I have read from several sources that the light emanates from the upper dexter. It is traditional but not proscriptive to the artist. It would, for example, present difficulties whenever the shield is depicted at different angles than the usual upright.

Woooaaaahhhh there good Father and Andrew. I know you don’t mean anything personal towards me, but holy cow man. How did you guys misunderstand what I was saying and doing for Louis???

Please, and with all due respect, go back and re-read my post(s) to Louis. I never once said it is a law, heraldic or otherwise, to have light coming from the dexter (visual left) – not once. So, to ascribe that to me is, frankly, wrong.

Look at the examples Louis has blessed us with. In each you will see Louis using shading on the sinister (visual right) and as such I went with that. If Louis had placed his shading on the dexter (visual left) I would have reversed my points to accommodate that.

In this particular achievement for Mark’s wife Louis chose to place the bulk of the shading on the sinister (visual right) of the shield. As such, it naturally follows using lighting/shading techniques that the dexter (visual left) would be highlighted. Further, as that was the choice and as Louis placed shading under the helm on top of the shield one would have to place shading under the cross beam of the cross and on the sinister (visual right) of the up-beam of the cross to keep the light/shadow technique universal throughout the work.

This was the only advice I was giving Louis; to keep it uniform and remove the shading on the dexter side all together and so keep it uniform so that it is easier for the eye and mind to process. And make no mistake about it for that is what the eye and mind does when it views things; it first sees lighting and shading (which is in fact an aspect of color, but also works for those who do not see in color), which helps define the shape as we see it and you can find that in any Applied Visual Art Class 101.

Heraldic custom (which I would hold it is, but not a law, which I never said) or not aside, what I am advising Louis of is a basic light/shadow technique used in ALL paper/canvas art (you find it naturally in sculpted and photographic art). You have light form one side and therefore shading on the other. It is that simple.

One more thing, Andrew.

I do not recall saying that all achievements ‘must’ use light/shade in their design. So, for me anyway, looking at the English COA for examples of this is not worthwhile at all (looking for wonderful artwork, well that is another story all together).

In fact some of my own artwork did not include light/shade at all either… like the achievement I did for our own David Boven (viewable at his website) comes to mind right now. All I was saying, again, is if you are using shade you therefore must be using light, for there is no other way to get shading if you have no light.

Light and shade will give your work depth and help the eye to process it better, but that does not make it a ‘must’ in any art-form whatsoever.

So, please know I do not, as an artist, say that you ‘have to’ have light/shade in your work.

Louis, this is the second time I’ve been taken to ask a bit by others when offering constructive criticism for you as a fellow artist. And, frankly, I’m just not going to offer it anymore. To be quite honest this is crazy and a bit of a waste of time and posting space.

I’m sorry and you can still PM me as you’ve done before for my input. But, I will not be offering any more public advice for you… or any artist for that matter. It appears people here do not either understand the reason(s) I as a fellow artist am trying to help you (just as other fellow artists here try to help me when I post my work) and seem to think instead I am criticizing you personally or something or that I am off my rocker, which I guess could be true. 8)

Kelisli wrote:

I also don’t believe that if women’s arms are displayed on lozenges, that a crest is appropriate. I believe that is the case in English tradition, at least. I could be wrong or they could have modernized their rules, but I have seem lozenges either ensigned with coronets or nothing, but I haven’t seen them ensigned with helmets or crests. Again, open to stand corrected.

That is indeed the English rule, but not the Scottish.  In Scotland, current practice is for a woman’s arms to be displayed on a lozenge, or more commonly an oval, with the crest on its wreath directly above.

Judging by such sources as the Gore Roll, Bolton’s American Armory, Zieber’s American Heraldry, and Amy Vanderbilt’s etiquette guides, the most common way of displaying the arms of an unmarried woman in the US has been on a lozenge with crest displayed on its wreath immediately above, without helmet and mantling.  In modern times, with women bearing arms in their own right, this would seem a very appropriate American usage.  For more, see the discussion in the members’ section at http://forums.heraldrysociety.us/showthread.php?t=178&page=2.

