Art Girona

[quang]

There's a growing belief prevalent in some circles that 'accurate' equals 'boring' implying at the same time that an inaccurate, caricatural figure would surely be inspiring and full of character.

Everyone can see the fallacy and the deliberately misleading false 'truth' underlying such statement. But obviously some people, for some reasons (ignorance or sheer laziness) NEED to believe in it.

If words have a meaning, there are two 'legs' to the term 'historical miniatures': 'historical' implying accuracy and 'miniatures' implying the evocative, artistic character of the figure. Discard one of these two legs and what you get is at best a limp.

A rifle is a rifle, right? Wrong. A percussive rifle is NOT a flintlock, just as a Spitfire is NOT a jumbo jet. If there's one domain where we should avoid such simplistic reasoning, it's this hobby where the key word is 'precision' in every sense of the term.

Indeed, you get what you pay for. Just make sure to know what you're getting.

A bogus is NOT a bonus.

Quang

 

[Stefano Borin]

I'm near to Daniel's opinion.
There are a lot of company, some the best on market who just work approximately, for ex. uniform cuttig(absulutely out!!), anatomy...etc...that because the costumers aggry that.
This discussion is too good because it means that is growing up a new costumer's awareness.



ciao Stefano

 

[mahross]

Guys,

As to his left arm. Maybe this is the culprit. See any similarities?

and th DC figure

Some re - modeling and i think we may have a winner. It would also explain the rifle issue. Would be interesting to know if the DC figure's left arm has the rifle cast integraly just the 30th foot figure.

Ross

 

[T50]

Aside from the historical accuracy, I think the DC figure by
Latorre is the most 'attractive' one out of the 3 lineup. It is simply
a better representation of a human IMHO. What strikes me the
most whenever I see Latorre's work is the natural pose and posture.
He also captures the look of material and makes excellent drapes
and wrinkles. If it's true that he doesn't give a flying rat's behind
about historical accuracy, it's too bad. Maybe Art Girona doesn't
care much about historical accuracy or ask Latorre to do so?

TS

 

[KeithP]

Great comments from all of you on historical accuracy. I guess I am one of the guys who like Latorres style and will forgive him (and other sculptors) some degree of inaccuracy for this reason. A gross anachronism like an AK47 with Davy Crocket, I would not forgive. But, not being overly knowledgable on many many of the historical data, I will end up looking at the overall presentation.

BTW, for many years, as a kid I thought Davy Crocket and Daniel Boone were the same guy because Fess Parker played them both in the TV shows. And, my mom never let me have the coon skin cap either... "Course she wouldn't let my sister have Beatle boots... :lol:

Keith

 

[Anders Heintz]

I agree, some good discussion!

There's a growing belief prevalent in some circles that 'accurate' equals 'boring' implying at the same time that an inaccurate, caricatural figure would surely be inspiring and full of character.

Everyone can see the fallacy and the deliberately misleading false 'truth' underlying such statement. But obviously some people, for some reasons (ignorance or sheer laziness) NEED to believe in it.

I would say that is a very false statement and a tad ignorant in it self. Although it is pure personal preference what is attractive to someone, one cant say that only because it is correct it is boring or because it is unaccurate it is interesting. And to go on to say that some people NEED that statement to be true is even more ignorant. Why does anyone have to justify why one likes a figure?

Indeed, you get what you pay for. Just make sure to know what you're getting.

Exactly, you couldnt be more correct, if you know what your buying then its all gravy and like Dani said, the majority obviously dont care as Latorres figs sells like hot cakes.

I think one of the beauties of Latorres figures is the discussions they create, everybody and their grandpa have to comment how inaccurate they are, still they sell a ton of them and the best thing is that Latorre never says a thing about it.

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by Anders Heintz@Mar 10 2006, 02:39 PM
Although it is pure personal preference what is attractive to someone, one cant say that only because it is correct it is boring or because it is unaccurate it is interesting.


Personally when painting a figure I would take a figure with character and which is superbly scultped but a tad off as far as authenticity over a well sculpted but clinical (i.e sterile and boring) but 100% accurate figure

Anders, I'm curious, both of these are YOUR statements, which one do you subscribe to? ~Gary

 

[RobH]

first off thanks for the image and links to the correct type of weapon Mr Crockett might have used.

