: scenes . . . Howe: scenery
Lee: emotional character stuff . . . Howe: action-packed drama stuff
So forth…


Elostirion74: Were their styles ever reconciled? I think different parts of the LoTR-movies betray different styles. They probably got to do quite different things I guess.

 

N.E. Brigand: The director's vision trumps all, presumably, though the production staff's feelings about what was and was not practical presumably were weighed.
 

squire: Well, it wasn't always. As I've noted, Howe and Lee were given specialties, I suppose by Peter Jackson: Howe did the "evil" sets, and Lee the "good" sets. Certainly the movie's Minas Tirith and Barad-dur occupy different spiritual, architectural and physical universes. That said, it's clear from this documentary that the two had a lively interaction, and cross-fertilized each other.


But as far as drawing style is concerned: well, once you have to turn a sketch into lumber and foam, a lot of the fancy pencil work goes out the door, and hard lines rule.


Matte painting of Osgiliath and Minas Tirith, seen from Ithilien, by Roger Kupelian

 


Design of tapestry for the Golden Hall, by Jeremy Bennett

 


Lighting study of Fangorn, by Paul Lasaine

 


Matte painting of the Emyn Muil, by Yanick Dusseault

 

squire: H. Why no mention of the very talented renderers and sketch artists who also provided original concept artwork for this film?

darkstone: Same reason there’s no mention of the very talented extras who also contributed to the acting on set, or why there should be a trap door back of the winner’s podium at the Academy Awards.  There’s only so much time.

 

FarFromHome: At least some of the artists get a quick mention in the commentaries. At least, I remember that Alan Lee mentions by name the artist who did the matte painting of the Emyn Muil that forms the title shot of the EE. That's the one that Darkstone liked so much (although I still don't know whether he was serious!)
 

N.E. Brigand: There was only so much time for the documentary, I would guess, but it's an unfortunate omission.
 

squire: As everyone realized, the documentary just isn't that deep or long. I wanted to make up for it a bit by bringing this point, and some of these excellent artists, to everyone's attention here. To be fair, I should mention that a lot of the work of the renderers and sketch artists were developmental pieces from Lee and Howe's very rough but very original concepts.


But also the documentary is conceived of as a heroic story, and Howe and Lee are two of the heroes. That's the point of this early section. We hear Major and Hennah talk a lot, but we never see them actually working, or what their work looks like.


THE FUNNY STORY – “The Odd Couple”

 

John Howe: It was really important that we share an office because it would have been so ridiculous each to lock ourselves away in a closed room. We found a space in the Weta Workshop . . . 

There was more or less a demilitarized zone between the two of us, and I was continually shoving his junk back onto his side, that could be anything from a library book to an original illustration to half a cup of coffee. And he’d just pile all this stuff up, and I think I’m much more easily distracted than Alan and I do like to try to keep some form of order around me, to, to keep my mind on what I’m doing. But, we simply sat in there and sketched away ten hours a day five to six days a week.

Alan Lee: I draw very, um, intuitively. I don’t think too much about what I’m doing beforehand. So I’ll just start drawing in the middle of a huge sheet of paper and then just keep on expanding it until time runs out.

John Howe: I would be working away on something for a while and I’ll lift my head and Alan would have done this, this enormous fresco across five pages. I think I work just a little bit quicker than Alan, that was my only saving grace.

squire: I. What feeling do you get from Howe and Lee’s comments about their collaboration?  

darkstone: A lot of mutual respect.

 

FarFromHome: I like the way the two artists learned to accommodate each other despite their differences of approach, and it's nice to see their obvious respect for each other. But I'd expect nothing less of artists who've spent their working lives being inspired by LOTR!

 

Weaver: It's a good thing those guys got along...I do a fair amount of writing, and I find it very difficult to write with someone in my space, or to combine my writing with someone else's. Given their different styles of working and neat/clean personalities, I give them tons of credit for not causing a lot of trouble for each other and the production in general.
 

Daughter of Nienna: I love that part of the DVD. I could tell they managed to work with each other despite being so different. Their comments are actually reflected in their artwork, and it’s style. Howe’s tends to be more ‘formally’ composed, controlled, neat, tidy.


Lee’s tends to be looser, more intuitive. I know how that is, when I’m in the flow, it is hard to stop and tidy-up. It may look like chaos, but I bet he knows just where to reach for what drawing tool he wants while he is working so as not to have to think about it too much or be distracted by looking for something.

