Historically correct.

[Charles Denomolos]

When I was in the Navy, I used to work payroll. When a service meber transferred from station to station, they could get an "advanced pay" of up to 3x their monthly pay, to help in the high cost of moving. They were given 1, 2, or 3 years to pay it back. This payment system was called "beating a dead horse". Don't think that is the actual root of the term, but, it goes way, way back....

 

[Charles Denomolos]

oh, and just to keep it on track to the main discussion, while the Navy's dress uniforms held their colors very well, the work uniforms(called "dungarees", or "convicts", did not, and you could see vastvariances, depending on if the service member was in deck division, or was a snipe, or if he knew how to wash his own clothes, etc etc.....

 

[Dani A.]

Hola,

It is interesting that about 3/4 of the votes went for the tendencies more in agreement with the truly historical figure concept; while the rest went for the contrary tendencies. Which of course are entirely valid choices.

Remarkably, these statistics are not quite reflected in the number of actual postings to the thread - it would seem those who do not care for historicity are more ready to defend their thesis ((or feel they have a greater need of doing so) and, in some cases, even trying to minimize, critizise or negate the validity of other side's thesis, more that actually defending their own.

Curious. And significative, I would say.

Regards,

Daniel

 

[Baron]

I've voted "ALMOST ALWAYS". I do not paint usually and when sculpting always trying to be historically as accurate as possible, but when I'm buying figure, I do it to learn from a sculptor who made it.
Ernst

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by Dani A.@Sep 15 2006, 01:10 PM
Remarkably, these statistics are not quite reflected in the number of actual postings to the thread - it would seem those who do not care for historicity are more ready to defend their thesis ((or feel they have a greater need of doing so) and, in some cases, even trying to minimize, critizise or negate the validity of other side's thesis, more that actually defending their own.

Daniel

This is something I've noticed from past discussions on the subject. Anyway to each his/her own.~Gary

 

[Patrick Kirk]

Let's be clear...I am not defending anything, simply stating what Daniel clearly articulates in his statistical inference "these statistics are not quite reflected in the number of actual postings to the thread..." If this is the case, then surely we can't expect everyone to subscribe to the "historical accuracy rocks theory" now can we?

In order to generate interesting conclusions about real statistical populations, it is usually required to make some background assumptions. These must be made with care, because inappropriate assumptions can generate wildly inaccurate conclusions, much like the one asserted by you, Daniel ...how can a sample size of 63 be conclusive about anything?

I don't believe I was minimizing, criticizing or negating the validity of the other side of the thesis; quite the contrary. I've articulated my perception quite clearly and as long as we have a sampling of the community that looks at work that has a perceived or actual inaccuracy as a lesser form of our artwork I'll continue to beat this drum because its art, baby, art. And art doesn't please everyone...

Just don't impose your "standard" on those who are willing to express themselves different than you.

Oh, by the way, I welcome anyone to talk with my about my artwork at a show and discuss the inaccuracies of my work...I look forward to that discussion...

regards

 

[RobH]

when you pick a figure to paint, do you make sure the figure is sculpted historically and do you strive to paint it in a correct manner

I voted sometimes

While I strive where possible to get things correct, it all depends on the information I have available. Which through cost and time is always going to be limited. I am a minaturist, not a research historian; I would never get anything done, never improve my painting skills etc if I spent all my time researching etc. I do enjoy the researching, and can get into it but always frustrate myself that I don't know enough and I'm simply dying to start the painting.

as someone said - a figure can be 100% accurate with reference to known sources of information, but if it's a rubbish sculpt, I'm not touching it. If I have the knowledge of whats wrong, and the sculpt, in essence, is sound, I'm prepared to put in the effort to correct it. Sometimes though , I just need to practice with my paints and brush.

An interesting case here is the Soldiers Knight figure chosen for the "group gallery" painting exercise. From what I've read, many things are wrong with the figure.......the capa, weapon etc.............but many here were happy to choose it to paint. I bet some who voted "always" still chose this piece. But to me, thats a nice looking figure. I have it and will probably try to correct some of the inaccuracies - it's a good basis for that because it's a sound sculpt.

So, when I pick a figure, my first port of call is "does it look good?".

Mind you, I WILL always try to paint it in the correct manner.

 

[Stonerdog]

Patrick,

If your going to the Long Island show I'd be more than happy to discuss the merits of correct dragon scale colors...or just art in general.

John Stonaker

 

[Dani A.]

Hola,

I have not extrapolated this poll to anything. I have just referred to the voters and contributors here in this thread, and have made some inferences, which may be correct or not.

It draws my attention that the ones more intense in trying to prove an elitist attitude in others, are now themselves showing such an attitude, covering themselves with the mantle of artists - apparently to the exclusion of other people.

I would say modellers like Bill Horan, Sheperd Paine, Julian Hullis, and fellow members like Gary or Qang, could (and do) produce manifestations of art. Never thought trying to make things historically accurate was incompatible with art. What should we call painters like Lady Elizabeth Butler, or Caton Woodville, or Meisonnier, or Knötel, then? They also tried to be accurate, and I have always seen them labelled as artists.

Daniel

 

[Patrick Kirk]

Originally posted by Stonerdog@Sep 16 2006, 12:57 AM
Patrick,

If your going to the Long Island show I'd be more than happy to discuss the merits of correct dragon scale colors...or just art in general.

John Stonaker

I am going to try, John...if not, please look me up at Atlanta or MFCA...look forward to the talk...

regards

 

[Patrick Kirk]

"...It draws my attention that the ones more intense in trying to prove an elitist attitude in others, are now themselves showing such an attitude, covering themselves with the mantle of artists - apparently to the exclusion of other people."

