Accuracy v.s. Artistic

[Jim Patrick]

OK, see if we can get this started here and out of an individuals (any individual) v bench. Feel free to post your thoughts here. This is the ideal place to discuss this topic. It is and can be a "hot" topic as wev'e seen. The main reason for starting this here is not because of any recent "discussions" (although I'm sure we can all see what I'm refering to) but more as an answer to "discussions" that have popped up (or is it flamed up :lol: ) from time to time. This will allow us all the chance to express our views and try (I know it's hard sometimes) to keep the understanding up and the arguments down. Maybe even if you see something on a thread (an individuals or news) and post your thoughts here with a link to the thread in question. Just some thoughts. I'm really a little short on time (life has that way of doing that too me) so I'll post my thoughts on this later. In the meantime, feel free to step up on your soapbox and express your views. Just one rule here. DON'T START SLAMMING SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THEIR VIEWS!

Enjoy,
Jim Patrick

 

[btavis]

Why would the two have to be mutually exclusive?

 

[bonehead]

Yeah Bob!

You hit the nail on the head! Sorry, but I think this discussion is a no go.....

 

[Bluesking]

My view is that in modelling miniatures we should endeavour to recreate the real thing in miniature. However, should you want to paint something purely for the joy of painting it unfettered by reality then it's up to you - it won't be a competition piece so a little of what you fancy does you good.

 

[Dani A.]

Exactly! A figure can be accurate AND have an artistic value, too. This is incontrovertible, so there's no room for discussion.

There's no more to be said.

Dani

 

[KeithP]

A figure can be accurate AND have an artistic value, too. This is incontrovertible, so there's no room for discussion.

There's no more to be said.

So, how about a figure that is Inaccurate? It Can't have artistic value? Why?

 

[Dani A.]

So, how about a figure that is Inaccurate? It Can't have artistic value? Why?

Please, can you point exactly where in my text have I said such a thing?

We are confusing things.

If that is what you are asking, yes, a figure with inaccuracies can have artistic value. On the other hand, artistic value do not excuse inaccuracies.

Historical accuracy is a objective concept. A figure either is historically correct, or it is not historically correct.

Art values, to the contrary, are very subjective. I can like one of Lady Elizabeth Butler's military paintings, even if they are not historically accurate. And another person would not like the same painting, and would'nt, even if it was accurate. It is a question of personal tastes.

It could be that I, personally, find that inaccuracies in a figure offset any artistic value it could have, and then I do not like it. Because if we are speaking of historical miniatures, they should be accurate.

I think this is the crux of the matter, that there are now two tendencies: those who model or paint figures because they have an interest in history, and like historically accurate figures, and consider accuracy a paramount value; and those who just like to model or paint figures, with no particular, or very limited, interest in history, and do not concede much importance to accuracy. And that's just fine. But these are different things.

Dani

 

[Alan]

deleted

 

[John Long]

My only problem with this issue is if you wait until you are 100% accurate on any given subject you may never complete a project. Everyone knows that person in the club who never finishes anything because he's unsure of the proper length of the pilot tube or waiting for the exact PE set, or his references are conflicting. At some point you have to just do it with the information you have. Either that or decide what your hobby is; research or modelling.

 

[garyjd]

Given the track record on past "discussions" I think I'll just spectate.~Gary

 

[Dani A.]

what you imagine is an inaccuracy,

Accuracy has nothing to do with imagining things.

Accuracy is a goal that we should strive for and is generally possible in many cases ...however , even then I am willing to bet that you would find somone who sees the Primary reference as saying something different from the way you interpreted it ).
Generally speaking however Accuracy is not alway and in every eventuality 100% realisable.

When you can not have absolute certainty, and true, you can't have it in every case, then next acceptable thing is what is called an educated guess, that is, some conjecture one can defend as presumably correct, all things considered, and based on what evidence one has. This is perfectly adequate, too, and indeed can be debatable, but it is still adequate.

Also, history being a dynamical discipline, it could happen that a new discovery shatters previous hyphoteses. Of course! But if you want to do historical miniatures, you should strive for as much accuracy as possible in a given moment, subject to available sources.

Dani

 

[Jim Patrick]

I completely agree that the two go hand in hand. I also agree that in itself closes the discussion. However, we have all seen this question raised again and again and.........you get the point. If I may sum up what Alan was saying, "The argument is an individual's perspective". Again, I completely agree. Possibly the title was made in a bit of haste. I was trying to detour the enevitable. Forgive me. Maybe a better approach could be "How far is too far?". Granted, this again is an individuals perspective, what I'm after is what is YOUR perspective? We have an abundant supply of professional artist and the two that have replied (not singling you out, just an example) "How far is too far for you?". Have you ever taken short cuts for whatever reason? Any reason at all. Or possibly made a mistake not realizing you had? What of the rest of "our" sculpters here in pF? What about you? Dani, please read the first rule. Possibly you did but you post came across as questiong Kieth because he asked a question. I didn't take his question as an attack on you. He wasn't saying you said that. Just a question. If you weren't "slamming" (that may be a bit harsh in this case ) Kieth then please re read your thread with some objectivity.

