On Odd Designs

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
06 May 2016 22:15
 

Michael F. McCartney;105954 wrote:

I don’t agree with Fred that any use of arms nowadays is necessarily ironic, nor with Daniel that there is no sense of Irony (probably overstating both views, but hey, straw men are just part of the debating game - witness the Presidential debates… wink I think the one following my wisecrack about heads in hijabs or balaclavas or whatever they are called, was somehow missed.  Maybe that was irony..?

And apologies for confusion re: severed or couped—my fault—my intent was similar to "Azure or blue" etc., not clearly expressed.


I just meant that the use of heraldry isn’t ironic, and I think that it would be at least highly unusual for a coat to be ironic. There is a lot of perhaps unexpectedly extremely funny or even silly humour in heraldry, particularly in rather ancient canting coats, but this is quite different from irony, something often misidentified. And as a sensibility it finds itself radically rarely, at least, represented in arms.

 

Thank you; I hadn’t been exactly sure about what you meant about "couped".

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
08 May 2016 03:47
 

Daniel - I agree with your last post re: irony.  As to the rest re: dumbing down and a context broader than the internal rules of heraldry, it’s pretty clear that we do, and likely will continue to, disagree on a very basic level - not the worst result.  If everyone always agreed on everything, what a boring place the world would be! wink

I would suggest that the need to educate is a two-way street; we can help others understand the technical ins and outs of heraldry, but if we expect them to listen to us and respect our historic internal reality, we owe them the respect to listen to them and respect their historic reality as well.

 

Moving to the internal rules of heraldry, it seems we will disagree on some of them also!  "Sable a lion Pean" may arguably not violate the tincture convention because Pean is a fur, it strikes me as very poor design because it ignores the reason for having a tincture rule in the first place.  The reason for the rule - the spirit of the law,, so to speak, is visual contrast; and despite the arcane writings of writers who should have known better, Pean on Sable is just a scattering of gold Ermine tails without sufficient shape or form to be readily recognizable as a lion or whatever beastie the designer may have intended.  A fess or other ordinary Pean on a field Sable might be workable because the shape of the ordinary is straightforward, so long as it’s not engrailed or otherwise varied; but not some flora or fauna whose identity depends on a clear outline of a complicated shape.  At the very least, the charge would need to be fimbriated (or the charge Or or Argent voided Pean, essentially the same as fimbriated but in different words) to be recognizable.  To probably misquote Scripture, the law exists to serve man; not man to serve the law.

 

And this is not an attempt to dumb down the internal rules of the "science" to satisfy the ignorant, who wouldn’t have a clue re: the written rules; rather, for knowledgeable students of heraldry to examine the written rules with a critical eye and judge when, how, and to what degree a particular written rule warrants deference, based on the reason for having the particular rule in the first place.  Which, unless I’m mistaken, is the case for the internal written rules of any other science, be it chemistry or biology or any other field of study.  The written rules are merely theories, however long held and widely repeated, seeking to describe the underlying reality being studied.  So long as the abstract theories "work" in the real world, they merit deference; but if and when they fail to adequately describe that reality, then they need to be reexamined, perhaps refined, rejected, reformed, rewritten, and hopefully respected so long as the new theory proves workable.

 

Oh - if there are points in your earlier posts that you see as important but ignored, my apologies; FWIW, I tend to focus on what strikes me as key, and likely miss other points.  If you would like to point them out, I’ll try to do better.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
08 May 2016 03:56
 

Daniel - I agree with your last post re: irony.  As to the rest re: dumbing down and a context broader than the internal rules of heraldry, it’s pretty clear that we do, and likely will continue to, disagree on a very basic level - not the worst result.  If everyone always agreed on everything, what a boring place the world would be! wink

I would suggest that the need to educate is a two-way street; we can help others understand the technical ins and outs of heraldry, but if we expect them to listen to us and respect our historic internal reality, we owe them the respect to listen to them and respect their historic reality as well.

 

Moving to the internal rules of heraldry, it seems we will disagree on some of them also!  "Sable a lion Pean" may arguably not violate the tincture convention because Pean is a fur, it strikes me as very poor design because it ignores the reason for having a tincture rule in the first place.  The reason for the rule - the spirit of the law,, so to speak, is visual contrast; and despite the arcane writings of writers who should have known better, Pean on Sable is just a scattering of gold Ermine tails without sufficient shape or form to be readily recognizable as a lion or whatever beastie the designer may have intended.  A fess or other ordinary Pean on a field Sable might be workable because the shape of the ordinary is straightforward, so long as it’s not engrailed or otherwise varied; but not some flora or fauna whose identity depends on a clear outline of a complicated shape.  At the very least, the charge would need to be fimbriated (or the charge Or or Argent voided Pean, essentially the same as fimbriated but in different words) to be recognizable.  To probably misquote Scripture, the law exists to serve man; not man to serve the law.

