Historically correct.

[Roc]

Members of the Planet, when you pick a figure to paint, do you make sure that figure is sculpted historically correct and do you strive to paint it in an historically correct manner or does it not matter to you and paint just for the fun of it.
Please explain your vote.


Cheers
Roc.

 

[Anders Heintz]

I voted Sometimes.

When I sculpt a figure, I always try to be as historically accurate as I possible can with the available sources.

However, when I paint I do it as much as possible as well, but if a figure is a little wrong here and there but I like the figure/sculptor then its not that big of a deal.

Sculpting for me is the business end and painting is for fun, and its no fun if your so anal about the details that you cant see the over all picture of the figure.

 

[Roc]

I have voted always, when I spend my hard earned money for a figure, I owe it to my self to make sure that the figure is well sculpted and well researched, and I strive to paint it as historically correct as I possibly can.

Cheers
Roc.

 

[stev1eran]

I voted sometimes - when I buy a figure its usually from a reputable manufacturer so 9 times out of 10 they will have done the historical research to make sure its accurate.
My joy is in the painting I try to get the colours correct, sometimes its right, other times I have made errors and thats why I enjoy feedback from those that know How many times have you been to a show and seen the same figure which has been painted by different people and noticed the subtle differences in the painting of uniforms, equipment, etc. Thats what I like about this art - no two persons figures are the same.

Steve

 

[Uruk-Hai]

May we have more options? I would say Im between "always" and "sometimes".

Cheers

 

[Roc]

Not a problem..

I added almost always between always and sometimes.

Cheers
Roc.

 

[Wendy]

I said sometimes, because usually I will buy a figure I like and then read up on the figure and time period. In some cases I may just not know any better at the time of buying. When painting I try as much as I can to use accurate colors. Especially important when painting my fantasy figures. Well, I am rather anal about getting colors right from Tolkien's works...

Wendy

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Thanks, Rocco!

Ive noticed this new category soon took the lead. :lol:

Cheers

 

[thegoodsgt]

I don't allow an obsession with 100 percent accuracy to keep me from painting a good looking figure.

 

[frank h]

Hi I voted almost always
I put anatomy and facial character above historical accuracy
Having said that most manufacturers get the historical side of things right

Keep meaning to put together a British Penninsula vetran maybe a 95th
rifleman carrying a French pack never saw one put out commercialy

French packs of the time were made of cow hide and more comfortable
than than the slade wallace British pack which had boards in it to hold its shape
Colonels liked to have the boys look smart

Frank

 

[captnenglish]

I voted always, but should have voted almost always :angry: ! I am an historian by training and trade, but a large portion of what I like to paint is fantasy or movie related and I have seen many historically accurate figures that IMHO suck due to poor posing or anatomy.

 

[CorySF]

I voted "always". If I'm not going to be historically correct then what would be the point of my painting "historical miniatures" in the first place? We have enough problems with historical revisionism in this day and age, let's remain true to history in our little world!
God Bless
Cory

 

[quang]

It's like asking a musician if he cares about playing the right notes. Of course he does otherwise he would not be called a musician.

Not that he would succeed every time he plays but at least the intent is there.

Quang

 

[John Long]

Well put Quang.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Originally posted by quang@Sep 10 2006, 05:57 PM
It's like asking a musician if he cares about playing the right notes. Of course he does otherwise he would not be called a musician.

Not that he would succeed every time he plays but at least the intent is there.

Quang

But one must have in mind that the musician in this case mostly plays for people that doesnt know the tune, and that theres different opinions what are the "right" notes.

Not to mention all the tone-deaf.

Some subjects I just paint them plain and simply for the joy of painting, others I do basic research upon while I on other projects do thoroughly research.

Kind of depends on the subject and the relation I have for it. When modelling tanks for example, I sometimes do a specific vehicle well documented while on other I do more of a generic tank from the conflict.