My Views

I love the research that goes into this hobby probably more than anything else. I love the fact that I can get a book (several in my case :lol: ) and find something that the sculpter didn't or chose to overlook. Not that I fix it all (heck, I can BARELY sculpt) but this funny little thing occurs along the way and here is what drives my passion for this hobby. I EDUCATE MYSELF A LITTLE MORE WITH EACH FIGURE. This is what I like the most. Again, not that I can (or even want to) fix evrything. A case in point. My Teutonic Knight by Pegaso. During my research, I discovered several flaws with the figure. Heck, look at my Robert The Bruce. I didn't say, "Oh well, trash this figure". In fact, I am painting my knight in probably historically inaccurate colors and heraldry. I "like" the colors and the way it looks when finished. Not that I can accomplish what Andrea Jula has, but I can try. So in this case, I have chosen artistic over accuracy. All of which brings me back to my original point. Yes, accuracy and artistic go hand in hand, they can be and are seperated on a regular basis.

Your thoughts?
Jim Patrick

 

[Dani A.]

Just another thing: any amount of the well-known "that happened too long ago for us to know" or "you were not there to see" theories will not excuse inaccuracies. When an inaccuracy can be proved, then the figure is inaccurate as a historical miniature. Full stop. It is like being pregnant; you either are, or are not.

It is reduced to what I said: everyone can peel as many layers as he wants to. And everyone can find enjoyment in different layers. On the other hand, one must have a clear view of WHAT exactly he wants to do: historical figures, or figures. Or both, why not? NOT THAT ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER: but they are not the same thing.

And I think now I will step back. No need to go again and again over the same ground, as Patrick mentions... and this ground has a tendency to get hot, as I have experienced in earlier occasions.

Dani

 

[Jim Patrick]

When an inaccuracy can be proved, then the figure is inaccurate as a historical miniature. Full stop.

My question then is this, should that stop the artis from painting, or more importantly, has this ever stopped you from painting a figure? Just wondering. What about the rest of you?

Please Dani, don't step back. Maybe we should all take a deep breath when responding instead of stepping back.

Jim Patrick

 

[Blind Pew]

Great debate this one.

Well, historical accuaracy and authenticity is all great, but if you ask me, what really does seperate run-of-the-mill figures from the "must have's!" is one other factor, call it the x-factor if you like, and that can usually be summed up by the words "artistic flair." So, they don't usually go hand-in-hand, but when they do, the figure is a top classic.

Best examples I can think of at this minute are Mike Blanks' vignettes (his latest stuff is a prime example), much of Mike Good's stuff and I would probably be remiss if I neglected to mention Shep Paine as well. There are others of course, but these three in particualar spring to mind. Bill Horan's vignettes are well worth a mention as well, as their often dramatic flair really seperates them from everyone else's work, and is the thing that we really hold dear about them as spectators.

Not that any of these gents has left out historical accuracy by any means - but it's the artistic flair they have shown which really gives their work that WOW factor that captures our imagination and inspires us all.

 

[Jim Hockett]

I'm not sure much of anything of a constructive nature will come of this thread, but here's my two cents worth.
First, I think we would all do well to remember that there are many different native tongues for the members here, and when coupled with the tendency of what's typed to lack the nuances of a spoken conversaton, kind of sets things on edge from the start.
Secondly, I do both. Sometimes I just want to get paint on a figure because it is "calling" me. Other times, I will spend a lot of time researching, and I definitely would not refer to another painted figure for reference in that case. Is one more "right" than the other. Not really, it's just a matter of what I wanted to do at the time.
Many of the figures we see now look too "painted" for my taste. (more like what you might see on a canvas rather than the more subtle shading I prefer) Although this doesn't suit my taste, I admire the painting ability of those who do it, and I can still learn from what they do. I certainly do not think any less of them because they choose a different approach.
What it all boils down to is that this is a hobby and we should all approach it in whatever way makes us the happiest.

Jim

 

[KeithP]

Dani's response to my post is fine. My comment initally was to get an idea if others think that inaccurate does not have artistic value. I admire all the passion around this subject. No worries...

Keith

 

[Dani A.]

It would be unpolite not answering...

My question then is this, should that stop the artis from painting,

Most definitely, this is not a YES/NO question; it depends on every particular person, and every one can have perfectly god reasons to do whatever he wants; which leads me to your next remark...

or more importantly, has this ever stopped you from painting a figure?

I do not usually buy figures I know are inaccurate. If I do, it is because I plan to correct them, but not often, because buying such a piece is a way of still supporting what I think is an inappropriate commercial behaviour. I do not like to paint commercial figures which are sold as historical miniatures but that, in reality, are not what they claim to be. And in many cases, it happens to be that this is because of sloppy research or no research at all, which I find particularly inexcusable in a commercial release, where every effort should have been made to produce a correct miniature. So, I vote with my wallet.

This does not mean I never break from the historical vein. Sometimes I like a non historical, or even a fantasy subject, for a change. Why not? But this is not "for relax": I really enjoy researching historical subjects! Choosing a different subject is just because I like it, not because researching is a pain for me.

Hope this clears the matter, at least as far as my approach is concerned.

Dani

 

[Jim Patrick]

Then, "My apologies" are due here.

Jim Patrick

 

[mikec55]

Somewhat along this line (& I'm pretty sure I already know the answer), I've often wondered what the reaction would be if someone with outstanding artisitic ability were to paint, say for instance, an ACW zouave (or any other era, war, battle) in a pink-with-purple -polkadots(or something less abrasive) uniform ? Please understand that I mean no disrespect to veterans anywhere nor to any members of this forum . But I do remember recently seeing somewhere (maybe here?) the 19th century? English soldier painted in a WW2 German camo pattern. I thought it was an interesting idea as well as a very well painted figure.

Mike