Page 2 of 3

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:36 pm
by Colin Middleton
Up to a point (and I can't remember when it happens), paintings of people aren't usually of the person in question, but are more symbolic of them. If you take a look at the statues of the kings of England in York Minster, you'll see what I mean. Edward I, a well known warrior, has a shaggy beard and viscious expression, while his son Edward II (a well known wimp) has a trimmed beard and is inspecting his finger nails. By the 1460s when they were carved, no-one kenw what William I looked like, so they made it up.

Prior to the late 14th C (is that right), pictures tended to be 'flatter' and size was not an indication of how tall or how close a figure was, but how important (see th Mac Bible with kings as tall as castles). The style of painting changes to a more realistic one with the development of the Camera Obscura.

Another point (which persisted will into the modern period) was the tendancy to paint historical figures in current fashions (often with the addition of a funny hat or some-thing to show that they aren't modern people). Again, that's why the Mac Bible is such a good source for mid 13th C, even though it is illustrating bible stories of centuries earlier.

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:52 pm
by narvek
Or example for all examples (that is if I can phrase it like that), would you imagine Alexander the Great riding in full plate armour :wink:

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:15 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
Or Julius Ceaser, or King Arthur or Saint George.
Not that a God fearing man of the cloth sworn to poverty would be requiring a portrait of himself when he was too busy defending Outremer and looking after Our Lady's poor.
12th century fighting orders, along with the other religious orders were going through a period of growth and having been (re)formed were more stringent in adhereing to their vows and rules than those of the 15th and 16th century

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:08 pm
by gallois
narvek wrote:Or example for all examples (that is if I can phrase it like that), would you imagine Alexander the Great riding in full plate armour :wink:


Hi Narvek...I dont need to imagine Alexander in PLATE armour as this mosaic from Pompeii (200BC), authenticated by Museo Archaeologico Nazionale di Napoli, shows. Or doesnt lamella armour count? :lol:

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:36 pm
by Jenn R
Oh yes Alexander the Great wore armour 24 hours a day because that's what pictures of him show.

It MUST be true.

Talk about missing the point :roll:

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:26 pm
by gallois
I hadnt realised that there was a point to be missed? Please enlighten me...are we being instructed to ignore all imagery from the past? This all started because someone who wishes to reenact as a Templar asked about a bloody hat! The hat in question has been in use since before the 11th C. and is still in use today. Wether or not the portrait the chap used as a reference is accurately portraying the person is irrelevant. The cloaks in the portraits are authentic as Hospitaliers so perhaps the hat one of them is wearing is genuine too?

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:03 pm
by Jenn R
1...2...3........and breathe......

Are you deliberately trolling this thread?


Just because a picture shows something it doesn't mean that it is strictly accurate. There is artistic licence and pictures must be viewed in context...when and why they were painted.

Its not black and white, that seems to be your attitude. There are shades of grey.

A picture can be a starting point for further research and discussion. It cannot blindly be used as facts......otherwise we would all be dressing as _______ (insert any famous figure from history)






You make my head hurt.

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:32 pm
by Templar Knight
Cheers for all the replies, its annoying that I dont get emailed after first few posts. Didnt expect to see this many. I think gallois has made a good point. There is a lot we dont know about the medieval periods and how things where done back then. Seeing as in the case of the Templars theyre main documents were burnt we cant rule out the fact that they didnt. But point is stop bullying eachother lol :roll:

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:15 pm
by Grymm
Not ignore but take with a pinch of salt, it's not a photo(and it's easy enough to 'fake' or misinterprete photos information) paintings and illustrations often contain 'fantasy' and/or obscure symbolism, possibly not even there and done 'remotely', so just double check stuff don't just take it as painted with modern photo realism.
On a different tack but just to illustrate (no pun intended) my point
Image
On the face of it archers shooting at a butt, but they are shooting with birding blunts which are sticking in the target AND shooting off their thumbs (wrong side of the bow for most archers) is that how really was done?

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:18 pm
by chrisanson
probably not but i can and hve made birding blunts stick in similer things. and yes i have shot of the thumb.

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:25 pm
by Grymm
Did you have a little metal tubes to aim for like the guys in the Lutterel Psalter, or isn't that what they are? Image

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:26 pm
by chrisanson
look like holes to me

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:27 pm
by Grymm
But they are sooooooooooo regular so they must be built in right?

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:28 pm
by chrisanson
unbeliever

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:30 pm
by Grymm
You say the nicest things :D now brand me with hot irons and call me heretic.

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:31 pm
by chrisanson
no problem, just pop around any time i have the forge lit

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:59 pm
by narvek
What Jenn said:)

and deliberetly trying to misinterpret my post is...well...low.

The hat in question has been in use since before the 11th C. and is still in use today.

Proof?

[img]The%20cloaks%20in%20the%20portraits%20are%20authentic%20as%20Hospitaliers%20so%20perhaps%20the%20hat%20one%20of%20them%20is%20wearing%20is%20genuine%20too?[/img]Do you really believe that the fashion of the Order had not changed at all during the history?


EDIT: corrected the 'quote' tags instead of 'img' ones :oops: :oops:

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:04 pm
by chrisanson
narvek wrote:What Jenn said:)

and deliberetly trying to misinterpret my post is...well...low.