 

And this is not an attempt to dumb down the internal rules of the "science" to satisfy the ignorant, who wouldn’t have a clue re: the written rules; rather, for knowledgeable students of heraldry to examine the written rules with a critical eye and judge when, how, and to what degree a particular written rule warrants deference, based on the reason for having the particular rule in the first place.  Which, unless I’m mistaken, is the case for the internal written rules of any other science, be it chemistry or biology or any other field of study.  The written rules are merely theories, however long held and widely repeated, seeking to describe the underlying reality being studied.  So long as the abstract theories "work" in the real world, they merit deference; but if and when they fail to adequately describe that reality, then they need to be reexamined, perhaps refined, rejected, reformed, rewritten, and hopefully respected so long as the new theory proves workable.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
09 May 2016 10:00
 

By chance I happened on another interesting charge along these lines designed by the Army’s Institute of Heraldry. I was trying to find a nice gift of a field artillery pen and a google image search for "Field Artillery Pen" resulted in a million images of Distinctive Unit Insignia pins.

One of the DUIs featuring a sombrero on the shield caught my eye. It is from the arms of the 133rd Artillery Regiment. The rationale for the sombrero of course apparently refers to the unit’s service along the Mexican border and subsequent quasi war with Mexico in the 1910s. It’s not a head exactly. It doesn’t seem like that would be considered offensive. But I don’t really know.

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
09 May 2016 12:46
 

JJB;105969 wrote:

By chance I happened on another interesting charge along these lines designed by the Army’s Institute of Heraldry. I was trying to find a nice gift of a field artillery pen and a google image search for "Field Artillery Pen" resulted in a million images of Distinctive Unit Insignia pins.

One of the DUIs featuring a sombrero on the shield caught my eye. It is from the arms of the 133rd Artillery Regiment. The rationale for the sombrero of course apparently refers to the unit’s service along the Mexican border and subsequent quasi war with Mexico in the 1910s. It’s not a head exactly. It doesn’t seem like that would be considered offensive. But I don’t really know.

When I have discussions with my children about what racism is or isn’t, or any other controversial social topic, I always try to pose it in the reverse to see how it feels from the other side. It’s the way I try to reconcile it all myself. In this case, I would imagine that a Mexican regiment had a shield with a cowboy hat to show a relation. Do I find that offensive? Nope.

On a side note, my kids seemed to have a problem calling Mexicans "Mexicans" because they felt that it might sound derogatory. Same thing with black people. I tried to illustrate how it’s more offensive to infer shame on the race by not acknowledging it’s name. Bottom line is that racial sensitivity has gone too far for my taste. It’s as if people are of the opinion that recognizing any difference is somehow racist. And that, to me is more offensive.

 

It applies to so many things. People don’t get old any more, now they’re 97 years young. I tried to identify who my daughter was talking about by asking if she was talking about the fat girl. She only begrudgingly acknowledged it. My kid was trying to point someone out to me in a crowd, describing in various ways what he looked like. Finally I asked, "you mean the black guy?" That could have saved 5 minutes of playing 20 questions.

 

My opinion is, let’s not pretend we don’t see differences.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 May 2016 12:56
 

QuiQuog;105970 wrote:

My opinion is, let’s not pretend we don’t see differences.


Hear, hear.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
17 May 2016 19:33
 

Michael F. McCartney;105966 wrote:

Daniel - I agree with your last post re: irony.  As to the rest re: dumbing down and a context broader than the internal rules of heraldry, it’s pretty clear that we do, and likely will continue to, disagree on a very basic level - not the worst result.  If everyone always agreed on everything, what a boring place the world would be! wink

I would suggest that the need to educate is a two-way street; we can help others understand the technical ins and outs of heraldry, but if we expect them to listen to us and respect our historic internal reality, we owe them the respect to listen to them and respect their historic reality as well.

 

Moving to the internal rules of heraldry, it seems we will disagree on some of them also!  "Sable a lion Pean" may arguably not violate the tincture convention because Pean is a fur, it strikes me as very poor design because it ignores the reason for having a tincture rule in the first place.  The reason for the rule - the spirit of the law,, so to speak, is visual contrast; and despite the arcane writings of writers who should have known better, Pean on Sable is just a scattering of gold Ermine tails without sufficient shape or form to be readily recognizable as a lion or whatever beastie the designer may have intended.  A fess or other ordinary Pean on a field Sable might be workable because the shape of the ordinary is straightforward, so long as it’s not engrailed or otherwise varied; but not some flora or fauna whose identity depends on a clear outline of a complicated shape.  At the very least, the charge would need to be fimbriated (or the charge Or or Argent voided Pean, essentially the same as fimbriated but in different words) to be recognizable.  To probably misquote Scripture, the law exists to serve man; not man to serve the law.

