Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Drawings, Ospery and period, as sources....

Expand Messages
  • Rick Orli
    Modern drawings are no more or less secondary than the text, and if the words seem less of a speculative interpretation or even guess than the picture, then
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Modern drawings are no more or less 'secondary' than the text, and
      if the words seem less of a speculative interpretation or even guess
      than the picture, then the reader is under an illusion.

      Most histories are rife with passages where the author tell us (for
      example) what this or that King or general was thinking, his
      motives, etc. - all guesswork; hopefully informed and reasonable
      guesswork.

      The illustration is just more clearly an *example* of what may have
      been. -Rick


      --- In sig@yahoogroups.com, Tim Nalley <mordakus@...> wrote:
      >
      > Well, strictly speaking, any artistic renditions
      > are illustrative at best in the Ospery's and function
      > only in a visualization and entertainment capacity!
      > Even period drawings and paintings are considered
      > only qualified secondary sources if also backed up by
      > an artifact of similar make, like an archeological
      > drawing from a dig.
      > In most cases, drawings are tertiary only because
      > they are completely subject to artistic licence at
      > best and the demands of the original patron for a more
      > flattering portrayal at worse.
      > 'dok
    • Tim Nalley
      LOL! A very succinct definition of the difference between historial vs. antiquarian research /interpretation. I generally read every source and look for
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        LOL! A very succinct definition of the difference
        between historial vs. antiquarian research
        /interpretation. I generally read every source and
        look for re-occuring "facts", then try to verify those
        "facts" with the timeline we can verify....Often, I've
        found that a whole new historical record begins to
        appear behind the hyperboly and politik! One of my
        professors used to say that history is the true
        sausage factory, every bit of nasty meat and
        eyewatering spice goes into it and nice, pleasant
        looking sausages emerge in the publish or perish
        histories, like those drawings! Very illustrative and
        sanitized but hardly definitive.
        The other end is gettiing so gritty in your
        interpretation that you are unable to see that some
        groups were indeed sanitized and rigorously neat and
        clean, almost benial! The Civil War folks have that
        huge blind spot but niether faction can compromise
        enough to utilize it at events to show one of the more
        interesting aspects of that time....politics
        mascarading as record, the triumph of form over
        matter.
        Always enjoy your posts!
        'dok
        --- Rick Orli <orlirva@...> wrote:

        > Modern drawings are no more or less 'secondary' than
        > the text, and
        > if the words seem less of a speculative
        > interpretation or even guess
        > than the picture, then the reader is under an
        > illusion.
        >
        > Most histories are rife with passages where the
        > author tell us (for
        > example) what this or that King or general was
        > thinking, his
        > motives, etc. - all guesswork; hopefully informed
        > and reasonable
        > guesswork.
        >
        > The illustration is just more clearly an *example*
        > of what may have
        > been. -Rick
        >
        >

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.