I say billion dollar because my hunch is that these first two pictures are the ones that inspired Walt to make Disneyland. Look at the picture of the hearth (above). The artist beckons us deep into the picture then rightward for an imaginary walk into the fireplace. Look at the low, sheltering ceiling and at the beams which appear to struggle heroically to hold up the ceiling. Check out the ship which every boy would want to get a closer look at. Can't you hear your footsteps on the floor? Isn't the glow from the fire appealing?
Then there's the toy shelves (below). Each toy is one that you'd like to pick up and look at. You'd like to run your fingers along the edge of the shelves, maybe over the carvings. The artist could have made the shadows deeper and slightly more menacing, but that would defeat the purpose, which is to invite the viewer to come closer and examine the toys. There's a real tactile pitch going on here. I want to step into the picture then touch every toy on the shelf.
Maybe you don't see why I'm singling out Tenggren and the pictures above. Maybe you're thinking that all the top-grade Disney artists probably had the same ability, or close to it. OK, take a look at the picture below.
This is obviously a the work of a really skilled painter but it doesn't invite me in and I have no desire to hold the toys. The window might have been more interesting. After all, windows are a powerful psychological symbol just like hearths. Here the window is just a prop. The pillar is pretty good but we don't see where it connects to the ceiling so we never root for the hard-working little pillar struggling to keep the ceiling up. The floor is just textured color.
Tenngren had the ability to make the viewer want to enter his pictures, look around and pick things up. To me they suggest Disneyland where you really can enter these worlds.
22 comments:
This picture is on the cover of that Illusions of Life book, isn't it?
Yes- I do want to touch the elephant- who doesn't???
Eddie, you never cease to amaze me! You explain things so well, and about things I would have never thought of on my own. I guess that's why you're such a great artist. You can actually feel the things you see and express what you feel about them so well. I wish I could think the way you do. Even when you're recovering from eye surgery, the world is ten times more beautiful through your eyes than anyone elses.
Damn, I'm sappy!
Yeah, those paintings kick ass. I like that lion toy!
Wow, the way you worded and described those paintings were everything i felt but could never say. That is such a good comparrison, i'm glad you pointed that out...sometimes artistic ability isnt everything, you gotta be able to also set a perfect stage.
Great post.
These are great. However, I thought they were done by Claude Coats or Merle Cox. Didn't Tenggren do the ink and watercolor inspirational sketches?
I don't really know but Pincchio is one of my favorites; the closest a classic Disney movie came to film noir.
The painting that doesn't invite you in appears to be illuminated by early morning daylight and looks like a hangover, vs. the others which are fire-lighted.
But without Eddie's commentary, I never would have noticed any difference!
Wow, as a "civilian" I never would have noticed the invitingness factor.
Question: What was the purpose for these paintings? Is the third one purposely "blah" to make the characters "read" better? Or should this not be a concern?
As always, thanks for sharing!
It seems it's one thing to be very skilled with a paintbrush, but with no life in the brushstrokes there's little to show for it.
The toy painting is gorgeous. It feels almost magical!
Heya Eddie!
Great blog - I'm loving it...
So - I gotta disagree with you on just sourcing Tenggren as a main influence for Disneyland. There were many, many inspirations Walt picked up on - but the biggest ones were not just a love of european fairy tales, but rather his disappointing "daddy's day" experiences at all the local L.A. and Orange County "kiddie parks" back in the 1940s. Places like Bud Hurlbut's operation at five points in El Monte, and Dave Bradley's Beverly Park (now the site of the Beverly Center)weren't exactly the family experience that Disney wanted. Walt thought he could do better - showcasing his studio characters in three dimensions was a natural conclusion to come to - but initially, it was just about doing a "better" kiddie park. Having said that - Ken Andersons dimensional interpretations of all the fairy tale buildings in Storybook Land were obviously inspired by (and paid homage to, in my mind) Tenggren's brilliant designs. The early WED model shop (Fred Joerger, Harriet Burns, et al) did an amazing job creating those little models...They still look great!
Tangaroa knows his shite!
I was going to say...everything he said. But I will say this: I'm sure that it's no coincidence that the same man who commissioned and pushed his artists to get exactly this look for the Pinocchio BGs created Disneyland...his eye for detail and demand for quality was the same 15 years later...so in a way you're both right.
But I remember reading Walt's words about the boredom of the carousel at Griffith Park, and the sad non-maitenance of such as Beverly Park, etc., too.
ALI: Now that you mention it I do seem to remember that one book attributed the toy painting to Claude Coats. A veteran painter I used to know said that Coates used to work from the art direction of other painters so Tenngren may still have had an influence. Anyway, I apologize for the wrong attribution. I wish I could change the headline to this piece but I'm such a butterfingers at the keyboard that I'd probably end up erasing everything.
