The flaunches here are blazoned as "ninety degree flaunches" but they should be "square flaunches," which can be forgiven as they are pretty darn obscure, but continuing, there’s no excuse for saying "a balance scale" because in blazon the "balance" is assumed; this is redundant. These kind of vague, redundant blazons one sometimes sees out of the Institute of Heraldry (a particular offence springing to mind is the repeated and completely unnecessary "of the last") are really annoying.
I think you’re easily annoyed.
Daniel C. Boyer wrote:
The flaunches here are blazoned as "ninety degree flaunches" but they should be "square flaunches," which can be forgiven as they are pretty darn obscure, but continuing, there’s no excuse for saying "a balance scale" because in blazon the "balance" is assumed; this is redundant. These kind of vague, redundant blazons one sometimes sees out of the Institute of Heraldry (a particular offence springing to mind is the repeated and completely unnecessary "of the last") are really annoying.
I do not know what your contact has been with the US military but once the grant of arms leaves the Institute of Heraldry, it will be an artistic private or corporal who paints these arms on the barracks wall or in the center of the parade ground. A little redundancy can go a long way in ensuring that the correct charge is depicted by those unfamiliar with heraldry.
I was wondering about that. There is TIOH but I never really understood how the designs got from there to the practical showing stage. I assumed it was like one sees in old WWII movies where there is an artistic fellow who does it. But since that was before TIOH I wasn’t sure how they did it now.
Depends on the display. Some is officially procured: colors (unit flags), patches, other insignia. Some is locally done—signs in front of barracks, etc.—either by someone contracted for the job or a more-or-less talented soldier. A lot of times a unit will send a copy of the official picture to one of the many outfits in Korea that produce all the various military heraldic knick-knacks—plaques, blazer patches, smaller size embroideries of colors, etc., etc.
Generally people conform to the emblazonment provided by TIOH as closely as they can. It’s an uphill battle to persuade people that there’s an element of artistic freedom in heraldry.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Depends on the display. Some is officially procured: colors (unit flags), patches, other insignia. Some is locally done—signs in front of barracks, etc.—either by someone contracted for the job or a more-or-less talented soldier. A lot of times a unit will send a copy of the official picture to one of the many outfits in Korea that produce all the various military heraldic knick-knacks—plaques, blazer patches, smaller size embroideries of colors, etc., etc.
Generally people conform to the emblazonment provided by TIOH as closely as they can. It’s an uphill battle to persuade people that there’s an element of artistic freedom in heraldry.
What we’re really talking about—with sending the "official picture" and the artist working from that—is really the total corruption of heraldry. Work should be done from the blazon alone for many reasons: so as not to perpetuate errors that are in an emblazonment but would presumably be in the blazon (and if it’s the Institute of Heraldry’s work we can be pretty sure there will be an error in the emblazonment), so as to allow freedom for the artist who will not simply copy someone else’s interpretation, &c. Heraldry shouldn’t be an artistic game of "operator," which such a practice can’t help but make it into.
First, this is not the corruption of heraldry but a return to its roots. The graphic design on the shield came first. Only afterward did anyone worry about verbal description, and it was long, long after that that professional heralds invented language to describe what would originally have been trivial if not meaningless variations in emblazonment.
Secondly, the official drawing in this context cannot be wrong. The official drawing is the design. When the Secretary of the Army, or the commander of a unit, approves a TIOH design, he is looking at and signing off on the artwork, not the blazon.
The official blazon can be an inaccurate or inadequate description of the approved design, but a regimental color or metal unit insignia that does not conform to the manufacturing drawing—regardless of whether it conforms to the blazon—will be rejected for failing to meet the manufacturing specification. For the manufacturer to come back and say "but I conformed to the blazon" will not wash.
For the rest of us in the unofficial world, recreating arms from a blazon alone, yes, the blazon must prevail. If, however, we have the herald’s original graphic intention in front of us, the fact that he or someone else happened to blazon it wrong should not lead us to alter the original artistic composition.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
First, this is not the corruption of heraldry but a return to its roots. The graphic design on the shield came first.
This is only true in an extremely misleading sense, if you can even say that. Men have been painting pictures on their shields as long as they have been going to war, but obviously not every picture painted on every shield has been heraldry; heraldry is the science of the systematisation of those pictures, the set of rules that applies to them. Before the system, before the rules, was pre-heraldry, but to describe this as a return to heraldry’s roots is to mislead.
Quote:
Only afterward did anyone worry about verbal description, and it was long, long after that that professional heralds invented language to describe what would originally have been trivial if not meaningless variations in emblazonment.
One might decry this development of heraldry, and the tendency towards the blazoning of these small differences in emblazonment might be argued, and with a great deal of justification, to have reduced the virility and graphic power of heraldry, but heraldry has developed as it’s developed, and it’s not possible to put the genie of this overdevelopment, if you will, back in the bottle.
