Martin Antonenko
A Fixture
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 8,712
Cheers to You Brad and thks for posting!
Historically Correctness?
- Thread starter Martin Antonenko
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
Cheers to You Brad and thks for posting!
Wings5797
A Fixture
Hi Martin,
This is a great thread initiating support for all of the captions that you have listed.
For me I have no problem with inaccuracies that I can correct myself. My amazement here is that the high skill levels of our good friends on PF accept and complete figures knowing that there are (sometimes horrendous) mistakes.
Cheers,
Keith
This is a great thread initiating support for all of the captions that you have listed.
For me I have no problem with inaccuracies that I can correct myself. My amazement here is that the high skill levels of our good friends on PF accept and complete figures knowing that there are (sometimes horrendous) mistakes.
Cheers,
Keith
Ferris
A Fixture
Well, I very much value historical accuracy and voted for nr 2, but the bottom line is that what we are doing is a hobby and in a hobby we should, no we must, do as we like and that obviously differs per person. I have no moral objections to switch to category 3 when I see fit. Actually, it may already have happened when I painted Atilla the Hun.... Ah, whatever.
Interesting poll Martin, thanks for posting.
Adrian
Interesting poll Martin, thanks for posting.
Adrian
Martin Antonenko
A Fixture
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 8,712
I thank you all very much for participating in this intensive discussion and would welcome further contributions!
Cheers
Cheers
billyturnip
A Fixture
I wasn't sure but seeing as I've spent most of the evening looking for kettle drum banners of the French Garde du Corps c.1700 I'd better choose the first one 
but I'm also of the opinion it's entirely up to the individual how they enjoy their hobby and how in depth they want to go as far as research goes.
Roger.
but I'm also of the opinion it's entirely up to the individual how they enjoy their hobby and how in depth they want to go as far as research goes. Roger.
Piotrec
A Fixture
The historic accuracy is very important to me. I wish all the figures representing historic subjects were sculpted perfectly. I cannot just imagine how would that happen. We cannot expect sculptors duing time consuming research on their own. Than the price would increase quite a bit if you need to hire somebody to do research for you.
Based on that I will buy anything that meet my interests, unless there are some major inaccurasies.
Based on that I will buy anything that meet my interests, unless there are some major inaccurasies.
Gaudin
A Fixture
Absolutely true. But it is also the relationship between producer and customer - offer/demand. Now, this thread (thank you, Martin) has convincingly shown is that majority of active forum punters (or at least mostly those who care enough to have an Avatar picture
) value accuracy and research. Now I suspect the bulk of sales come from people who arent particular about accuracy. Otherwise how do you explain that the standard of accuracy in miniature isnt improving despite feedback (apart from a bunch of sculptors who take pride in doing research)Cheers
G
Einion
A Fixture
Quite so. There's every reason to suppose that the members of pF are a representative sample of figure modellers and previous discussions on this issue (and there have been more than a couple) have shown that the majority don't care about accuracy much, or at all.Now, this thread (thank you, Martin) has convincingly shown is that majority of active forum punters (or at least mostly those who care enough to have an Avatar picture
But that's not completely cut and dried, I'm sure there are limits to what virtually anyone would put up with. Like a bolt-action rifle in the hands of an infantryman on the field of Waterloo, or one of the favoured examples for Americans, an M16 at Gettysburg.
But oddly that same degree of anachronism (or much worse, as highlighted in one or two past threads) doesn't bother some of those same people, as long as the figure is A, outside of their area of interest, B, is of a subject from far back enough, or especially C, both of the above. If it's C all bets are off apparently - 500 years out of time, from a different continent, sure, why not? Why are people bitching about it, it's just a model.... Unbelievably, this is an actual example.
Einion
billyturnip
A Fixture
This is more than likely over simplified but I would guess that those of us that discovered modelling/figure painting because of our interest in military history are the ones that prefer a high level of accuracy, those that paint and don't have that kind of interest (obsession ) are probably the ones that aren't that bothered or are able to put down any inaccuracy as artistic license.
I feel that every effort should be made by the manufacturer/sculpter to provide the painter with as accurate as possible representation. If you paid good £££$$$'s for an Old Guard Grenadier for example that's what you should get.
Roger.
) are probably the ones that aren't that bothered or are able to put down any inaccuracy as artistic license.I feel that every effort should be made by the manufacturer/sculpter to provide the painter with as accurate as possible representation. If you paid good £££$$$'s for an Old Guard Grenadier for example that's what you should get.
Roger.
ChaosCossack
A Fixture
Roger
I think you hit the nail on the head! Those who got into figures strictly as painters are probably making choices on the aesthetics of the piece whereas those who came to figure painting via an interest in history are making their choices on the represention of their era of interest.
By George, I think you've got it!
I think you hit the nail on the head! Those who got into figures strictly as painters are probably making choices on the aesthetics of the piece whereas those who came to figure painting via an interest in history are making their choices on the represention of their era of interest.