 

And this is not an attempt to dumb down the internal rules of the "science" to satisfy the ignorant, who wouldn’t have a clue re: the written rules; rather, for knowledgeable students of heraldry to examine the written rules with a critical eye and judge when, how, and to what degree a particular written rule warrants deference, based on the reason for having the particular rule in the first place.  Which, unless I’m mistaken, is the case for the internal written rules of any other science, be it chemistry or biology or any other field of study.  The written rules are merely theories, however long held and widely repeated, seeking to describe the underlying reality being studied.  So long as the abstract theories "work" in the real world, they merit deference; but if and when they fail to adequately describe that reality, then they need to be reexamined, perhaps refined, rejected, reformed, rewritten, and hopefully respected so long as the new theory proves workable.

 

Oh - if there are points in your earlier posts that you see as important but ignored, my apologies; FWIW, I tend to focus on what strikes me as key, and likely miss other points.  If you would like to point them out, I’ll try to do better.


As for education—if people either want to learn about heraldry, or think that it would be better for them to know about it because of some "background" contextual situation of whatever stripe, those who know about it should, if asked, teach them about it, as it could almost be argued, or might possibly be argued, and with justification, that that is their responsibility to the subject.  If people don’t know about the history of racism or religious prejudice and its attendant discrimination and violence, including how it has affected particular groups and individuals who might provide such an education including through their own personal histories, they should learn about this extremely important history, but they should not and they cannot thereby expect to learn anything about heraldry.  They will not learn anything about heraldry through this any more than they would learn anything of relevance to heraldry by an intense study of calculus.  Both educations are important, but it is really not a two-way street if the sense meant is that it is somehow reciprocal in nature, somehow linked; the educations are important, but completely separate.

 

As for the internal rules of heraldry, there can really be no disagreement about that in the example you mention either.  "Sable a lion rampant Pean" does not violate rule of tincture, not "arguably," but absolutely.  Pean is not a colour in any sense whatsoever, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever agued that it is.  The rule prohibits placing colour on colour or metal on metal.  Pean is not a colour.  It is a fur, and furs are amphibious.  "Arguably" absolutely does not apply, as there is simply no way whatsoever that the coat in question would violate the rule.  There is also simply no such thing as a "spirit" of the rule of tincture.  There was a motive behind the development of the rule, to which you allude, but to believe that rules would never later be discovered to permit things that arguably never should have been permitted, or that rules may not be as wise as they should have been made when developed (I am almost certain that at least some of the developers might not have ever considered some of these possibilities), is incredibly naïve.  It is also muddled thinking to think that because of any of these things are true that the rule is thereby not the rule; it simply does not make any sense whatsoever.

 

I am fully aware of the practical problems involved in the design of "Sable a lion rampant Pean" and similarly legal but very low-contrast coats (e.g. "Vert a lizard Proper" and "Gules a tiger passant Proper").  However, there is a very sharply-defined border between two things that in my view there is no question whatsoever you are muddying.  On the one hand there is the rule of tincture, which without any doubt whatsoever permits all these coats.  On the other hand are things like good design, contrast, wisdom and all of this.  Absent some overwhelmingly compelling reason (perhaps the grantee played a very important role in the development of a certain kind of camouflage or had a significant career as a specific kind of commando in which a low contrast played a very significant role) and possibly not even then, it is almost certain that it would be more wise if a confusing coat as "Sable a lion rampant Pean" would not actually exist, and this is why coats such as this have to my knowledge never seen the light of day (although they, I am arguing, in theory could exist).  The two concepts are totally and completely separate; the wisdom of rules is not a means whereby it may be discovered what the rules are—in my view this is ridiculous.

 

Further, you are not talking about deference to a rule or a lack of deference, but the creation of a new and I think possibly poorly-defined rule no-one has ever heard of that I believe you were earlier arguing may perhaps have possibly already been a rule.  (If you were proposing the development of a new rule, what would it be?)  You further argue that concepts that are completely irrelevant to heraldry, such as something very close to field observation, could have some bearing on a science with internal rules, which to me is getting into an area potentially having a radical logical inconsistency.

 

The main point I have repeatedly tried to broach is that, as any charge can be any tincture (with the caveat that the tincture can be contained in the name of the charge itself, as with hurts and bezants), your theory that Moors’ heads couped or Moors would necessarily be sable or proper, and the heads of other men would not be does not hold water.  There is nothing that says that Moors are sable or proper and indeed there are exceedingly rare cases in which they are not, and while I am not aware of Englishmen’s or Saxon’s or Welshmen’s or Egyptian’s heads sable, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why one should be certain these heads would never be sable, so your argument again, I would say, becomes muddled.  There are multiple, multiple questions about what you have been saying.  (Is there a problem with the Saxon’s head sable?  Is there a lack of problem with the Moor’s head carnation?)

