i know i’m gonna get in trouble here…but what’s new with that?...but, aren’t we getting a little overly regulating here? i didn’t see advertisement, and i recognize that was a warning, but why bother with that? why the pre-emptive strike? i’m sure there’s a reason, but i don’t see it.
whoever the artist is, i say as a member, though i recognize that does not carry weight in and of itself and i don’t mean it arrogantly, but i say just let the artists post their stuff as long as no advertising, which there wasn’t, and not worry about an advertisement UNLESS they do that. and even then why couldn’t we have just kept it to a PM, like i seem to get regularly now, advising them of the no advertisement rule? seems to me that would’ve been prudent as the mods/admins PMs to me are.
there’s a lot aspiring artists can learn by following such things on these pages. young, fresh, all the possibility in the world if developed AMERICAN artists. i’ve been harping on developing American Heraldic artists for some time now. if i could still paint, dangit, i’d do it and i had a long way to go until i reached a level of our European counterparts. now that i can’t paint anymore and now that there’s several young Americans here doing it, i want to see them develop into equals of their European counterparts. not only for the growth of interest in American heraldry in general, but American heraldic art/artists specifically. what better tool than to have some of the Masters of this art and craft here and being active with their pieces?!
given how art is routinely stolen on the web, i remember twice having my own art lifted and used elsewhere as well as having it taken by a former president of this society without payment, i became very anal about showing my images. i can totally see how other artists would feel the same. let them use the link for that reason. so we have to click on a link that goes to his website. so what? for those viewers and for those aspiring artists that’s not a big deal and it serves to protect the art at the same time.
why make more of this than needed to be?
sorry if this seems grumpy…and offends someone…and i have to get another PM…i’m just grumpy today i guess…but i believe the core of what i’m saying is fair and right.
The links don’t offend in any way—Kenneth’s point was that when someone clicks on a link in one of our posts it takes them away from the AHS forum and they then have to click their way back to resume the conversation. It’s just more user-friendly for the image to be hotlinked or otherwise embedded in so it can be seen at the same time that one is reading the text in which the image is discussed.
There are times when this isn’t possible, as when an image is copy-protected or the host website is set up to prevent hot-linking, or when an artist just doesn’t want to distribute his work that widely. Which is all fine.
On the advertising issue, as Kenneth said no one thinks Andy or Ce has crossed any lines here, but we’ve found it worthwhile to issue the gentle reminder any time we have a new forum user who’s in the heraldry business for a living. I can’t cite chapter and verse, but I’m under the impression that allowing the site to be used for commercial purposes could raise issues with our tax-exempt status, so there’s a value in making sure everyone is aware of the restriction so they can police themselves.
Don’t assume mentions of the rules are aimed necessarily at anyone in particular—or at least not necessarily (and certainly not in this case!) at the particular most welcome newcomers sharing their most admirable art.
But we do sometimes have those who do abuse the privilege (e.g. obvious heraldry mills using us for cheap publicity). And I recall that a brother society many of us frequent and cherish, had one of the mills which tried to cite its presence on that forum as a sort of Good Housekeeping seal of approval…
And as Joe notes, we do have to make the appropriate clucking noises to keep the taxman happy.
So keep on doing what you’ve been doing! How else are we gonna learn how really good heraldic art can be, and satisfy our craving for armorial eye candy?
Kenneth Mansfield;88771 wrote:
Not sure what the going rate is these days for a line drawing, Brian, but I’d bet that you got a steal for the ACH registration costs.
Sure did.
Michael F. McCartney;88841 wrote:
Don’t assume mentions of the rules are aimed necessarily at anyone in particular—or at least not necessarily (and certainly not in this case!) at the particular most welcome newcomers sharing their most admirable art.
But we do sometimes have those who do abuse the privilege (e.g. obvious heraldry mills using us for cheap publicity). And I recall that a brother society many of us frequent and cherish, had one of the mills which tried to cite its presence on that forum as a sort of Good Housekeeping seal of approval…
And as Joe notes, we do have to make the appropriate clucking noises to keep the taxman happy.
So keep on doing what you’ve been doing! How else are we gonna learn how really good heraldic art can be, and satisfy our craving for armorial eye candy?
I will see what I can do. I think under the circumstances I won’t post any Scots or Polish heraldry, just American.
In reference to link posted in post 35-
I leave it to the moderator’s decision of the forum to keep it or remove it , but before that I demand to know who manipulated my post by highlighting red specific words - something I originally didn’t do ?!
[snip]
Regardless if we’re talking deletion again I still oppose it. If somebody said something stupid on the thread it should remain for everyone to see. If they didn’t there’s no reason to dump it.
Honestly I don’t understand the controversy it’s causing. It seems like half the threads on this forum say "The Arms of X clearly reference then ancient Arms of Y, what’s the relationship?"
Nick
Ce Howard;89045 wrote:
Please take this down first.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6230
Why? The appropriateness of basing new grants of arms on the arms of previous, unrelated armigers, has been questioned for years, including by Horace Round in his famous critique of the English kings of arms’ grant to the Earls Spencer based on the medieval arms of Le Despenser. I happen to believe that Ce’s father’s arms are adequately differenced so as not to suggest an unproven descent (I have no idea if the descent is proven; if so, then there’s no question of the appropriateness of the design). But it is not an inappropriate question for debate on a heraldic forum. As Nick says, we do it all the time.
