Red Baron's signature

[Chock]

Probably going to be similar to these ones I made a couple of years ago, but with better animation, more up to date use of greenscreened pyrotechnics etc, and most likely some real actors rather than CGI figures. And the music will be original of course:

YouTube - Ring of Fire

YouTube - Ring of Fire

YouTube - The Hunt For Red Hot Coders: Part One

YouTube - The Hunt For Red Hot Coders: Part One

Al

[Chock]

Back on topics more related to the subject at hand, here's a scan of one of my planning sketches for a painting I'll be starting on soon, in addition to all that video movie malarkey. I picked this one since these little sketches are the only illustrations I can actually fit onto my scanner, otherwise I'd have to wheel out my digital camera and I'm too lazy!



This is a good example of the kind of thing I was on about when you draw something without too much reference; I've probably not got the dimensions of a Nieuport 17 spot on, but the painting composition is already in my head, so I don't really need reference for this sort of stuff, as it is more for position, light direction and what can be seen rather than specific aircraft details. The tailplane rudder deflection is deliberately ambiguous since I can't be absolutely certain on the serial number of the aircraft involved in the real incident, but I want it to not look too forced that I was trying to blag that!

This will be a painting depicting an incident which 'Mac' Maclanaghan wrote about in an article he produced in the 1930s about a dogfight in which he and Edward Mannock were involved in on August 22nd when they were serving with 40 Squadron. The article being written for inclusion in 'Popular Flying' magazine, of which Biggles creator WE Johns was editor. Mac relates how during a furious dogfight, he passed within a few feet behind Mannock's Nieuport, and Mannock 'sensed' his presence despite being glued to the Aldis sight busily engaging an Albatros. Mannock spun his head around and for a moment a look of horror crossed his face until he realised it was not an enemy aircraft, with Mac remembering that look on Mannock's face. I wanted to get that look of surprise and shock on Mannock's face in the picture, so that has also somewhat commanded the kind of viewpoints one can choose for the picture. There are of course other elements to add, since it needs proper compositional framing, possibly with the interplane struts of Mac's Nieuport being something that will suffice to form such an L shape and convey the event, rather than a Nieuport 17 simply plonked in the middle of a canvas, and doing such little sketches enables me to move them about and come up with ideas. The smudge in the middle of the distant cumulous cloud is probably going to be the position of the Albatros banking off to the right, as it would line up with the Aldis on the Nieuport, the left roll on the Nieuport's aileron's indicating that the incident has put Mannock off, as he experiences a moment of panic.

You wont match that one up with a painting or photograph LOL, it's out of my head!

Al

[rexee]

Al
If you were a "real" artist ,you would have drawn it on on a genuine "Mannock" signature! [It ups the value considerably] You see Mr Berryman...I did learn something from you..Tim,I hope you're taking notes

Rexee

[Chock]

Not a problem...



Sorted.

Al

[Ivan Berryman]

Without wishing to get into a prolonged debate about how and where references are sourced, about technique and about the ethics of drawing or painting on papers signed by historic figures, I would like to offer a few final comments.

Starting with the last point, there was considerable discussion about whether or not to do a small pencil drawing on a piece of paper that had been signed by Manfred von Richthofen before I undertook the commission. It was agreed that it would be perfectly acceptable to do the drawing, provided that it did not encroach in any way upon the signature itself so that, should a future collector not wish the drawing to be present, it could be cut off, leaving the famous signature as a stand-alone memento. The signature was covered whilst I did the drawing, so as not to smudge, rub or damage it.

Someone in this unsavoury little thread proposed that I might paint on the Rittmeister’s gravestone, or something equally vulgar. This is a ridiculous suggestion that implies that I have no morals whatsoever. This was a signed piece of paper, nothing more, and I was asked by the owner of the signature to do the drawing. I was reluctant, but concluded that it was their choice to make, not mine. I knew that I was capable of doing a reasonable job and was fearful that if I didn’t do it, the customer might take it to another, less competent artist who didn’t understand the historical importance of what he was dealing with and the item might indeed have been ruined forever.

