Bishop Johnston of Kansas City-St Joseph

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
14 October 2015 18:05
 

On September 15, Pope Francis transferred Bishop James Johnston from the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, Mo. to the Diocese of Kansas City-St Joseph, Mo.

I’ve known the diocese’s director of sacred worship for years so I offered my humble service. I submitted the emblazonment and was pleased to find out that Bp Johnston greatly liked it. I give you the emblazonment that the diocese and the bishop will be using. I was also asked to paint the arms to be displayed above his chair in the cathedral. He will be installed on November 4.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Resine/Heraldry/Ecclesiastical Arms/Bp Johnston KCSJ_zpsx8uqab0n.png

 

The arms were designed by Dcn Paul Sullivan when he was named bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, and I must confess I really like them. They’re among the best bishop’s arms that I’ve seen in my opinion. They also paired up very nicely, I think, with the diocesan arms of Kansas City-St Joseph.For reference, his arms as bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau were:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Resine/Heraldry/Ecclesiastical Arms/JVJ-Coat-of-Arms_zps3vvqkueq.jpg

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
14 October 2015 18:43
 

Very nice work Fr. Gill!

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2015 23:28
 

Amen!

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
21 October 2015 11:27
 

Very nicely done. Did you draw this by hand or do you work on a computer? Either way the end result is clean, clear and very nice.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
22 October 2015 00:00
 

Ditto!

I noticed one visual difference in the personal arms (sinister impalement) between your rendition vs.  the earlier one.  No heraldic distinction, both are heraldically identical; but the two stars, while both per the same blazon, don’t look the same - the heavier black outline of the earlier star leaves only thin / wimpy gold rays, while yours has thicker, more visibly striking gold rays.

 

I also prefer the the IMO more elegant shape of your escallops, but the earlier ones are visually OK.

 

A+ for the eye candy! smile

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
23 October 2015 01:35
 

gselvester;104965 wrote:

Very nicely done. Did you draw this by hand or do you work on a computer? Either way the end result is clean, clear and very nice.

That particular version is done with Microsoft Design, a vector program. The initial sketches were by hand, but thus far my cleanest, crispest emblazonments have been with vector artwork. I’ve dabbled in digitally enhanced hand work, but I’m not yet satisfied with the results. I wasn’t going to risk less than the best. The folks publishing the installation mass programs and the local catholic newspaper, it turns out, rather appreciated a vector file.

During the same phone conversation in which I found out the diocese was going to go with my version, I was asked if I could produce large painted version that could fit in a 12x16 in. frame hanging over the bishop’s chair. I was happy to oblige. So, I pulled out my initial sketches, worked it out on grid paper, and got to painting. I’m putting the last touches on to it tomorrow and next week. You can see below some pictures of it as it progressed. It is gouache paint on 140 lb hot press Arches paper. The last image is one I took earlier today after i finished molding the shield. If you look closely, you’ll see differences between the painted version and the digital version, which just illustrates how it changed as I played with the particular mediums.

 

So, I suppose the answer to your question is that it’s kind of both.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Resine/Heraldry/Ecclesiastical Arms/046e2d87-a33a-405e-aa3a-3cdc42f3464d_zpsuzie2ltt.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Resine/Heraldry/Ecclesiastical Arms/dcd8ddc9-f2b4-4390-bc2d-6332eecd99de_zpsvnit0bum.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Resine/Heraldry/Ecclesiastical Arms/ee6d448b-a5b2-4d27-a49b-ef934a15b052_zpsoisss4rc.jpg


Michael F. McCartney wrote:

I noticed one visual difference in the personal arms (sinister impalement) between your rendition vs. the earlier one. No heraldic distinction, both are heraldically identical; but the two stars, while both per the same blazon, don’t look the same - the heavier black outline of the earlier star leaves only thin / wimpy gold rays, while yours has thicker, more visibly striking gold rays.

The earlier emblazonment was by Paul Sullivan. He does decent work… better when he was younger… but if you’ve seen much of his work, in general, he could make charges fit the space much better than he does. Incidentally, during the course of that phone conversation I mentioned above, I was asked what I thought of Paul Sullivan. It turns out he had emailed them offering his services to them. I think I was charitable, but I do think they’re getting a better product from me. :p

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 October 2015 04:22
 

Definitely!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 October 2015 09:59
 

Daniel puts his finger on something that I couldn’t quite spot before, which is that Deacon Sullivan seems to be a better armorial designer than an artist.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 October 2015 13:07
 

At least two different skill sets; there are some who have mastered both, but even in the professional operations (College of Arms, Lyon Office, CHA ...) there is a division of labor between heralds and herald painters.

Each can to a degree offset weaknesses in the other - heraldic designers can aim for designs that even a so-so artist can render nicely, and top notch artists like Foppoli can do wonders with designs that lack simplicity and intrinsic elegance.

 

Unfortunately the reverse is also true - designs that are so cluttered that most otherwise competent artists can’t salvage them, and "artists" who can make the most elegantly simple designs unappealing.  (Some of the online bucket shops are prime examples of the latter.)

 

My personal preference when we’re assisting in someone’s design process, and especially during their refrigerator test, is to keep any draft artwork simple and focus on the design.  Elegant artwork too early can seduce the client and mask design flaws - a really good design shouldn’t have to rely on expensive artwork for an acceptable result.

 

Once a good design is firm, top-notch artwork (as above) can of course render it as truly elegant as one’s purse or charity can afford; but any competent artist should be able to produce an attractive emblazonment.

