Inacurracy in Troiani painting

[garyjd]

It looks like historical accuracy is not the only thing that needs to be carefully studied. Interesting article. ~Gary

http://greensleeves.typepad.com/berkshires/2006/06/can_you_spot_th.html

 

[billyturnip]

An interesting article Gary. Looks like Mr Troiani needs to brush up on his invasive species.

Roger

 

[Bluesking]

Rivet counter !!!

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Am I mistaken here with my limited english but isnt the author claiming that the Berberis vulgaris should have been exterminated?

I think there should be more to it before claiming it as inaccurace for sure?

Cheers

 

[garyjd]

I think there should be more to it before claiming it as inaccurace for sure?

Cheers

It would not surprise me if it is accurate. I might send the link to the article to Mr. "T" just for curiosity sake. ~Gary

 

[captnenglish]

Since I have an interest in environmental history (I have actually done some research on the environmental history of G'burg), I find this article fascinating if a bit anal.

 

[Anders Heintz]

The dude who wrote the article better watch out, Troiani might sick his team of lawyers on him!

 

[blaster]

Don Troiani comes from a tradition of military art history painters, including Detaille and Meissonier.

From my understanding, classical painting started during the Renaissance with its emphasis on biblical subjects and stories from antiquities. This evolved into neo-classical art capturing more contemporary themes, starting with JL David and progressing thru his later successors, JL Gros, Delacroix and Delaroche to give history painting.

These worthies never painted that accurately anyhow (David and Gros painted propaganda for Napoleon), Delacroix fudged details and moved in a Romantic direction, Delaroche painted Napoleon crossing the Alps on a mule (who's to say what colour the mule was etc) but the whole world prefers JL David's more spirited painting.

Troiani is a fine painter. We should accept that reconstruction in history paintings is inevitably flawed. These paintings recreate a moment in our history, much as museum reconstructions and whilst museum displays may sometimes be corrected due to public feedback, I doubt that paintings are that easily corrected.

 

[vergilius]

Well he's human too.
He makes very nice paintings though

 

[renarts]

For the sake of discussion, how important are details like this in historical painting? Is the wrong flora just as much a gaff as the wrong uniform? What if he painted the wrong accoutrements? Clearly we know the difference between Confederate and Union troops so the spririt, time and subject of the image is clear, and that he shows them in a battle scene relays the struggle and action of the scene, offering us the record of the historical moment, but what if he portrayed them with the wrong rifles? or somthing more subtle, wrong cartridge boxes, leggings, wearing the wrong kepi or other hat? No harm or foul right? Again the theme and spirit are correct. Just the details are off. If we label him as a historical artist should everything be as accurate as possible? Or should we call him an artist with historical themes like Millais, Morris or Waterhouse?
I suppose we could argue that we aren't using Troiani as a source of documentation so something like environment shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But then he could paint the scene with other wrong elements like palm trees or Australian Sand Pines. Things clearly out of place but common is some areas now that at that period did not exist. But it begs the question of how accurate is accurate? Do we call him an accurate artist when he includes the subtle innaccuracies?

 

[gorgosaurus]

To be fair to the author of the foliage folio he does start with the caveat

"Don Troiani ... is one of the great masters of military art and nearly fanatic about historic accuracy."

The inclusion of a botanical anachronism may seem a triviality to some, but the man is right in saying it is an inaccuracy.
Any model-maker worth his salt knows that details count - tankies count the sides on rivets, historical figure buffs delve into archaeological finds, Cretaceousonists (prehistoric putty-pushers) research the fossils.
Give the man credit for trying to put the record straight, but don´t get all worked up about it - because any re-construction of the past is going to be flawed by the inclinations of our present.

Renarts, you raise some good points and Stiff, you split my sides.
Nice images of the F.A. cup and Kim Wilde in Garden Invaders, Einion.

Now, back to that figure of some bloke called Adolf in oak-leaf camouflage smock defending Berlin with his panzerfaust...

Spike.

 

[garyjd]

Though I found more humor over the plant issue, it does raise some interesting points. It would be easy to paint the type of plant in question if it exists on the field today. In addition to being a gifted painter, Troiani is also a historian. Given that he's also human, I can see that species of plant included for that very reason (because it grows there). Given the access Troiani has to historians, private collections and what have you, Troiani's work IS the most accurate IMHO. While there are other artists that employ the same type of research as Troiani, others are satisfied just using 200+ lb reenactors as models for their paintings. Personally I have more respect for those that honestly make the effort over those that seem to be content just producing a painting that reflects the "mood" of the period. I think that a lot of this really boils down to personal appeal over accuracy in most cases. ~Gary

 

[AJLaFleche]

Got a chuckle out of this. It's kind of like watching a historically based movie with SWMBO. I'll sit there and critique historical inaccuracies and anachronisms when I see them and she'll say, "Only you would notice that!" But let there be a zone three plant depicted in a zone five location and she's all, "That plant can't be growing there!" or "It's way too early (or late) in the season for that to be flowering!"
Just goes to show, we can't know everything about everything.

 

[Wlas]

I don't know about the rest of you but the misplaced plant was the first thing I noticed!
Well....maybe the second thing....
Er.....maybe I wouldn't notice it at all.
Okay....I didn't notice it......
I mean it's a plant. If it was an igloo I woulda noticed it.