Donnchadh:

I certainly meant no offense in my post and please forgive me if it appeared to be so!  I did re-read the originals and see where I went astray in my comments.

I also can’t offer any artistic criticism as I couldn’t draw if my life depended upon it.

Donnchadh:

Neither did I mean anything personal in my post.  After going back and re-reading every post in the thread, I see it was Hassan who first brought up the shading on the sinister.  I would still say that, while it may be a common practice, I wouldn’t elevate it to the level of a tradition.

Donnchadh, I don’t think you were clear that you were trying to help Louis make all the emblazonments the same.  Reading your post sounds like you were laying down the law.

Donnchadh wrote:

Remove the shading from the left of the shield. Save shading for only the right side of the achievement. Remember that the light comes from the upper left, so highlights on the left and shading on the right of the shield.

Also shading is under every charge that is upon a charge.

Again, I meant nothing personal by my posts at all.  Taken in the context of what Hassan wrote in this same thread, it made it sound like a law was being quoted.

Jongr90 wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/Maramalo/DeniseOlivo1.png

Back to the topic at hand, one thing did just occur to me.

How does the general population feel about the relative size of the "cross fillet Sable".  Might it be too wide?

Thoughts please…

Andrew, I didn’t take personal offense to it. That’s why I said that before I began the meat of my post. I thought you and the good Father misread what I was posting and perhaps as to why I was posting it. That’s why I went into some detail about why I was saying what I was saying about light/shade techniques. No personal offense taken at all mate. I just wanted to set the record straight as to what I was saying and why.

Good Father, again I didn’t take a personal offense… I just wanted to clarify why I was saying what I was saying for pointers to Louis.

Now, as for the laying down the law, I’m sorry if that’s how it came across. And Louis if that’s how you took it I think you’d know that was not what I was doing, but in case you did, sorry.

Again I’m only referring to the ‘if’ scenario if using light/shade. When shade is on one side the opposite must be the light side. If the artist were to flip them as we see on Louis current rendition that’s OK too, as long as the shade is opposite of the light. In fact it is OK if there is no light/shade. I’ve seen and have done several like that. They are OK as well.

So, in no way do I pretend to have the ability to law down any sort of heraldic law. While I am a very good artist (I hope that doesn’t sound like ugly boasting from an arrogant man) I am certainly not a master like MF, de Bruin, L. Granier, B. Manning, AJ, etc. These men are masters and while I am good I am not in their league… yet. I will be (again I hope not to be sounding like an arrogant jerk there) but I am not there yet.

And I am most certainly not in the same ball park, let alone league, as real-life heralds or even those who’ve taken the heraldry exams and passed them. In matters of heraldic law I would feel much more comfortable shutting up and letting people like Dave and Hugh and Darren and Joe etc run circles around me. Now, one day when I am out of college again and on with my Interior Design/Interior Architecture career I will have the time (maybe) to try to take these exams. Until then I simply go by what I read in these heraldry books and read from the aforementioned people here. So, sorry if it comes off as me giving law… certainly not the case or the intent.

But, and again I’m not an expert, but I think after reviewing most of the artwork from Boutelle to Heim to Fox-Davies to Dennys, etc. I think it is at least an unspoken tradition, at least amongst artists, that the light comes form the upper dexter and the shading is on the sinister. Of course I would support an artist doing it differently as well, for while I respect traditions I don’t think they are absolutes… at least in art.

Joe, I don’t know if you’ll know this… in fact maybe Sebastian would… anyway what is the tradition amongst Iberian women? Did they use lozenges and crests fastened to helmets? Of course most older crests in Iberia seem, to me at least, to have been feathers.

The reason I ask is that if that’s the case it would be in good form, to my thinking anyway, that a woman of Iberian descent could use the crest with helm approach as well as a shield. Several of my previous clients have been Hispanic females and each of them chose a more standard shape shield and about half wanted helmets, so that’s what I gave them. And if there is an Iberian tradition for that I’d just like to know.