There was also the suggestion that I did not have to accept the commission to do this drawing. I could have said ‘no’. I think I have answered this one in the previous paragraph. This could be debated ad infinitum, but I realise that you have all made up your own minds about me and my work already and it was fascinating to see how easily and quickly the primeval ‘pack instinct’ kicked in as more and more damning evidence of my alleged malpractice was brought to the table. You are free and entitled to voice your opinions and I applaud your diligence.

As for the similarities between my work and that of others, I have dealt with that one before as you attacked me with the same images over a year ago. I happily supplied all my original references on another forum where the threads originated; the photograph used for the Rickenbacker angle for instance, and everyone seemed content. It was obvious from my submissions that two artists had simply used the same photo to gain a good angle on the Spad. It happens. How could it not happen? Get over it! They did.

What strikes me is the trouble that someone has taken to manipulate my painting to fit the other one. It’s been flipped, rotated by several degrees, squeezed, and undergone whatever other transformations you so expertly applied to make it fit the argument. You really have gone to so much trouble to make your weak argument valid. I have only joined this forum to respond to these accusations and, as a new member, cannot yet post images, so I can’t properly defend myself by demonstrating this point. If I could, I’d post my original reference material for all to see – and my sources are not the ones that you suggest. It is available, however, on my website.

I could supply similar photographic references for many paintings that have been completed by some of the aviation art world’s top artists. I could…but I wont, because it is for you to spot them and for them to defend their own corner. But, at the end of the day, is it really worth it? Does it really matter? No, of course not.

Is my art computer generated? No. I wouldn’t give it more than a passing glance. But I am flattered that you think it looks like it might be. Want proof? Go to my website and follow the links to the works in progress. See how it’s done. Alternatively, why not visit my studio and come and see for yourself? Unlike you, I have nothing to hide and no need or desire to conceal anything. Of course, I am not going to reveal my Studio address on a forum, but if any of you would like to give me a private contact address, I will offer you the chance to visit me and air your grievances in person. I will be more than happy to answer any of your questions as fully as I can – far more than I ever could on an internet forum.

But, I suspect, you wont do that, will you? It’s so much easier to lambast someone whilst cloaked with the luxury of anonymity from an internet site, isn’t it? Well, good luck to you. I’m going to get on with my work now. I am amazed that the Aerodrome allows this sort of diatribe on its forum at all. It’s not constructive and is not, in my opinion (and many others, I have learned), in the spirit of the thing.

I will not be replying again, so do your worst. This correspondence is closed as far as I am concerned.

[JohnReid]

Well that is too bad as now you will never reach the number of posts that may have allowed you to present your references on this forum.

[Chock]

I guess I'll never agree with the justification for writing or drawing on something of historical interest, or altering it with something which is unnecessary. It's true your drawing does not appear to encroach on the signature. But what MVR was looking at when he signed it was a blank piece of paper, and if it was my own, I would have preferred it to remain as it looked to him when he was doing that. But more importantly, why did he sign a blank piece of paper, and why in that position leaving so much room above? was it an autograph, or something different? what day was it when he signed it, and does his hand seem firm and putting much pressure on the pen? All of that might tell us more about the man if in its original state, or at least it could have done. Not any more, or at least as well as it could before being screwed with.

If I had been asked to create such an illustration to go with it, I would have suggested the careful framing of the original signature with a commissioned picture in 'windowed' cutouts on a framed mount, which would have achieved the same effect but without damaging the original. Even in that case, I would have advised that to do so would mean that - unless in a controlled atmosphere and with special lighting - when on display, it will be exposed to UV rays which will fade it and yellow the paper, as well as probably drying it out and making it brittle.

Opinions on the good taste or otherwise of doing such a thing, I do maintain that from a forensic standpoint, it will have 'contaminated' the thing in spite of any care taken to avoid doing so, and potential future forensic evidence and avenues of investigation may now no longer be available, or at least more limited than they had been prior to the alteration.