Nick B II;89051 wrote:
The link Ce posted is from a forum search. When you do a forum search it automatically highlights all the words you searched for so that you can find them on the page. She apparently couldn’t find it from the main screens, and had to search for the entire thread title "Historic differencing of Arms." You’ll note that it’s not just your post. Anytime somebody typed "of Arms" it got highlighted in red.
Regardless if we’re talking deletion again I still oppose it. If somebody said something stupid on the thread it should remain for everyone to see. If they didn’t there’s no reason to dump it.
Honestly I don’t understand the controversy it’s causing. It seems like half the threads on this forum say "The Arms of X clearly reference then ancient Arms of Y, what’s the relationship?"
Nick
Thank you Nick for the explanation . I wasn’t aware that simple search of thread can have such effect and what in any other situation I would consider an undesirable intervention .
Joseph McMillan;89054 wrote:
Why? The appropriateness of basing new grants of arms on the arms of previous, unrelated armigers, has been questioned for years, including by Horace Round in his famous critique of the English kings of arms’ grant to the Earls Spencer based on the medieval arms of Le Despenser. I happen to believe that Ce’s father’s arms are adequately differenced so as not to suggest an unproven descent (I have no idea if the descent is proven; if so, then there’s no question of the appropriateness of the design). But it is not an inappropriate question for debate on a heraldic forum. As Nick says, we do it all the time.
Anna’s inappropriate suggestion that someone couldn’t have both Seminole and Howard ancestry has already been appropriately answered. I leave to the moderators’ judgment whether to edit out those specific comments, but the general thrust of her post is not, in my opinion, beyond the rules of the forum.
You know the story behind what was really going on that day I’ve made you very much aware of everything we’ve been through. I’ve also emailed others stopping just short of the AHS President. It’s my father’s arms. His name and mine. Bottom line I want it taken down and I will see that it is.
Okay, I concur with Ce here. There was an agenda at play regarding the response to a posting of a piece of my work, an agenda the moderators were made aware of. I designed the arms for an American and it was posted in regards to a motto only. The thread was hijacked and turned into some subliminal Ce bashing bringing into question not only her Fathers name but inferences that questioned the validity of the arms. Which Joe you did answer in all honesty and made the correct point. But they continued to try and cause more damage and that is when you separated it out and locked it.
My point however is this. The Forum is not a place to use such tactics. I read somewhere that this was an Academic forum. Ce was defending herself and her Father here against some snidey underhand comments which should not have been made. They had no Academic reasoning, sure they look like genuine questions but that is out of context as it was part of an ongoing campaign by this person against her. One only has to see how many threads have been locked where this person is involved. At least two have been removed that she was involved in and which concerned me as was a request from at least four people to take this one down with no explaination on why that request was removed.
Sorry guys but I don’t get it, I mean I see where you are coming from but to me this is a question of morality. To say it should be left up so people can see is fine if people are in possession of the full facts then they can make a judgement based on evidence. Of course we would not put that evidence out there because this is not the place but conversly not knowing makes people wonder what all the fuss is about it gives a wrong impression. It makes Ce look like she is over reacting when in fact she most definately is not.
So I respectfully request you take this nonsense down as it does not benefit or add to this forum in any way. Thankyou for your attention.
Andy Jamieson
The thread referenced above has been edited by moderators to comply with the wishes of offended parties. It has, however, been left intact to address the issue of differencing new arms from historic ones, a common point of discussion among heraldry enthusiasts.
Please return the topic of this thread to that of the original post.
Joseph McMillan;89054 wrote:
Why? The appropriateness of basing new grants of arms on the arms of previous, unrelated armigers, has been questioned for years, including by Horace Round in his famous critique of the English kings of arms’ grant to the Earls Spencer based on the medieval arms of Le Despenser. I happen to believe that Ce’s father’s arms are adequately differenced so as not to suggest an unproven descent (I have no idea if the descent is proven; if so, then there’s no question of the appropriateness of the design). But it is not an inappropriate question for debate on a heraldic forum. As Nick says, we do it all the time.
Andy and I both answered your question but our posts have been removed.
It has occurred to me several times—which I’ve then done nothing about, shame on me!—that it might be useful to supplement our Guidelines (or in a new document) with a distillation of some of the various approaches to creating new arms.
Most of the needed/desired content likely has been discussed in the past in a variety of other contexts on our Forum. In some cases, it’s been discussed in the context of a particular ancestral heraldic tradition—e.g. the Scottish penchant for basing new arms, where possible, in some way on the historic arms of the leading family of the same surname—a essentially clannish approach; or a search for possible canting designs, a common thread in many if not most traditions—or looking for historical ancestral themes, such as occupational or military or religious or whatever.
We might also touch on how one might go about ensuring or determining uniqueness, and—since perfection is generally beyond our grasp, how much effort is reasonable to be reasonably sure.
A bit of this is touched on in the current Guidelines, but more would be useful. In sports terms, thinlk of it as the difference between the rule book—what’s required or barred, etc.—compared to a play book.
Thoughts welcome!
And of course if the moderators believe this should be a separate topic—it doesn’t really focus on Anthony Wood—please move or otherwise handle as you deem best.