 

The repeated complaint you have made about stereotypical representations is also rather a mixed subject, and one to which my rejoinder has still been awaiting an answer.  While some of the stereotypical representation (or some degree of it) may be attributable to racism, much more would have to have to be because of the possibility that any charge can be any tincture.  Given that he will have to be, potentially, identifiable by outline, a Moor or his head not represented in an adequately stereotyped way, just like many other charges, will simply not work in heraldry.  Racial prejudice is really the least of it.

 

The other point I think is interesting is that it seems as if you are presenting this question as going only one way when actually there is a strong history, at least at one point, on the other side.  During the National-Socialist era in Germany, the racist and anti-Semitic Nazis, out of blatantly racist motives, tried to suppress the Moors’ and at least criticized and attacked the Jew’s head, in civic heraldry.  The anti-racists were the ones who ended up supporting this important history and legacy.  So the issue can be somewhat complex.

 

These are what I think are my most salient points.

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
22 May 2016 13:12
 

Michael F. McCartney;105917 wrote:

Not all Sciences are crested equal.  Geometry, algebra, chemistry, biology etc. all study an external reality that for the most part predates those sciences, or for that matter humanity itself.  Heraldry, to the degree that it is a science, is essentially a social science, studying and documenting human activity and our identities within our various societies; it is not a study of any immutable reality, only an attractive approach to expressing the identity - really the self-image - of persons, families, and other human entities.  As such, heraldry can no more hide behind the label of science above human sensibilities than literature, art, architecture, or cuisine.

For better or worse, we are to a degree shackled by the history, values, successes and failures of our various societies.  We might wish it were different, that we are free to "say" heraldically things we wouldn’t say in words or print, and that our little closed world of heraldry insulates us from criticism of what in other social mediums would clearly be inappropriate.

 

Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from.  Sorry if I stated it too crudely before, for which I apologize - FWIW it wasn’t aimed at you personally; but it was aimed at a view of heraldry and it’s place in society which I’ve heard many times from many others, with which I strongly disagree.


With all due respect geometry, and to an even greater degree algebra, most definitely do not, whatever one’s philosophical bent, study or even pretend or attempt to, represent themselves as studying any external reality.  When I studied geometry in high school, I do not remember any field work, nor did I have a lab partner.  The infinitely small point, the line continuing infinitely in both directions, are not represented as anything more than ideal forms, and while it is possible some future expedition into deep space might uncover these, the science of geometry was developed without any reference to them, and in any case I would be inclined to doubt highly that this will ever occur.

 

To say "to the degree that heraldry is a science" does not have much practical value as while it might be technically accurate, but I question the point of bringing it up as the degree to which it is a science is total.  Further, in my view, and I am not sure how there could be any question about this, heraldry is not essentially or in any other way a social science.  It makes no study of the activity of men or monsters, the lion or the tyger, the lucy or the calygreyhound.  While heraldry in its designs can reflect the history of humans and of trolls, of miracles and the flight of missiles, the medicinal value of flowers and the planets glimpsed by telescopes, it makes no study of history, of religion, of medicine, of astronomy.  What it does study is only in the area of how arms, crests, supporters, compartments and the like are designed, marshaled, blazoned and represented as regards the science—the artistic licence gets into a different area.  The identity of the armiger can be the inspiration for heraldic design, but it is not the science itself.

 

In terms of hiding behind the label of science, the issue is not completely clear-cut.  If the offence created by an armorial design is based on a misinterpretation of what a design means or represents either from the point of view of those behind the design and their motivations, or within the context of heraldry, which can very obviously deviate from the context of everyday life, then there is no question of hiding behind any label.  The situation with art, literature and the like is very different as there is no science involved with them; the only commonality would be that if the offence of viewers or readers derives from a misunderstanding of the work outside of the intention of the author or painter, it is possible that it is the author who should be sided with.  (I am a painter professionally, and I have very extensive experience with this unfortunate phenomenon.)

 

I do agree with what you said about the shackling, but I think that this cannot really teach us anything about heraldry, and if it is influencing our understanding of any science, which is an overwhelming probability, it would be better to check ourselves.  But I cannot agree that heraldry is a "little closed world".  The significance of this practically ubiquitous science is greater than would justify thinking of it as an obscure or trivial hobby for the few; again, it is a very important part of culture the expressions of which are practically everywhere—on churches, on so many buildings and even cars in New York, on the very dollar bills in our pockets.  The characterisation is very inaccurate, in my opinion.