To give you an example of practicing what I'm preaching here, I have some pieces recovered from the crash of Mk1 Spitfire R6753, 603 Squadron's XT*G, which Colin Pinckney was flying when he was shot down by Herman Friedrich Joppiens, this being on the same day Joppiens engaged Richard Hillary. This is an incident which Hillary relates in the classic memoir, The Last Enemy. Needless to say, that makes those panels historically significant, and what is especially useful, is that the paint is intact, meaning that it is a good historical reference for the colour and composition of the paint on a Mk1 Spitfire in 1940, almost all originals having either been scrapped or repainted, and all contemporary photographs of that squadron's pictures being in monotone.

Now as much as I would like to have these things on my wall, I know that the exposure to UV rays that would engender, would affect the paint and fade the colour, making it less valuable for historians, so it is stored away from light. Furthermore, I actually offered some of this stuff to one of Pinckney's relatives at no cost, but he informed me that he felt I was taking good care of them, as I stated that they are going to the Imperial War Museum when I pop my clogs. This is one of those bits:



As you can see, it doesn't look like the colour you'd normally expect on a Battle of Britain Spitfire, and we can see how thinly it was sprayed, the matt finish of the paint, how the rivets tore, indicating the severity of the crash etc, etc. That's what I'm talking about, we have to take care of such relics for the things we and future generations can learn about them. So you won't see me hammering it flat and drawing a Spitfire on it any time soon.

With regard to the other matter of copying other images, I'd initially suggested that the benefit of doubt should be given where that SPAD pic was concerned. But I'm afraid that opinion changed when seeing the comparison of the picture of the SE5s which has undoubtedly been sourced from the Brian Knight painting which appears on the cover of Windsock Datafile number 30, portraying Albert Ball's SE5 heading out to France with 56 Squadron. It has quite obviously been flipped and had minor details changed to make it the right way around, and it also appears that another painting of a diving SE5 has been amalgamated along with it. To suggest that these other snippets of paintings have somehow been made to go through numerous convolutions to highlight such a match is, unlike Ball's SE5, never going to fly. You got well and truly busted there, and you can flannel as much as you like otherwise, but I suspect even a blind man could see that's what has been done.

You are quite clearly good at painting, so why indulge in that kind of thing?

Al

[JohnReid]

Money!.................

[rexee]

From the standpoint of a discussion on technique I offer this snippet from a “New York Times” book review for everyone's consideration

“From the moment painter David Hockney began to suspect that the Old Masters had created many of their paintings with the help of lenses—in effect tracing their subjects— he insisted he was not saying they cheated.
"Optical devices certainly don't paint pictures," Hockney said. "Let me say now that the use of them diminishes no great artist."

Hockney published his theory in a very thought provoking book "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters” Incidentally , the only people that voiced dismay about his theory were historians and teachers. Artists didn't seem to care or simply weren't surprised.


As for the ” Richthofen signature drawing”
I just don’t understand it conceptually and to me it seems hokey [not Hockney] particularly when you stated the owner that commissioned you to do the drawing immediately sold it at a profit. I don’t know, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth but my opinion is simply that, my opinion
A few years ago I was accused of plagiarism and I can assure you that I immediately confronted the accuser. So I applaud your efforts Sir and thank you for joining in on this lively forum. Remember, it’s worst if people don’t discuss your work

[Russell Smith]

Originally Posted by rexee

Artists didn't seem to care or simply weren't surprised.

Sorry rexee, but artists do care. David Hockney is full of crap. I know people who can do what the old masters did, and they don't use special lenses or any other methods of tracing. It simply requires tenacious practice. As an artist, I find his assertions offensive and they only demonstrate his lack of knowledge regarding the artistic process.

here is a good article disputing Hockney's false claims. Many similar articles can be found on the same site. ALL were written by artists.

ARC ARTicles - Why David Hockney Should Not Be Taken Seriously - Brian K. Yoder - Page 1/4

Russ