Eddie
Actually Eddie,
ALL of the paitings you have here were background paintings. A really good example of Tenggren art would have been that amazing arial view of the village streets that he drew to show Pinocchio and Honest John on their way to see Stromboli.
hey eddie!
it's not enough for inquisitive minds to know just what is good but why.
is there any point to be had WHY the handling of such objects are so appealing and inviting? what exactly about the former makes it so much more appealing than the later? is it purely compositional? is it how the paint is handled (i noticed on the first one the light is very soft and yellow, whereas on the second one the painter used just white to highlight which kills the effect). is there a concrete principle to be derived?
OR is it just some ethereal, intangible quality about it that this guy has but the other guy doesn't?
hope i'm not making you reach too far into your theory bag. i've been in bed all week this week and i, too, am learning the value of health.
your friend,
chris allison
Personally, I really want to take that model ship down and play with it...
Like Glamafez said, the lighting in the third picture is just unpleasant compared to the others. It feels like one of those bright overcast days where the light is strong but directionless.
I just want to thank the people who wrote in to disagree with me here, on this page, because all the comments of that type were uniformly friendly and informative. Thanks much!
I have to say that I still believe the pictures had an influence on Walt but that's an intuition, based on no evidence whatsoever, and maybe I'm somewhat less certain about it than I was before I read the comments on this page.
I'm really, terribly sorry to leave a comment like this under a completely unrelated topic, but...is there any way to send an email to Mister Eddie F.? To ask a question about his theories of him personally? Thanks. :]
Anonymous: I know what this is. It's my daughter and her giggley friends with a note saying something like: "You big hunk of man! Meet me naked with a feather in your bottom behind the bushes in the park at midnight!" I show up naked and get pummeled with waterbaloons.
There's more great Gustaf Tenggren artwork at the ASIFA Archive too.
THE LITTLE TRAPPER
SMALL FRY AND THE WINGED HORSE
Thanks for another informative and interesting post, Eddie!
The background paintings where the things I loved about the early Disney movies. I think that's what makes those films work so well. It's not really the bland characters (though the villains are an exception), but the backgrounds and special effects that surround the scene.
Sleeping Beauty was always my favorite for the Eyvind Earle backgrounds and special effects (and villain).
That might be why Disney was so attractive to the audience, because of the effects that the artists developed. At least in the features. Like a fan loving a movie mostly for the CGI but not much else. When I was child, I would watch a horror film just to see the cool monster, not really caring about the characters. Now that I’m older, I look for character development, acting and pacing, plus various other observations.
So really, what Bob Clampett, Chuck Jones, and Tex did for their cartoons, Disney made up for from his special effects wizards.
that was a neat post, man. everything you said about those paintings was totaly right on.
Hi, this is the Anonymous who was going to balloonbarrage naked Eddie. Now that I've been found out, I'm forced to think up a question on the spot. :(
um um um let's see what could it be um what do i wonder oh yeah i know:
any theories on computer animation?, in the context of: i don't like any of the computer animations i've seen, they play out like puppet shows, not very interesting, but i'm about to go to university and all of my friends/family keep telling me to learn the 3d stuff instead of the traditional stuff, and all i care about is what has the greatest potential to excite people by connecting with them emotionally, and um i've never felt excited like that watching any computer animation and i was just wondering if it's cuz of something inherent to the medium (lacking some essential soul or character that traditional alone allows) or it's just cuz the movies i've seen have been bad movies. :(
like, i've watched your "worm paranoia" about 40 times, and about once or twice a week i watch it again just cuz it's so cool and involving and dynamic and I want to learn everything i can from it, but whenever i try to watch any of these pixar or dreamworks things i feel a little embarassed for myself and spend most of it just searching for spots in the animations where they did something-anything interesting, instead of being wowed. :( but i have no idea if they could technically make a 3d cartoon with the same energy as worm paranoia - if they were able/inclined to. i don't know if it has to do with taste, ability, or technology, or what, but if i find myself unable to be exciting too i'm really going to regret having spent my time learning the 3d stuff. :|
so i'm just trying to figure it all out to make the most of the experience i have the opportunity to undertake over the course of the next few years.
i've tried to ask this question before and people can get so mad at me for it :-o hence the anonymous and the meek non-capitalized manner of typing, sorry. :(
um bye :~(
p.s. sorry mister tenggren, this is the last time i'll do this to a series of comments all about you, promise :(
Hey Eddie, how many years have you been doing this theory thing?
I learn alot from them.
Post a Comment