I am not excluding anyone from the definition of artist, Daniel, not at all. Don't make the mistake of ever twisting my words around; I am giving you a gentlemanly caution, Daniel. I say what I mean, there is no need to infer when it comes to my words. I am specific in my words, I ask the same from others. Nowhere in my response did I ever exclude, or define the term artist, nor am I trying to push an elitist agenda...I haven't a clue where that came from...

"I would say modelers like Bill Horan, Sheperd Paine, Julian Hullis, and fellow members like Gary or Qang, could (and do) produce manifestations of art. Never thought trying to make things historically accurate was incompatible with art."

When did I say it wasn't, Daniel? When did I ever imply that historical accuracy was incomparable with art? Help me out here; where? All I am saying is, how can you say the figure with one missing button on a gaiter, isn't art, too? Isn't art in the eye of the artist, or perhaps in the eye of the viewer? Why should "we" determine what is corporately accepted as the definition of art? If we follow your logic, then the art of Andy Warhol or Picasso is nonsensical scribble, right?

It seems to me, that you are much more comfortable with grouping our artform with the term historically accurate than with accepting the reality that art is art, and you can't put boundaries on art, baby...

"What should we call painters like Lady Elizabeth Butler, or Caton Woodville, or Meisonnier, or Knötel, then? They also tried to be accurate, and I have always seen them labeled as artists."

Cha, we call them artist, Daniel; just like everyone else who picks up a brush. This is my point, art is in the eye of the individual, don't you agree?

 

[Joe Hudson]

Hey guys,

I have started reading this post and then decided to stop, this is the same type of thread that got everybody's feather in an uproar before.

What I would like to see is that all these post here debating one thing or another be moved to actually showing Yours/and My work and not all this other nonsense. People are going to buy what they like or not no matter.

So I will say this again, lets stop this back and forth and actually contribute something everyone else here would like to see, painted or in progress figures.

Now I have to get back to the painted purple Napoleonic figure my son is painting, so that he can go to the soldier show with his daddy.

Joe

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by Joe Hudson@Sep 16 2006, 12:51 PM
So I will say this again, lets stop this back and forth and actually contribute something everyone else here would like to see, painted or in progress figures.



Joe

Well said Joe. Personally I'd rather look at four pages of in-progress work or painted figures that everyone could enjoy or benefit from.~Gary

 

[Dani A.]

I would just like to mention than taking the time to actually reading and trying to understand other people's posts before replying would result in a less improductive discussion.

On the other hand, surely I have been guilty of pushing the matter beyond what is worth, too.

As a matter of fact, I have had enough of this, and will now bow and leave.

Daniel

 

[Paul Kernan]

About time too!

 

[Patrick Kirk]

Yeah, I agree, Paul...

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by Joe Hudson+Sep 16 2006, 06:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Hudson @ Sep 16 2006, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So I will say this again, lets stop this back and forth and actually contribute something everyone else here would like to see, painted or in progress figures. [/b]

I realise that long debates about things like this often tend to show little progress other than to have each side become more and more intransigent, and defensive, with tempers flaring and egos getting bruised along the way (which is why I didn't post above, since my views on historical accuracy are well known to people who have been online in the modelling forums for a while and that I've had the pleasure of discussing the issue with in person). BUT, I don't think that this means they're of no value; absolutely the opposite in fact. Now I do like a good long, drawn-out debate more than the average guy :lol: and I wouldn't want to read one here every second week, but some of the issues are key to the nature of the hobby and we should all look at them from various perspectives IMO; for those that are serious about the hobby (in whatever way they see this - competing for awards, personal standards only, peer accolades) to do so does nothing but good.

And yes, I agree completely that more of the membership should post more of their work, regularly. That would be of enormous benefit to the members, of any level, but particularly to the beginners and learners.

Originally posted by Patrick Kirk@Sep 16 2006, 01:48 PM
I am not excluding anyone from the definition of artist, Daniel, not at all. Don't make the mistake of ever twisting my words around; I am giving you a gentlemanly caution, Daniel.

Personally I think you read too much into that post Patrick. I didn't read it as directed at anyone in particular, certainly not at you.

Originally posted by Dani A.@Sep 17 2006, 08:01 AM
I would just like to mention than taking the time to actually reading and trying to understand other people's posts before replying would result in a less improductive discussion.

<!--QuoteBegin-Dani A.@Sep 17 2006, 08:01 AM
On the other hand, surely I have been guilty of pushing the matter beyond what is worth, too. [/quote]
And this is exactly the kind of thing I expect from you Daniel and why I respect what you have to say and always look forward to reading your posts, even if I don't always agree.

Don't mean to embarrass you but once again I'd like to commend you on your English, which is better than a great many people for which it is their first (and only!) language.

Einion

 

[GARD9]

Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. I like to do subjects that allow a bit of artistic license from time to time. Some things I don't worry about, some things I do. Like a percussion rifle on an 18th century figure (that's a problem) or fringe on an Iroquois (that's no big deal). Sometimes even the "Experts" are just guessing.
In the end, I make it work for the customer/audience for which it is intended.
I'm a romantic.
G9

 

[BSPRU]

I voted almost always, I have bought a space trooper and a German Knight with winged horns(it looks cool). I used to get bent out of shape about historical accuracy but now if it is well painted I think cool.
brian

 

[thegoodsgt]

Let's talk about abortion next!