 

I suppose it’s like music - first a good melody, then the harmonies and orchestral arrangement; or a sermon - first a sound theology, then the eloquent delivery.

 

Sorry if this is running off-topic, but it seemed relevant.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
23 October 2015 19:06
 

Joseph McMillan;104997 wrote:

Daniel puts his finger on something that I couldn’t quite spot before, which is that Deacon Sullivan seems to be a better armorial designer than an artist.


I disagree. Not that he is not as good at the artwork but I disagree entirely that he is a decent armorial designer. Quite the opposite. I know from first hand knowledge that he does NO designing at all. He asks the client what they’d like to have on their coat of arms. He tells them to sketch it out by hand or have someone else do it and to send the sketch to him. Then he simply depicts it. There is no design work at all.

 

In his younger days when his hand was a bit steadier he was, indeed, a very good artist. I once heard him described as a "good craftsman" because he was able to produce very nice artwork but, at the same time, the designs are often appalling. It’s down to sheer luck that, occasionally, a client happened to ask for a design that ended up being passable heraldically but that has nothing to do with a person knowledgeable in the science of heraldry creating a heraldically sound design.

 

In many respects he contributed to the poor state of American ecclesiastical heraldry for many years. He also fed into the notion that "doing" heraldry was all about the emblazon and not too much about the blazon (the perennial argument).

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
24 October 2015 00:56
 

gselvester;105003 wrote:

I know from first hand knowledge that he does NO designing at all. He asks the client what they’d like to have on their coat of arms. He tells them to sketch it out by hand or have someone else do it and to send the sketch to him. Then he simply depicts it. There is no design work at all.

Case in point are the arms of Aux. Bp. Rice of St. Louis (discussed here), which Sullivan did in 2011. I don’t know who he turned to for the design (it wasn’t me; I knew him in passing and offered my help), but the choice to charge the chevron with of garbs of wheat was a bad idea; they just don’t fit. Perhaps if they had been bendwise and bendwise sinister. As it stands, it would take a really good artist… like Foppolli as Michael suggested… to make this design choice passable.

http://archstl.org/files/field-image/rice-coat-of-arms-web.jpg

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 October 2015 08:37
 

Dcgb7f;105007 wrote:

Case in point are the arms of Aux. Bp. Rice of St. Louis (discussed here), which Sullivan did in 2011. I don’t know who he turned to for the design (it wasn’t me; I knew him in passing and offered my help), but the choice to charge the chevron with of garbs of wheat was a bad idea; they just don’t fit. Perhaps if they had been bendwise and bendwise sinister. As it stands, it would take a really good artist… like Foppolli as Michael suggested… to make this design choice passable.

http://archstl.org/files/field-image/rice-coat-of-arms-web.jpg


Interesting—this I would have taken to illustrate my point.  The problem, to me, is not the placement of garbs on a chevron (the design issue), but the width and angle of the chevron and shape of the shield, all of which drive the relative size of the garbs vis-a-vis the crowns (the artistic issue).

 

Imagine the arms of Bishop Rice with the chevron from this (the arms of Matthew Cradock, first governor of Massachusetts Bay) replacing the one on the Sullivan emblazonment.  And the Cradock picture is no great piece of original art—the garbs are clipart, just properly scaled to fit a properly scaled chevron.

 

http://americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1437&d=1445689847

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
26 October 2015 23:42
 

Joseph McMillan;105008 wrote:

Interesting—this I would have taken to illustrate my point.  The problem, to me, is not the placement of garbs on a chevron (the design issue), but the width and angle of the chevron and shape of the shield, all of which drive the relative size of the garbs vis-a-vis the crowns (the artistic issue).

Imagine the arms of Bishop Rice with the chevron from this (the arms of Matthew Cradock, first governor of Massachusetts Bay) replacing the one on the Sullivan emblazonment.  And the Cradock picture is no great piece of original art—the garbs are clipart, just properly scaled to fit a properly scaled chevron.

 

http://americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1437&d=1445689847

There’s no arguing that Sullivan choose very poorly how to depict those charges and your suggestion is what someone like Foppoli would do to make it look good. If you complete the shield as per the blazon as I do below, while the design is decent, I still wouldn’t call it the best design not just because it strikes me a a tad cluttered (but admitted not overwhelmingly so) but because by sizing up the garbs, the crowns become less prominent and if you read the design rationale the armiger wanted to stress his ties to St. Louis and was using the garbs simply as a way to difference his arms from some generic bucket-shop Rice arms. Sullivan tried to do that with his emblazonment, but sacrificed artistic beauty in order to do it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Resine/Heraldry/Rice Rework_zpsngyhhfnq.jpg

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
27 October 2015 01:55
 

But if the field was Gules as in the original design, the gold crowns should pop visually.  And the modified chevron and garbs could be shrunk a little - not much - to give the crowns just a tad more space and be a tad bigger.  Not perfect but marginally better..

Having said all that, the need for all this fine tuning to achieve a reasonably good result doesn’t say much for the original design.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 October 2015 08:58
 

Michael F. McCartney;105032 wrote:

Having said all that, the need for all this fine tuning to achieve a reasonably good result doesn’t say much for the original design.


But as I tried to suggest in saying that my emblazonment of the Cradock arms was just a pastiche of clipart, this is not "fine tuning."  "Color on a chevron between three gizmos metal two widgets color" may not be an immensely original arrangement, but it’s perfectly sound heraldic design.  The French and English armorials would have lots of blanks in them if we deleted all the arms following this pattern.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
27 October 2015 16:06
 

Fair enough.