For me all the different takes ok, just as long nobody states a piece is historically correct when its not.

Problem is in many cases that not even historians agree, so whom to trust?
And what do we do when we find out that an already finnished piece is incorrrect?

Cheers

 

[Dani A.]

Hola,

I second Cory and Quang. They have pretty much said it all.

Dani

 

[quang]

Originally posted by Uruk-Hai@Sep 11 2006, 01:03 AM
But one must have in mind that the musician in this case mostly plays for people that doesnt know the tune, and that theres different opinions what are the "right" notes.

Indeed, you can appreciate music on different and various levels. Most people would be happy with 'popular' music while others (musically-inclined or trained) would appreciate more 'difficult' music.

But as with everything which appears 'difficult' at first sight, one can also LEARN to appreciate it.

If I want paint a figure of an Eskimo and I know nothing about Eskimos, the least I can do is read books about Eskimos, watch films about Eskimos, listen to Eskimo music, eat Eskimo food , etc... so that I get a slight idea of what I'm setting out to paint.

I also would end up knowing a lot more about Eskimo than I did beforehand. That's the beauty of this hobby: learning things they never taught me in school.

Now, nobody is forcing me to paint an Eskimo. If I think my interest in Eskimo is not worthy of doing all the above efforts, I'd choose another subject that would be. It's so simple.

Not to mention all the tone-deaf.

If I was near-sighted, I wouldn't choose bird-watching as a hobby.

Quang

 

[Uruk-Hai]

What comes to mind, are also that there are different levels of inaccuracy.
This level can varie from person to person as well from subject to subject.

Its not the same thing putting a typical norman sword hilt on a viking, as putting horns on him or pair him in a scenario with Robin Hood. :lol:
Let alone have him driving a tank.

Theres a some things that we know, some things that are very likely, some that we have vague indications off while others were we simply do not know.

I remember the Don Troiani seminar when he dealt with this topic. The conclusion was that one has to the best and accept that sometimes inaccuraies do occur. And then he mentioned that he was consulted for the making "Back to Cold Mountain", and they picked the german WWI backpack becaused it "looked" better. :lol:

On the other hand I do not like the argument that comes up sometimes:
"-Well we werent there so we can not know!"
As an excuse for wishful thinking.

If anyoner remembers my shadowbox, I like to say the scene is a dramatication based on a real event. Because thats what it is. Thus claiming no responsibility.

Cheers

 

[Dani A.]

What comes to mind, are also that there are different levels of inaccuracy.
This level can varie from person to person as well from subject to subject.

Its not the same thing putting a typical norman sword hilt on a viking, as putting horns on him or pair him in a scenario with Robin Hood.
Let alone have him driving a tank.

This is like being pregnant: you either are or you are not. So, a figure is historically accurate or it is not.

Admittedly, some inaccuracies are more glaring than others; but the "glaring" degree has also much to do with the degree of familiarization the viewer has. The fact that an inaccurate detail is unperceived by the casual, not knowledgeable, observer does not make it less inaccurate.

Theres a some things that we know, some things that are very likely, some that we have vague indications off while others were we simply do not know.

Yes; because of this, there is a place for the educated guess, which is a concept worlds apart from a guess. Educated guesses, based on what is known, either to fill a void or to construct a probable subject, are perfectly adequate, and acceptable in the historical accuracy area.

Dani

 

[quang]

Originally posted by Uruk-Hai@Sep 11 2006, 04:41 AM

On the other hand I do not like the argument that comes up sometimes:
"-Well we werent there so we can not know!"
As an excuse for wishful thinking.

Janne, I'm 100% with you on this. Knowledge has nothing to do with 'being there'. It has to do with education.

Also keep in mind that what we consider as historical truth today can be seen as simplistic and downright false by future historians (just as we sneer at the 19th century's depiction of the horned Viking).

But that shouldn't prevent one to depict things as accurate as possible in the current state of knowledge.

Quang