Secondly, and this is just me thinking out loud; maybe the perception of sterility in some (and I say some, not all) miniatures that are deemed totally accurate is the result of the artist losing some of the human element of the piece by getting wrapped up in the historical aspect of research.......? Please, it's not a blanket statement at all, just a view of what may happen on occasions. As a result they may lack soul.

Maybe Latorre just wants to create; and as Anders says, he does produce characterful figures that sell by the bucketload!! And like Taesung's own figures, he usually captures the human element of a piece.

AND of course the inverse is true; for every attractive "psuedo historical" piece that Latorre produces, there's plenty of sterile "psuedo historical" pieces out there too!

 

[quang]

Whatever you're saying, Anders.

Just keep one thing in mind: I was NOT discussing Raul Latorre (or his figures or Art Girona's). So your statement that Latorre sell tons of figures is irrelevant.

What I was discussing is the current trend of so-called historical figures which are lacking the most elementary rudiment of research and historical accuracy. It doesn't bother you? Fine. Just don't call it 'historical'. Simple.

If you wish to carry on this debate about accuracy, I think it's only fair to stop hijacking this thread devoted to Art Girona's new figures and move over to a new one created for that purpose.

We can call it : 'Historical accuracy. Who needs it?'. What do you, Planeteers, think about it?

All the best,
Quang

 

[Anders Heintz]

Although it is pure personal preference what is attractive to someone, one cant say that only because it is correct it is boring or because it is unaccurate it is interesting.

Personally when painting a figure I would take a figure with character and which is superbly scultped but a tad off as far as authenticity over a well sculpted but clinical (i.e sterile and boring) but 100% accurate figure

Anders, I'm curious, both of these are YOUR statements, which one do you subscribe to? ~Gary

Im not sure what you mean Gary, it is obvious that you want to create something to stir the pot.

The two statements are completely different, and ofcourse the first one is taken out of context, it was a simple reply to Quangs post. The two posts speaks of two different things.

Ofcourse they are MY statements, anyone who read the thread knows that. To put it simply to you so you can understand what I mean, all I am saying is that if there are two figures of the same subject, one is 100% accurate but lack an interesting pose, dull and stiff figure but decently sculpted, the other is off as far as authenticity but is very well posed and have some great folds and drapery to put paint on, I would chose the second one to paint hands down.

I guess it is my fault that I didnt spell it out for you so you would understand it in the first place.

Now go ahead and pick some other things I've said and question me...

 

[Anders Heintz]

Just keep one thing in mind: I was NOT discussing Raul Latorre (or his figures or Art Girona's). So your statement that Latorre sell tons of figures is irrelevant

What I was discussing is the current trend of so-called historical figures which are lacking the most elementary rudiment of research and historical accuracy. It doesn't bother you? Fine. Just don't call it 'historical'. Simple.

Then why did you post it here? Im guessing because thats what we are talking about, the same reason that I have been posting here and not in a new thread. To suggest that it should be a new thread is kind of silly as the discussion is about the responses to this particular thread.

 

[quang]

As far as I know, the title of this thread is: 'Art Girona, new releases'.

Since this discussion has shifted and moved to the 'historical accuracy' topic, I'm merely suggesting that we leave Art Girona alone and move elsewhere to carry on discussing.

If you, Anders, find this silly, just be my guest.

As for me, I'm bowing out.

Cheers,
Q.

 

[RobH]

Well I believe that Anders was simply responding fairly to a "historical accuracy" issue bought up regarding one of Art Girona's new releases; it just happens to be Latorres figure that was singled out . And then a number of us fairly involved ourselves in a reasonable and interesting debate. And a good portion of that debate also centered around the figure and it's other feature - overall appearence, folds etc.

That's not to say a thread about Historical Accuracy isn't a bad idea.

 

[Anders Heintz]

I agree Rob, it could be an interesting debate, but in reality we all know who the accuracy sticklers are and those who are not concerned with it as much.

What I think is sad in this case is the attempt to single me out and make me look bad as the 'guy who hijacked' the thread when in reality it was not me, but he who accuses me. Which I guess is the best method to smear someone when they cant win in an argument.

We have stayed on topic pretty much through this debate, with interesting points from almost all sides, and nothing is better then a healthy discussion. Sure some personal stuff have come from it but that is to be expected when looking at the participants.

Anyways, its probably best to leave it alone and agree to disagree in a case such as this.

I for one are looking forward to paint up the Crocket figure and Im looking forward to see it at shows all around the world.

 

[Dani A.]

