I missed something, Please fill me in.

 
Hall/Perdue
 
Avatar
 
 
Hall/Perdue
Total Posts:  179
Joined  16-12-2006
 
 
 
27 December 2007 19:18
 

At the risk of waffling worse than a presidential candidate, let me offer these thoughts.  While I do believe that sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 cover the introduction of new designs and devises including completely new arms, I also prefer a narrow reading of the charter.  I too have some experience in the realm of not-for-profit law, and I can confirm that things can get pretty ugly.  Until we have sound legal guidance to the contrary, I am in agreement with Patrick.

That being said I also believe that we can work within the bounds of the narrow interpretation to continue introducing new designs and devices.  I explained the importance of the educational tool "the critique."  For those of you unfamiliar with a critiqe I’ll offer an example:

 

I took two art classes in college, and in both of them the students were required to generate several images each week.  On fridays, we would present our images to the class, and our peers would make comments, ask questions, and offer advice…much as in the Heraldic Design Forum.  The comments may have been as simple as "It’s ugly" to very insightful comments regarding form, historical references, technique…etc.

 

The difference between a critique forum and the Heraldic Design forum as it now exists is that of focus.  The purpose of a critique is to help a student gain feedback about his ability to communicate in a particualr medium.  The purpose is not necessarily to help Jon Doe come up with a new set of arms.  While Jon Doe’s arms may be the subject of the artwork, the focus is on the artist.

 

I suggested a couple of ideas about how to accomplish this, but I will give Patrick the opportunity to think about the ideas and write up a proposal.

 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
27 December 2007 20:35
 

Article 3.2 of the charter, describing our purpose, does lend itself to a narrow interpretation. In both its phrases it refers to the "science" of heraldry, and the following examples of possible activities fit within this framework. Design, however, belongs more to the "art" of heraldry. Judging from discussion in the forum, concern for aesthetics and the fostering of excellence in heraldic design are major concerns for many of our members. We even offer a design award, recognizing excellence in heraldiic design. (Do we also offer an award for excellence in heraldic research?)

I don’t know what trouble is involved in amending our charter; but I wonder whether it might better represent the true range of our purposes if Article 3.2 referred to both the "science" and the "art" of heraldry, and to "the fostering of excellence in heraldic design."

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
27 December 2007 20:55
 

Eric said, in part:

"I took two art classes in college, and in both of them the students were required to generate several images each week. On fridays, we would present our images to the class, and our peers would make comments, ask questions, and offer advice…much as in the Heraldic Design Forum. The comments may have been as simple as "It’s ugly" to very insightful comments regarding form, historical references, technique…etc.

The difference between a critique forum and the Heraldic Design forum as it now exists is that of focus. The purpose of a critique is to help a student gain feedback about his ability to communicate in a particular medium. The purpose is not necessarily to help Jon Doe come up with a new set of arms. While Jon Doe’s arms may be the subject of the artwork, the focus is on the artist."

========================

Interesting analogy.  Two comments - (1) a similar analogy could likely be drawn from a class composed of budding young artists, or perhaps potential clients/patrons, rather than Eric’s class of (essentially) budding young art critics; in which case the focus would in fact be more on the artist and the art itself, and less on the critique.  (2) Even in Eric’s class, more of a focus on the the artist and the end product, might well have been just as good (or maybe better?) teaching tool than a focus on communicating one’s critique. In any case, they would have all been legitimate approaches within the school’s fine arts department.

 

To draw a different analogy - hopefully more apt, but IMO at least no less— let’s suppose we’re looking at food classes.  One class might, like Eric’s art class, take the approach of restaurant reviewer, and focus on communication; another might study food preparation from the viewpoint of a nutritionist; and yet others might focus on preserving old family recipes or creating new family favorites.  The focus might range from family or cultural culinary traditions, to authentic or organic ingredients, to good down home flavor.  IMO any and all of these would be valid endeavors in the food sciences.  Even the narrow focus on restaurant critic would be a bit sterile if limited to "I like it because…" with no room for "it might be better tasting/more nutritious/more authentic if you added a pinch of…"

 

I could draw similar analogies regarding wine classes (consumer? retailer? critic? winemaker?)  and likely any number of other fields, but I will mercifully refrain. I’ll just finish by saying that our current purposes should be sufficiently broad to accommodate design discussions; & if not, they need to be re-written.

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
27 December 2007 23:58
 

I agree with Michael. However I am not the person who has any control on our not-for-profit status, and would feel much more comfortable with some sort of legal council.

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
28 December 2007 08:13
 

This is all being very helpful, thank you all.


Quote:

The use of the AHS Forum for extensive discussions working through the design is limited to AHS members and should be conducted in the section of the members’ area established for that purpose.


It was pointed out to me yesterday that the purpose of the Heraldic Design forum in the members area is to discuss the principles of heraldic design. If you click on "member area" in the nav bar above, you’ll see that the title of the forum is "Heraldic Design Principles of Heraldic Design". This individual posits that "working through the design" is not within the purpose of that particular forum. Now, I don’t know that I agree with that, necessarily, but:

 

If that is accurate, then there is no area set aside here for the purpose of "working through the design", and

 

Even if that is not accurate, is part of "working through the design" the addition of elements that were not there in the first place?


Quote:

I’ll just finish by saying that our current purposes should be sufficiently broad to accommodate design discussions; & if not, they need to be re-written.


Okay. But what do you mean when you say "design discussions"? Do you mean "creation of a new achievement of arms from scratch"? Do you mean "everybody gets to post whatever idea they have for an armiger, no matter what it is"? In the thread that started this one, plenty of design discussion happened. I only moderated when something new and unasked for popped up. Please give me a definition of what you mean by "design discussion".

 
Hall/Perdue
 
Avatar
 
 
Hall/Perdue
Total Posts:  179
Joined  16-12-2006
 
 
 
28 December 2007 16:31
 

Quote:

Interesting analogy. Two comments - (1) a similar analogy could likely be drawn from a class composed of budding young artists, or perhaps potential clients/patrons, rather than Eric’s class of (essentially) budding young art critics; in which case the focus would in fact be more on the artist and the art itself, and less on the critique. (2) Even in Eric’s class, more of a focus on the the artist and the end product, might well have been just as good (or maybe better?) teaching tool than a focus on communicating one’s critique. In any case, they would have all been legitimate approaches within the school’s fine arts department.


Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.  The goal was not to improve the communication of the critique.  The goal was to improve the communication of the art itself.  The critique was the tool by which the artist can receive feedback about how his art was interpreted by the rest of the class.

 

The feedback is essential.  As a budding young (well not so young) heraldic artist, I seek the same feedback from my peers.  It is one thing to learn the basic rules from Bolton, but Bolton does not teach communication.  Designing arms for a "client" requires the artist to understand the message the "client" wishes to send and communicate that message to the heraldic community.  I need to learn whether or not I am hitting the mark.  Am I communicating effectively?  Designing emblazonments is difficult enough, and the arms in these cases are already existant.  I have not yet designed new arms that the "client" has liked.  Obviously I need to learn more.  The Heraldic Design Forum has been the place where I have practiced these skills.  The "clients" have been the members whose arms were the topic du jour.

 

For that matter it has been a blessing to find individuals willing and interested in having their arms designed.  Willing guinnea pigs are not so easy to find.  None of my family or friends gives a darn about heraldry.  If I design arms for them they will say that I do nice work, and pay me polite complements, but they don’t really care.  The willing guinnea pigs in the Heraldic Design Forum actually care, and will communicate their preferences.  When a bunch of us design arms, and the "client" chooses to go with someone elses design…I learn.