 

N.E. Brigand: Hard to tell about the collaboration from just the comments you excerpted. I'm sure it was occasionally awkward. If the films had tanked or been attacked by critics, we might hear more about friction. But then, maybe a lack of friction contributed to the films' success.
 

squire: Two introverted but gifted artists will get along, but I've always been fascinated by the possibility of a competitive subtext that simply cannot be made public. I noticed early on that Howe left the production before it was over, while Lee stayed on -- the reason given is that, after all, how many years can one devote one's life to this kind of thing? But I wonder, all the same; after all, it seems like Lee's work is seen in far more of the sets when you add the whole thing up. And Howe seems to have a slight inferiority complex in this particular interview we're discussing -- or is it just a becoming modesty?

FarFromHome: It's interesting what you say about the sense that Howe may be projecting an inferiority complex in this documentary. But it must have been recorded well before ROTK came out, and didn't Alan Lee only win his Oscar for that?

squire: Why did Lee get an Oscar and Howe did not?

darkstone: Howe was not officially credited with Set Decoration.  Hennah and Lee were.

 

FarFromHome: If Darkstone is right that Alan Lee's Oscar was for set decoration, then it must have been that extra mile he went in going onto the sets to paint in situ that made the difference. I think he deserves it just for that great image of Isildur with the broken sword in the Rivendell library (which as I recall was still wet when the actors arrived to do the scene).

 

N.E. Brigand: Someone else explained the Oscar.

 

squire: Anyway, Howe left and Lee stayed, and Lee began dressing the sets since the concept designs were done with, and Lee got camera credit as Set Dresser, and Alan Lee got an Oscar but not for the work he really did, and John Howe did not get an Oscar though he should have.

FarFromHome: I do agree that they both deserved one though - but perhaps there is no Oscar for the category they deserved to be in? Just as there was no category for Andy Serkis, either.
 

Daughter of Nienna: Addendum: Lee, Howe, Nasmith links

Alan Lee  ◊  John Howe  ◊  Ted Nasmith
Alan Lee:
1. John Lee Collection – Rolozo (6 pages, 24 each)
2. Alan Lee Gallery – Council of Elrond (7 pages, 120 images, and a folder of 50 sketches)
3. Alan Lee section – Aumania Fantasy Art - (128 images on 3 pages)
4. Art by Alan Lee – Middle-earth Tours, TORn (4 pages: The Hobbit, LotR)
5. Alan Lee - TLOTR .com  (38 images, 5 pages)
6. Alan Lee – War of the Ring (6 pages, 20 images each)
7. RotK Credit Sketches – by Alan Lee (from the film)
8. Stonia MUD: Small Tolkien's Art Gallery – sorted by places, fight, races (all Alan Lee)
9. Tolkien Art by Alan Lee – (images from LotR)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John Howe:
1. John Howe: Illustrator – official site:
2. John Howe Collection – Rolozo Tolkien (3 pages x 24)
3. John Howe Gallery – (135) Council of Elrond
4. John Howe section – Aumania Fantasy Art (68 images on 2 pages):
5. John Howe pages (57 images, 7 pags) – TLOTR .com:
6. : Art by John Howe  – Middle-earth Tours, TORn (four pages)
7. Lord of The Brush –John Howe DVD Documentary: produced for Bravo UK Cable TV
8.
The 1995 Tolkien Calendar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ted Nasmith:
1. Ted Nasmith– Tolkien Illustrator Official Site
2. Ted Nasmith Collection – Ted Nasmith Collection - Rolozo Tolkien (6 pages x 24)
3. Ted Nasmith Gallery –Council of Elrond (131 images)
4. Ted Nasmith section – Aumania Fantasy Art (99 images on 3 pages)
5. Ted Nasmith pages – TLOTR .com (40 images, 7 pages)
6. Art by Ted Nasmith– Middle-earth Tours – TORn (4 pages)
7. Ted Nasmith pages – War of the Ring (5 pages, 20 images each)


There are more art links in the ‘Image Gallery Links’ in the Website Directory in my footer:

Websites Directory

 

N.E. Brigand: Whew! Well, that's all I have time to respond to now, just two threads. But I have read them all, and most of the responses. The nice thing about slower boards is that you have more than a week to answer a week's discussion.

 

Elf_Maven: Are you going to answer? Oh, my! Thank you for all the images. squire, you'd better post your own responses later on, because I think you're leaving us in the dust!
 

 

Home:                              Previous:                        Next: