OT: "-30-"

[itifonhom 6]

I stated right at my first post that I have no idea how it looked like, I think that's more than enough!

I'm sure when Da Vinci painted the "Last Supper" used his knowledge of the time and dressed the guests as he thought best representative of the epoch he wanted to depict. So now we now he was pretty wrong at everything, should we then go on and change the title to "Friends at dinner" because of historical inaccuracies? Come on guys.....

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Since it seems I’ve taken the role of Devil’s Advocate in this discussion I may as well continue. Itifonhom, da Vinci was noted for doing a lot of research and preliminary work before he finally put brush to canvas, or in the case of ‘The Last Supper’, brush to plaster. Yes, of course he took artistic license with this masterpiece, not the least reason for this being that he was commissioned to paint the work and had a paying customer to keep happy. None-the-less, he was still attempting to present the event with some small learned historical perspective. Had he ignored the research and simply began painting, then suddenly had scholars present him with facts and evidence that the Last Supper had actually occurred in a small cottage by a lake and there were really fourteen disciples … well … I’m betting he would have made a revision or two.

 

OK, have at it.

 

Lou

 

.

[itifonhom 6]

So you actually claim that an artist has the obligation to "update" all of his artwork , according to every newly acquired knowledge and that for a lifetime? Well my friend, that is the most boring thing I ever heard about art. If I really had to do this, I'd better stop showing my work at all!! Just imagine making a "Red Baron" movie and then having to revision the film every three to six months because of this and that. And just imagine how many times you should see the "almost" same movie just because is "more accurate" than before!

That's not creative, it's just ......... military!!! I'm sorry but I can't do this, I really can't!

[Olham 164]

There, there - come down, iti, come down.

This sort of thing happens, when you show your WW1 aviation art works in a forum of WW1 aviation enthusiasts.

In an art forum, probably no one would have known the details.

But here, or over at "The Aerodrome" it is a different thing.

 

You're not the only artist who must face such dilemma.

Even the famous military art painter James Dietz had to.

He had painted the also famous Jasta 5 (Green Tails) with their Albatros D.Va on an airfield

with a mountain behind them. On the mountain in the painting was a village (maybe even a castle).

But Jasta 5 had never been on an airfield with such a mountain nearby.

At least not with the Albatros D.V or D.Va.

The historians (who mostly also stated that they love James Dietz's works!) criticised this wrong detail.

Now I just saw through Dietz's gallery at "The Aerodrome" and found the picture withdrawn.

 

Your emotional reaction reminds me of my own, when I have worked a long time on a new Albatros skin

(rather like an artist, not a historian), and then, when I post a picture of it, I receive an answer by

elephant, who tells me all the details I have got wrong.

First reactions: rising blood pressure, and steam coming out of my ears.

 

It takes me a while to settle and calm down - and then I often change the bits for better correction.

We are all always learning - the historians also.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Olham

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

So you actually claim that an artist has the obligation to "update" all of his artwork , according to every newly acquired knowledge and that for a lifetime?

 

No Sir, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that a work of art which is still in the process of being created can be ammended to reflect new information and an altered interpretation of the subject matter because of that new information. I would never imagine a completed work of art to be changed after-the-fact. Also, I did not realize you were so married to the title of your piece. I will back away from this debate as it seems to be getting a bit too intense. Honestly, I was really just engaging in some lively discussion and was not attacking you. Sorry if my comments have caused you distress, it was certainly not my intention.

 

.

[itifonhom 6]

No, no my friend, no distress here, I don't get this personal at all. I really enjoy this discussion indeed and surely it's not about the title. I can of course change the title to everything. I don't know if that will do the trick though as I posted this same image with the exact description to a dozen other sites too. For me is a matter of principle. Like I said, should I go and "update" my artwork for every newly acquired knowledge or not. For me, this is a finished piece of artwork. Will try my best next time, as always, as I did for this piece too. But it's really boring to me to come up with new revisions of my artwork, I prefer doing some new artwork and hope for good results!

 

No hard feelings, really not, for me it's more important that you liked the image!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Oh I definitely sensed distress in your earlier post, iti. Double and triple exclamation points tend to be good indicators of intensity of feelings and a certain level of distress. Artists are just so touchy about their work, isn't that right Olham?

 

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I've gotten a tad bent out of shape myself on occasion when I'd posted some project thinking I had it all "just right" only to receive constructive criticism enlightening me to all my mistakes. How DARE they tell me I'm wrong!! Do they not understand ART!!! (see how I used those exclamation points to denote intensity of feeling and a level of distress)

 

.

[Olham 164]

Yes.

[itifonhom 6]

Sorry for that, I use these marks to enhance the point, not because I'm distressed. :-). Well, you know, the one reason I posted this image here is exactly because I know I will get such kind of feedback. I know you guys are passionate with this, as I am with my art. And I know the depiction is wrong if you see it literally. But since no one said this image is faulty from the artistic side of view and you actually all liked it, I'm a happy man! Historically inaccurate but artistically pleasing. I can live with this. :-)

[JFM 18]

Hello, all.

 

Please, itihofom, call me Jim.

 

"I posted this same image with the exact description to a dozen other sites too." See how it propagates?

 

I am in lockstep agreement with post #25.

 

For me, it's not about the "art." If you don't want to alter your work to reflect what actually happened, that's fine. I could give a FFA about that. It's about the caption/description and the Law of Primacy. Here's a roaring mistake (your caption/description) that you know about but refuse to fix. Instead, you are content to just let it seep misinformation across the internet. Meanwhile, betcha dollars-to-donuts there are all sorts of "oohs and aahs" on those other websites in reaction to the work, while everybody "learns" from the captions that 2+2=5. Since you won't, I guess I'll have to track down those other websites and let the people know the answer is really 4. (Out of curiosity, has anybody else on the other sites said anything about Lothar's plane being wrong?) Many may not even care. But for those such as I, who for years swam through First-World-War-information's Feces Creek before I could sort out fact from fiction, that will get them one stroke closer to the clearer water.