Quote:
Secondly, the official drawing in this context cannot be wrong.
If we’re really talking about heraldry, of course it can. This is beyond argument, as if such were not the case, we would be saying that one particular artistic interpretation (even an official interpretation, and I wish I could find the exact references of the College of Arms and Lord Lyon’s statements on this, to give two examples—I’m not giving these authorities more weight than TIOH but I’m just using them as statements of heraldic principles in general) of a blazon was the arms, and it’s plain as day that such cannot be the case. Heraldry is not a form of trademark production, in which the picture takes on this sort of legal importance. Given that all this is the case, what are we left with? The blazon. An emblazonment, any emblazonment, shows artistic style and idiosyncracies of artistic representation peculiar to the artist, and charming though these might be and are, they can give rise to errors when another artist attempts to copy the picture. Repeat, repeat, repeat this process and eventually we are going to (or there is at least the risk that we will) have the results of a heraldic game of Chinese whispers, in which the final arms bear but little resemblance to the original. If this was not part of the original motive for the development of blazon, it was at least part of the motive for its subsequent development pretty soon in, for in theory the blazon is the correct original and is not (again, in theory, and hopefully this is true) subject to the kinds of ambiguities a picture may present.
Quote:
The official drawing is the design. When the Secretary of the Army, or the commander of a unit, approves a TIOH design, he is looking at and signing off on the artwork, not the blazon.
Really, this is a gross problem with the way things are done. He should be signing off on both, and particular attention might be paid to the emblazonment conforming to the blazon. The repeated gross deviations of TIOH’s emblazonments from the blazon, as well as TIOH’s often sloppy, vague and redundant blazons, tend to fail to present a public image of the armed forces that is positive, and as this would probably be one of the intentions of TIOH, it is to be deplored. What you frequently see is blazons that are loosely inspired by the design but describe something else, or blazons that fail to give adequate information to allow an artist to produce arms that look reasonably like the official picture.
Quote:
The official blazon can be an inaccurate or inadequate description of the approved design, but a regimental color or metal unit insignia that does not conform to the manufacturing drawing—regardless of whether it conforms to the blazon—will be rejected for failing to meet the manufacturing specification. For the manufacturer to come back and say "but I conformed to the blazon" will not wash.
I understand the wish to have a standardised emblazonment, even the importance of that from a practical point of view, and how the manufacturing specificiation realised this, but again, it’s putting the cart before the horse. The first step, which would make all of this moot, would be to have the TIOH blazons bear some relationship to the emblazonments.
For the present, I’d like to see some enterprising artist take the TIOH blazons at face value, and produce from them the stated arms of the Army units. It would be a refreshing and perhaps educational exercise.
For other than official use, artistic license may produce some refreshingly original expressions of the unit insignia. For official use, however, think of the concept of "uniform"—in a military setting, both meanings must apply or it is not functional.
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
For other than official use, artistic license may produce some refreshingly original expressions of the unit insignia. For official use, however, think of the concept of "uniform"—in a military setting, both meanings must apply or it is not functional.
I’d agree to this with some qualification—obviously shoulder patches and the like—multiple copies of the coat-of-arms that should be the same copy-to-copy—are going to always be the same artistic interpretation of the blazon (but it should be of the blazon that it’s an interpretation, and if TIOH would have its blazons even roughly conform to the emblazonment in these cases I’ve been complaining about the problem would be moot), and they should remain the same year-to-year, but there might be exceptions, as hasn’t heraldry proven functional for centuries without this? As regards paintings on buildings, however, certainly they could be of a different interpretation as there can be expected to be some uniqueness here.
"As regards paintings on buildings, however, certainly they could be of a different interpretation as there can be expected to be some uniqueness here"
If the primary function of military heraldry was heraldry (in the broader sense), then perhaps yes. However, it isn’t—the primary function is military, which means that our notions of artistic flexibility have to give way, in that context at least, to the military need for uniformity.
Our notions of artistic license are later add-on’s, which were and are functional if—& only if—those who need to recognize heraldic arms understand enough about the richness of heraldic expression so as to not be misled or confused by different artistic variations of the same arms. As heraldry enthusiasts, we can appreciate variety of expression. Those of us who have experienced boot camp and the average infantry platoon can, I think, vouch for the fact that this is not the case in our military, even among the college-educated officer cadre, much less the generally less-well-educated enlisted corps. (Not that individual officers & enlisted aren’t capable of that understanding, it just isn’t taught in our schools or a part of the Average American’s life experience, & that’s not going to change overnight.) Since the primary function of any form of heraldry is identification, other considerations must yield to that need.