By George, I think you've got it!
billyturnip
A Fixture
I think that is probably it. When paint a figure that is outside my usual period of interest I'll do some research on the internet or perhaps buy an Osprey but no where near as much as if I was painting a WWI fig. for example where I have quite a few books on the subject.
Roger.
Roger.
Uruk-Hai
PlanetFigure Supporter
I agree with Roger that I believe us to be more educated and knowing about History than the average figurepainter.
On the other hand, if you have an accurate figure it isnt more expensive to produce than a non-accurate? Point is if you do a good figure in every aspect it will be on the market for a long time.
I see Einions point. But to be fair one must realize that weapon technology has evolved rapidly in a ever rising curve the last 400 years which makes the examplefied blunders more obvious. Especially as it also is closer to us in the timeline. Additionally there is a difference in what we know about the ancient versus the 20th century wars.
It also boils down to ones personal knowledge. I have my old lady always complaining about the horses in miniature form and their muscles, proportions and movements being wrong.
Cheers
Janne Nilsson
On the other hand, if you have an accurate figure it isnt more expensive to produce than a non-accurate? Point is if you do a good figure in every aspect it will be on the market for a long time.
I see Einions point. But to be fair one must realize that weapon technology has evolved rapidly in a ever rising curve the last 400 years which makes the examplefied blunders more obvious. Especially as it also is closer to us in the timeline. Additionally there is a difference in what we know about the ancient versus the 20th century wars.
It also boils down to ones personal knowledge. I have my old lady always complaining about the horses in miniature form and their muscles, proportions and movements being wrong.
Cheers
Janne Nilsson
Wings5797
A Fixture
I totally agree Roger,
These are the Guys that earn £,$ etc from this hobby and should do all that they can to produce accurate pieces.
Cheers,
Keith
billyturnip
A Fixture
The trouble is, to quote myself, "every effort should be made by the manufacturer/sculpter to provide the painter with as accurate as possible representation." is a very subjective statement.
I think most of us are aware of which manufacturers put in the most effort when researching their products and their sales hopefully reflect this.
Roger.
I think most of us are aware of which manufacturers put in the most effort when researching their products and their sales hopefully reflect this.
Roger.
Piotrec
A Fixture
This whole discussion leads me to a certain question. What should the sculptor/researcher do when there are different opinions on the subject. I think that quite often we cannot make 100% statement that something is wright or wrong. Let me give you an example here. There has been going on a long discussion about the Polish Winged Hussar wearing wings during battles. Historians are splited, some believe they did wear them, others do not believe it. Believe me, this is not the only dilemma when it comes to this subject. Just few months ago we had a discussion about the recent release from Pegaso, Emanuel Grouchy figure. One expert was proving the other expert that it was painted inaccurately. Both of them had proves for their rights.
How do we find the answer in this situations?
How do we find the answer in this situations?
billyturnip
A Fixture
I know that situation very well and that's when you have to make a decision on which "expert" to go with based on their reputation and experience..... then blame them when the other "experts" chime in.
Roger.
Roger.
Martin Antonenko
A Fixture
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 8,712
I think the answer to these questions is that one consider the probability, plausibility and the particular historical circumstances and other issues involving.
There is (almost) always more than one answer to a question. The key is to find the most plausible one.
A uniform image can only be a detail of the truth. Historical knowledge is equally important.
Cheers
ChaosCossack
A Fixture
This is where the internet makes research harder sometimes... one source says a jacket has 9 buttons, another says 12 and another says it has a platinum zipper! Who do you believe? I have found if I stick with one or two well known sources (I find my Rousselot book is like a bible for Napoleonic French uniforms with plates, regulations and invoice references), that way if I'm wrong... at least it's consistant.
Einion
A Fixture
Go with one, state which one they went with.
But rather than things being a choice between two or three competing theories I think it's very common for models to be an amalgam or blending of numerous sources. Many references the hobby uses as inspiration for sculpts (like the oft-used Osprey illustrations) are themselves distillations of various sources. This is a perfectly legitimate approach to take with many subjects, even if it's not without its potential pitfalls - it can lead to a best-guess or Frankenstein's monster depending!
I'd agree, but I think this sort of argument is often used to excuse poor (or insufficient) research, rather than being a legitimate defence in a specific instance. It's obviously possible to point to examples of either type and my gut feeling is that that as often as you can state confidently that something is right you can be 100% sure something is wrong.
I think the thing to aim for most of the time is not the could-have-been but the most-likely-to-have-been, and if you go for the "What if?" you state plainly that this is the approach you used (and hunker down for the inevitable flak it'll generate).
Einion
ChaosCossack
A Fixture
As we go further back in time, details of anything become hazy at best and corrupted at worst. As far back as the 18th century, with mass produced government issue uniforms and equipment, documentation is fairly abundant. On the other hand, if you are researching ancients, then I believe even "expert sources" have a good percentage of guesswork and speculation.