 

I practice what I preach. I'm not an artist but I dabble in computer-drawn airplane profiles--which every artist will quickly and gleefully inform you is not "art"--and in the past I've removed profiles from online display for reasons of mere uncertainty, let alone error. Even with a caption that revealed speculation about the colors/markings of the plane in question, there are some I decided to yank down. To remove the risk of misinformation was more important than any "atta boy!" they might have received.

 

I won't belabor the issue--which assumes I haven't already! The positions have been declared. I respectfully disagree with yours, itihofom, as you do mine, so we now agree to disagree. Nothing personal; next time I'm in Frankfurt, perhaps we can have lunch. I love what you created--again, my favorite aspect is the good sense of altitude--and hope to see more. In future, if you ever have a question about anything you are going to paint, or want some reference photos that are bigger than some grainy 2x2" shot in a book, it'd be my pleasure to help out. If I don't know an answer, I can find someone who does. Or, just ask here! Many guys here know a helluva lot more about different aspects of WW1 aviation than I do.

[Dej 17]

Iti, as a fellow amateur in the matter of 3D rendered artwork I appreciate how demoralising it is to the artistic Muse to be urged to change art for the sake of historical accuracy.

 

But history has equal validity with art and you are giving your work an historical context by your caption in which you state "On 25th of July, around 19:50, Lothar Freiherr von Richthofen shot down a Camel somewhere over Fismes, France. It was his 30th victory! I have no idea if this is anywhere near to how it could look..." It is that last point that I draw your attention to... it is a real event you are depicting and you DO have an idea, LvR wasn't flying a DR.1, thus your depiction cannot therefore be LvR's 30th victory.

 

When I posted my first rendered artwork here, 'Fateful Morn I', I used a stock hangar model I had and in my caption stated that the image was set at Bertangles aerodrome in November 1916. JFM pointed out that the hangar models were inaccurate and kindly sent me reference photographs. In later correspondence on the subject as I laboriously built more accurate 3D hangar models Jim said he thought he might best have 'kept his mouth shut' as the image had merit on its own. But I'm glad he didn't, because, let me assure you, it is MUCH, MUCH more satisfying to produce an image that imagines a scene in a correct historical setting, than not.

 

If you look at the work of any artist who depicts historic scenes with aircraft or sailing ships or trains: Robert Taylor, Nicholas Trudgian, Mark Postlethwaite, Roy Cross, Geoff Hunt et al. they ALL strive for historical accuracy, markings, rigging, livery etc.

 

By all means keep this artwork unchanged, it IS very good indeed, and you can say that it shows an imagined but unrecorded victory of LvR in a Dr.1 over a Camel and no one can dispute that.

[itifonhom 6]

Many many thanks guys for your kind words, it's really good to know you liked my work. I will surely try to take some accurate advice from this Forum when I'm about to create such an artwork again, really appreciate your offer. And of course Jim, next time you'll be in Frankfurt I'll be glad to meet you Sir! As for this "issue", I think Jim talked the truth when he said "we agree to disagree" and of course it's nothing personal.

[von Baur 54]

I've stayed out of this until now, mostly because I had little new to say. However, I recently remembered reading an article a few years ago that may bring the "artistic liscense" issue into sharper focus.

 

There have been a few examples of "artistic liscense" being taken to ridiculous extremes put forth here (1000 Mark V's, Lou? I should think one or two would have been plenty. Besides, Beauregard would likely have been in the lead tank, and the Rebs did ok without them). Another popular phrase these days is "politically correct". Whether for "political correctness" or "artistic liscense" a high school somewhere here in the US put on a production of Mark Twain's "Huck Finn" some years back and chose to cast an African-American as Huck and a Caucasian as Jim. Whatever polite phrase you would like to use to defend such a move, it's a defacement. The work was written the way it was for a specific purpose and by changing such a fundamental element of it they've completely nullified its core. Nor should history be changed for convenience sake, or any other reason. Things happened as they did and to put forth any other view is a defacement.

 

What is your opinion of the movie "The Red Baron", itifonhom? Obviously, the producers felt that the story of a high-born man who took up the glamorous profession of cavalry officer only to find horse cavalry hopelssly outdated (to the point of nearly being killed), then being stuck in supply, only to find himself ultimately becoming one of the most celebrated and arguably best-remembered figures of WWI wasn't exciting enough. So they exercised their "artistic liscense" and created an earlier meeting between von Richtofen and Brown, over-did a historically supposed romance with his nurse and ultimately made a near-mockery (IMO) of a life that was probably more interesting than any accurately made movie could come close to portraying. If you use the reasoning to defend your sticking with the title then you must use it to defend that piece of cinematic drivel as well.

 

BTW, "Casablanca" was originally named "Everybody Comes to Rick's". Of course, Ronald Reagan was also originally cast as Rick.

If I'm not mistaken, even the Mona Lisa was named something else by da Vinci and "Citizen Kane" wasn't that film's original title, either.

Changing a title isn't such a bad thing.

Edited September 8, 2012 by von Baur

[itifonhom 6]

I really hated "Red Baron" for that, as well I hate "Flyboys", "Troy", "Alexander", "300", "Gladiator" and many other films that due to artistic licence everything can happen in a story. And it's my right to do so! As it's the creators' right to do such a movie. So I don't go and discuss about how he could make the movie better, I say though my opinion on this movie/picture/sculpture/book/song. That is Art. You can love it or hate it, criticize it and even sometimes even burn it but it's the creators free choice to change anything on it, it's never a "must"!