Having said that, more creative interpretations of some of the more pedestrian military insignia can serve a useful educationaol purpose, but IMO only (or at least best) if presented as "have you considered…" rather than "you’re doing it wrong…" Remember that TIOH, at least, employs competent heraldists, who nonetheless have to operate within the functional limits of military necessity. Learning curves elsewhere n the military can be quite slow, especially in areas removed from militarty necessity.
While Mike is correct about the military disposition toward uniformity, it would seem that more artistic variation was once tolerated, at least de facto. These depictions of the insignia of the USAF’s 13th Bomb Squadron, all from the squadron association website, bear out the point:
Here’s the squadron insignia as it was carried on the SPADs of the 13th Aero Squadron in 1917-18 and approved by the Secretary of War in 1924:
http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/images/oscarskeletonTN.gif
(Interestingly, the official description at the time did not try to mimic heraldic blazonry: "Against a dark blue field, a white skeleton mowing with a yellow scythe with a reddened blade.")
By 1950, in Korea, Oscar (as the skeleton was known) was standing more upright:
http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/graphics/oscarTN.gif
In Vietnam, he seemed to be tip-toeing as he mowed:
http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/images/oscar65aTN.jpg
And then, when the squadron was reactivated in 2000, the 1924 pattern was revived in what is undoubtedly a TIOH rendering:
http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/images1/newOscar13TN.gif
I’d be willing to bet that this last version is more slavishly adhered to by the modern incarnation of "The Devil’s Own Grim Reapers" than was ever the case by their predecessors. I have to agree with Daniel that it’s kind of a shame, although having worked around the US military for 28 years now I fully understand the reason.
(By the way, to reemphasize my previous point on this matter, note that this emblem was adopted and used by the men of the 13th Aero Squadron under combat conditions—much as the early knights adopted and used their arms—and it was only later that some civil servant like me wrote down a formal description and got it approved by a senior official.)
Joseph McMillan wrote:
While Mike is correct about the military disposition toward uniformity, it would seem that more artistic variation was once tolerated, at least de facto. These depictions of the insignia of the USAF’s 13th Bomb Squadron, all from the squadron association website, bear out the point:
Here’s the squadron insignia as it was carried on the SPADs of the 13th Aero Squadron in 1917-18 and approved by the Secretary of War in 1924:
http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/images/oscarskeletonTN.gif
(Interestingly, the official description at the time did not try to mimic heraldic blazonry: "Against a dark blue field, a white skeleton mowing with a yellow scythe with a reddened blade.")
By 1950, in Korea, Oscar (as the skeleton was known) was standing more upright:
http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/graphics/oscarTN.gif
In Vietnam, he seemed to be tip-toeing as he mowed:
http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/images/oscar65aTN.jpg
And then, when the squadron was reactivated in 2000, the 1924 pattern was revived in what is undoubtedly a TIOH rendering:
http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/images1/newOscar13TN.gif
I’d be willing to bet that this last version is more slavishly adhered to by the modern incarnation of "The Devil’s Own Grim Reapers" than was ever the case by their predecessors. I have to agree with Daniel that it’s kind of a shame, although having worked around the US military for 28 years now I fully understand the reason.
My assessment of this is somewhat mixed. In terms of heraldry, one could certainly argue that while there is a charm to these differing representations, some of them should not be contourny, and I would adhere to that argument. But in general I’m enthusiastic about these variations and, with the exception that shoulder patches and the like are all going to have to be manufactured with one pattern, I don’t see the problem in these artistic variations—aren’t people going to be able to tell that they are for "The Devil’s Own Grim Reapers"? Do they need but one representation to do this? Has the human brain deteriorated that far since the 12th and 13th centuries?
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
"As regards paintings on buildings, however, certainly they could be of a different interpretation as there can be expected to be some uniqueness here"
If the primary function of military heraldry was heraldry (in the broader sense), then perhaps yes. However, it isn’t—the primary function is military, which means that our notions of artistic flexibility have to give way, in that context at least, to the military need for uniformity.
But that has always been the primary function of heraldry.
Quote:
Our notions of artistic license are later add-on’s,
This is just simply and completely untrue. In the earliest days it was recognised that a lion rampant could be painted more than one way—this realisation even, arguably, precedes blazon—and manufacturing specifications have obviously been unknown throughout most of the heraldic period.
Quote:
Remember that TIOH, at least, employs competent heraldists, who nonetheless have to operate within the functional limits of military necessity.
Sadly, not really. Gross errors in representation pervade many of the website’s emblazonments, and the styles of blazons are often unnecessarily vague, ambiguous, or redundant. I’m not really sure why all this is necessitated by "military necessity". However, my criticism may be tempered by the possibility that many of these problems are the result of input from the units or demands that TIOH do the best that it can with blazoning designs originating outside it.
Quote:
Quote:
