This is a very interesting discussion, and all of the contributors have made salient points. I had a discussion very like this with a friend recently over the vividness of color on miniatures.
There is a painter whose work I admire very much who is master of color. The color on his pieces are always vivid and, usually, quite beautiful. He is a master painter and has won numerous awards, but in spite of his mastery he is generally criticized because of his colors--they are not "accurate" in all cases. Now, they (his colors) are not "prettified" nor are they wrong; the reds are red and the blues are blue, and so on; they just do not fit some people's conception of acuracy.
At a recent show he and I were discussing the "darkness" of a lot of the exhibits. The technique was generally very good, but the overall effect was a little dark for my tastes. Some time later I looked at the posting from a French show and marvelled at some of the colors. The technique wasn't as flawless in some of the pieces, but overall the colores seemed brighter and more vivid.
Now vividness in a miniature is a relative thing, depending on subject matter, status of the subject an other factors. If the subject is a Vietnam era soldier in the boonies or goig to or, especially, coming from, there won't be or shouldn't be much brightness to the colors; if the Vietnam subject is on a parade ground or in the headquarters, the colors could be more vivid and bright. Soldiers in the heat of things in the ACW tended to be rather drab, but some of them fro special unts or the officer corps could be as bright as a preening bird. I like to paint Napoleonics because of the praticeof color. I don't have funky those guys, especially the light cavalry, got, but I am sure they got pretty washed out as well.
A miniature is supposed to be a representation of the real thing; it is, also, a piece of art. We, the eye-balling public and concerned co-conspirators, should be able to appreciate both aspects of the "little guy" (or girl, as the case may be). Sometimes we may vote on the side of "accuracy" and sometimes we see the inaccuracies and still vote on the piece because the "art" is so good. It's all in the eye of the beholder, anyway.
Those of us who don't sculpt or who don't even do much modification on stock figures are at the mercy of the manufacturers to get the details right. And sometimes we accept minor imperfections because we like the subject, pose, attitude, sculpting, whaterver and the imperfections are minor. Sometime we pass by a subject because the details are wrong and, probably more often, the criteria mentioned above are wrong. I'm looking at a piece now like that: he's ACW and very likely the piece can be criticized for being "inaccurate." I'm not so sure a cavalry officer in the ACW never looked like this, but it probably wasn't common--and not up to "regs." I like the piece and will go ahead on with it and, maybe, I will be pleased with the results--if I can master the art of the thing.
I talk too much.
D