Now I prefer the English/Scottish/Irish traditional way of using a lozenge or at least an oval. But, I would have no problem per se with a woman choosing a more standard type of shield. And since they can serve in the military and police forces I can’t see too much problem with them using a helmet either. Of course if I were a woman, which obviously I’m not, I’d prefer the oval with crest fastened to the oval via a wreath.

Quote:

How does the general population feel about the relative size of the "cross fillet Sable". Might it be too wide?

Nope Mark I don’t think so. I think it is just right in size myself. Not too large and not too small. I think Louis nailed this, as well as the lion couchant and the fleur-de-lis.

Donnchadh wrote:

The reason I ask is that if that’s the case it would be in good form, to my thinking anyway, that a woman of Iberian descent could use the crest with helm approach as well as a shield. Several of my previous clients have been Hispanic females and each of them chose a more standard shape shield and about half wanted helmets, so that’s what I gave them. And if there is an Iberian tradition for that I’d just like to know.

I was under that impression as well, but since I already have her father’s arms and her (premarried) arms are almost identical, I just wanted to see how it would look on a lozenge.

I like the way it turned out, actually.  I’ll show her both and see which she prefers.

Donnchadh wrote:

Joe, I don’t know if you’ll know this… in fact maybe Sebastian would… anyway what is the tradition amongst Iberian women? Did they use lozenges and crests fastened to helmets? Of course most older crests in Iberia seem, to me at least, to have been feathers.

The reason I ask is that if that’s the case it would be in good form, to my thinking anyway, that a woman of Iberian descent could use the crest with helm approach as well as a shield. Several of my previous clients have been Hispanic females and each of them chose a more standard shape shield and about half wanted helmets, so that’s what I gave them. And if there is an Iberian tradition for that I’d just like to know.

 

Now I prefer the English/Scottish/Irish traditional way of using a lozenge or at least an oval. But, I would have no problem per se with a woman choosing a more standard type of shield. And since they can serve in the military and police forces I can’t see too much problem with them using a helmet either. Of course if I were a woman, which obviously I’m not, I’d prefer the oval with crest fastened to the oval via a wreath.

I don’t know the Iberian tradition on this subject.  My preference would be to see American women follow whatever American custom can be discerned, especially since the American custom doesn’t seem to be slavishly copied from the English rules anyway (thus someone of Hispanic descent can’t complain that she’s being forced to follow English rules).

Anyway, my opinion is in the "best practices" paper on women’s arms.

While I am nowhere near an expert on the subject, I would prefer, as an American practice, Women use a shield. It seems kind of unequal for women to have anything different, considering many women are head of the household, and have the same legal inheritance and other rights as men.

I know the lozenge was derived from the fact that women didn’t use a shield because they weren’t allowed in battle. Even though women typically still aren’t involved in the basic ground combat, many women are put in the line of fire in the military to the point where i think it’s inappropriate to go out of our way to still recognize the former lack of combat equality with a lozenge instead of a shield.

But that’s my 2 cents.

Before I say anything else, I will inform you all of my approach to a subject I am not very familiar with. I guess it is both a strength and a witness, but I tend to believe anyone seemingly well versed in said subject, unless others, or some evidence proves otherwise.

In regards to shading:

I know it is not required, but I think it adds to the overall achievment, I always incorporate it into both my emblazonments, and regular works.

In regards to Mr. MacGoff’s statements:

I think he was merely giving constructive critcisms, since I asked for them. For as you can see in the beginning, when I shaded on the dexter side, he said nothing in objection to it.

I always welcome suggestions when I ask for them.

In regards to Mrs. Olivo’s arms:

I’ve rendered it to the best of my knowledge on things. Mr. Olivo has PMed me that they were pleased with the emblazonment. So with all these new rules and traditions you guys are presenting. Its now totally in the opinion of the armiger. I’ve informed Mr. Olivo on the matter, and I am hoping he will respond. I will change it or not according to Mr. Olivo and/or Mrs. Olivo’s wishes.