[Tim West]

Originally Posted by Chock

That example you posted does look suspiciously similar to the other pic, but I suppose you have to say a SPAD looks like a SPAD and give him the benefit of the doubt, in spite of it certainly looking a bit fishy. However, what is not in doubt is that there are inaccuracies on his pics, and from a quick look at his stuff, the composition is not always very good either in my opinion either, which, having spent four years studying art and design, I think I'm at least somewhat qualified to have an informed opinion on. That is nevertheless just my opinion of course, and if people like his stuff and want to buy it, good luck to them, but regardless of that, I would like to think that anyone with a true interest in WW1 history would be horrified at the notion of someone having scribbled on an original MVR signature, either artistically or otherwise.

A spad is a spad and indeed that was the conclusion, it was their tact or lack there of it about it all that really showed though in the end. This was again shown with this MvR piece. That's fine...but I will continue to call a spade..a spade

And your right any one with a true interest would be horrified...which makes me wonder then, who is buying this stuff. WWI aero art is pretty niche so people spending thousands on a piece would not buy such works containing so many obvious errors.

Please...read the following:

Aircraft of Jasta 10 prepare to taxi out for a dawn patrol, led by the fearless Leutnant Werner Voss in his Fokker F1 103/17 in September 1917. Arguments still rage concerning the colour of the engine cowling on his Triplane. Certainly, when the aircraft was delivered, its upper surfaces were painted factory finish streaked green and, it is recorded that it was flown as delivered with Voss personal mechanic noting that no extra painting was undertaken, aside from Voss Japanese kite face which occupied the nose. However, research shows that by the time of Voss death on 23rd September 1917, after his epic battle with SE5s of 56 Sqn, the cowling was probably yellow in keeping with all Jasta 10 aircraft. Renowned by pilots from both sides for his bravery and extraordinary abilities with his diminutive Triplane, the young ace scored a total of 48 confirmed victories before being brought down by Lieutenant Rhys Davids on the very day that he was due to go on leave. The Fokker F1 differed from the production DR.1 in detail only, Voss machine being fitted with a captured 110hp Le Rhone engine, his aircraft not being fitted with the outer wing skids common to the DR.1....


lol, reads like a bumper for Dog Fights ;-)

Now have a look...



Notice the 2 DR.Is accompanying the fearless Voss? Funny, as there were no DR.Is at this time and that is most certainly not a FI in the picture.

AND where is this research stating the cowl was yellow? AND note the cowl in the pic is GREEN!!

The ailerons are wrong, the cowling is wrong. ..ect..

You dont need to have a art degree to see these errors in research and execution. Especially from one who proclaims to be a master.

What ever, people..please go buy Ivans art.

And speaking of the DR.I...every one he has done ..is wrong in one way or another. And in a different way each time..like they really look like they were done by different people...which leads to my next "personal observation".

I swear every time I visit his site the number of WWI pieces grows at a surprisingly fast rate....as well as the 12 or so other genres he does. The guy's a animal! All the best chief!

It's another interesting point you raise with regard to whether using CG stuff as inspiration of pose assistance for paintings is 'cheating' or not, and whether the 'paintings' are not actually paintings at all in the strictest sense. Personally I regard using such aids for composition as no worse than using an artist's pose mannequin for figure drawing, or a scale model to help you suss out how things will look, although there is no doubt a lot of the skill and artistry goes out of the window when such methods are overused. A painting is not meant to be a photograph, and millimetric accuracy is not so important as feeling and composition when it comes to painting, so all the CG in the world will not imbue that into a work of art, and is no substitute for artistic ability or simple drawing skill. That said, I am not opposed to anybody using CG in any way they like, far from it, since it is in fact part of my job to train people on many of the software packages used for that kind of work, but if you want to capture a mood, then a paint brush and a good eye still takes some beating, and if CG stuff is being passed off as paintings, then that too is questionable in my opinion, at least from the standpoint of honestly representing what it is you are selling if you claim it to be something more than a tarted up CG image.

Firstly we will disagree about the warmth and feel of CG vs traditional but we like what we like Not to mention CG is a lot more than simply pushing magic buttons.

I do agree that using comp aides or a photo as a reference is perfectly fine. Why not? Makes perfect sense. Not cheating in my view either. And I definitely agree that passing off CG canvas prints as paints "is" cheating. In regards to berrymans work, in my opinion it looks like a CG to canvas print, which you can then paint on top of with real paint...

Again, just my observations of his works.

Oh..I like how you said "A painting is not meant to be a photograph, and millimetric accuracy is not so important as feeling and composition when it comes to painting,"

...look familiar?



Again if people are fooled that is a original piece of art...then they deserve to be parted with their money.

Hell I could even repaint a picture

These opinions aside, there would have been nothing wrong with the guy framing a sketch of a Dr1 with that autograph also in the frame, and nothing wrong with him using a computer generated image to assist him in creating such a sketch, but to actually draw on the original piece of paper which bore the signature itself is bordering on criminal vandalism in my opinion, and he ought to be ashamed of himself for having done so. I actually have quite a few historic aviation artifacts in my possession, but where things like that are concerned, one should always remember that one is simply the custodian of such things, and when we are pushing up daisies, such artifacts should still be around in their original condition for historians to study, so I personally feel that it is not our right to mess around with them despite the fact that we might be their present owner, and whatever our opinions of his artwork, you are right to be appalled by him having done such as thing, as indeed am I.

Al

I could not agree with you more. I understand selling out but this goes far beyond that.