Hello again,

Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts...

The fact that a given outlook of things is the one most widely accepted does not necessarily mean it is the right one. It may be, or it may be not.

Also, that the fact a given product is sold by droves does not necessarily mean it has to be good. To put an extreme, but easily understood, example, Mein Kampf sold by the million, and the quality of its literary and ideological contents are surely arguable.

Also, Anders, I can not fail but see that you seem to easily associate the accuracy issue with negative or unflattering adjectives and nouns, like "boring"; and seem to tend to qualify those interested in it with unflattering terms like "sticklers". I do not think Gary or Quang are seeing things. Or maybe all three of us are.

Regards,

Daniel

 

[Anders Heintz]

Also, Anders, I can not fail but see that you seem to easily associate the accuracy issue with negative or unflattering adjectives and nouns, like "boring"; and seem to tend to qualify those interested in it with unflattering terms like "sticklers". I do not think Gary or Quang are seeing things. Or maybe all three of us are.

Hola Dani,

Not at all, there are a lot of figures out there that are extremely well done and very accurate as well. The reason for me talking about accurate figures as boring, is in the context of how high authenticity rates when I paint a figure. Like I posted before, if a figure is of the same subject, one is accurate but boring, the other is not so accurate but very interesting I would pick the second one everytime. It is not like I am saying that ALL accurate figures are boring (for that matter a ton of unaccurate figures are boring to me as well), which is definately not the case and would be ignorant to say.

When I say sticklers it is not in a negative way, to me a stickler is one that stays to the rules or in this case someone if there is no pictures or other forms of evidence it just did not happen. I am definately a stickler of authenticity when it comes to sculpting, but painting for me is just for fun and for relaxation so it takes second hand, but ofcourse, the best would be a fun accurate figure.

The fact that a given outlook of things is the one most widely accepted does not necessarily mean it is the right one. It may be, or it may be not.

Also, that the fact a given product is sold by droves does not necessarily mean it has to be good. To put an extreme, but easily understood, example, Mein Kampf sold by the million, and the quality of its literary and ideological contents are surely arguable.

But in reality it doesnt matter if its right or wrong, buiness is business and if a certain type of figure sells well, then they will continue to produce what sells. The beauty of it all is that if one doesnt like the figure, one doesnt have to buy it and let the manufacturers know by their vote of the wallet so to speak.

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by Dani A.@Mar 10 2006, 10:50 PM
Also, that the fact a given product is sold by droves does not necessarily mean it has to be good.

Daniel

Yeah, look at all those Thomas kincaid prints, coffee mugs, and cute little houses that sell. I can't help but rank his stuff in the same catagory as velvet paintings of Elvis. Fortunately I think we'll never have to worry about him sculpting miniatures. ~Gary

 

[RobH]

Yeah, look at all those Thomas kincaid prints, coffee mugs, and cute little houses that sell. I can't help but rank his stuff in the same catagory as velvet paintings of Elvis

I kind of think of what you refer to as "tacky". However, just because something may not be right historically it's not nessecarily tacky. As stated here already by others, Latorre can sculpt indredibly well and he's very talented at what he does, and as I say, his work does have more life than the majority even if it isn't right. Just because it doesn't fit into your idea of what's right and wrong, I think lumping it in with velvet paintings of Elvis is pushing it a little far.

But then again, it's all subjective at the end of the day.

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by RobH@Mar 11 2006, 07:57 AM
I think lumping it in with velvet paintings of Elvis is pushing it a little far.

Rob, I guess my attempt at humor has failed. My comparison with Kincaid "art" was just that in reference to the fact it sells very well does not mean it's good. I give Latorre much more credit than to comapare what he does with bad art. It's a mater of appeal, and despite anatomical and or accuracy issues and what have you, I can easily see the appeal that Latorre's has~Gary

 

[RobH]

Rob, I guess my attempt at humor has failed

Always a problem interpreting the written word on your own.....occupational hazzard of forums I guess.

To change the subject away from Latorre and to another of the new releases (did someone mention anatomical issues?), I've just noticed something odd about the Seaforth Highlander:
A reminder cos it's 3 pages back:

Am I seeing things or is the right hand holding the Broadsword looking a little strange at the wrist/hand department - the wrist appears somewhat bent, almost curved, and where I visualise the hand to be is short of the handle of the sword. Actually looks slightly deformed to my eyes. Otherwise a nice study.