[img]The%20hat%20in%20question%20has%20been%20in%20use%20since%20before%20the%2011th%20C.%20and%20is%20still%20in%20use%20today.[/img]
Proof?

[img]The%20cloaks%20in%20the%20portraits%20are%20authentic%20as%20Hospitaliers%20so%20perhaps%20the%20hat%20one%20of%20them%20is%20wearing%20is%20genuine%20too?[/img]
Do you really believe that the fashion of the Order had not changed at all during the history?



i'll believe anyting for a jaffa cake

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:23 pm
by Jenn R
narvek wrote:What Jenn said:)

and deliberetly trying to misinterpret my post is...well...low.

[img]The%20hat%20in%20question%20has%20been%20in%20use%20since%20before%20the%2011th%20C.%20and%20is%20still%20in%20use%20today.[/img]
Proof?

[img]The%20cloaks%20in%20the%20portraits%20are%20authentic%20as%20Hospitaliers%20so%20perhaps%20the%20hat%20one%20of%20them%20is%20wearing%20is%20genuine%20too?[/img]
Do you really believe that the fashion of the Order had not changed at all during the history?


Have I ever said how much I like you :D

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:24 pm
by chrisanson
Jenn R wrote:
narvek wrote:What Jenn said:)

and deliberetly trying to misinterpret my post is...well...low.

[img]The%20hat%20in%20question%20has%20been%20in%20use%20since%20before%20the%2011th%20C.%20and%20is%20still%20in%20use%20today.[/img]
Proof?

[img]The%20cloaks%20in%20the%20portraits%20are%20authentic%20as%20Hospitaliers%20so%20perhaps%20the%20hat%20one%20of%20them%20is%20wearing%20is%20genuine%20too?[/img]
Do you really believe that the fashion of the Order had not changed at all during the history?


Have I ever said how much I like you :D




got any jaffa cakes?

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:32 pm
by Jenn R
Of course I have Jaffa cakes :roll:

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:54 pm
by chrisanson
Jenn R wrote:Of course I have Jaffa cakes :roll:



8)

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:28 pm
by Jenn R
Now this is a serious thread about serious hats....get away with you and your talk of Jaffa Cakes :lol:

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:07 am
by narvek
Chrisanson:
Image

Satisfied now?
:P

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:25 am
by Jenn R
Now you've started :roll:


I have real Jaffa Cakes, not just pictures......



:lol:

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:33 am
by chrisanson
this thread is way to deep for me. i', going to sit down with a nice digtsive

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:34 am
by narvek
Any more real than this:
Image???

:lol: :lol:

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:37 pm
by Colin Middleton
Templar Knight wrote:Cheers for all the replies, its annoying that I dont get emailed after first few posts. Didnt expect to see this many.

I've noticed my reply notifications getting flagged as spam lately. That may be why you're not getting them.

Templar Knight wrote: I think gallois has made a good point. There is a lot we dont know about the medieval periods and how things where done back then. Seeing as in the case of the Templars theyre main documents were burnt we cant rule out the fact that they didnt.

Be careful rellying on the Lack of Evidence argument. A lack of evidence tells us that we DON'T KNOW something. We then have to refer to related evidence to work it out. For example, there is no evidence that medieval horses very herbivores. So, we imply from the fact that modern horses are herbivores that so were medieval ones. A bit of a silly example, I know, but it makes my point.

So, this picture tells us that the hat was worn by monks when the picture was painted (okay, so I've inferred a lot into there anyway). Now you need to find out if the hat was worn by anyone in your period (I think that there was mention of that above). If it was, then the two imply that your templar can wear it, if there is no evidence for it's exitence then, I'd recomend avoiding it.

Templar Knight wrote: But point is stop bullying eachother lol :roll:

Good point, well made.

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:24 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
I'd trust Bruegal to paint pretty good representaions of late medieval life, including costume, I wouldn't trust him to do the same about anything earlier.
Paintings were often allegorical in nature, they were commissioned (only at the end of the Renaissance did you have artisits creating art for art's sake) so they artisit painted what they were told to paint not what they wanted or felt should be done, the artisit is limited by talent and tools, certain colours can be created for a painting that ould be either exhorbitently expensive or impossible to produce in the flesh.
I was recommended by those more in the know than myself to use paintings and other illustrations to help my portrayal but to use them with caution, they are after all creative works not photographs-and even those can be altered or faked!

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:24 pm
by gregory23b
"Im confused as to why anyone would paint his portrait centuries later? "

People have always painted people from earlier periods.

The middle ages was full of it, no less in later eras.

I can think of many 15thc examples where modern ie 15thc dress were applied plus what some believe to be 'fantasy' ie in order to set it aside from being modern (15thc).

There is a range of tapestries about Alexander the Great, mid to late 15thc, he is shown in anything but Ancient Greek kit, the people are variously dressed in kit that we know to be of the period of the painting and weird and wonderful stuff.

Retrospective painting was only part of the trend to relate histories of the past, written works use contemporary words to describe things from the past, eg doublets etc.

As to the image posted, that is not of the period of the subject, much later, if the text underneath is of the same era as the painting then even more certain it is later, the script is of a later date.

Image interpretation is hard and very often has to be viewed with other factors in mind.

I would try to find images from the time of the templars or even contact them.