The Armour Archive

Lawrence Parramore wrote:And don't forget the Right of First Night, that is a real armour erotic episode!

Also there were I believe courtesans at some tournaments wearing armour, so what was going on there?

FYI - "Prima Notca" is a Victorian myth and invention, just as the vast bulk of existing chastity belts are Victorian novelties.

Andrew Young wrote:What then is "art" if it collectively means everything to everybody?.

I think I see what you mean. Art, as I understand it, is expression for expression's sake. Therefore some armourers could certainly be described as artists, if their intent is purely to create for the sake of creating. By this standard, a painter who paints something because s/he wants a canvas to hang on a wall perhaps isn't an artist.

I prefer to think of armouring as craftsmanship anyway.

Just to clarify. I wasn't knocking girls in armor at all. I meant that I would understand a feeling of disrespect for armor if it were being shown with bikini girls. I personally wouldn't care but I would understand the sentiment. But I don't understand how this book can be taken as disrespectful towards armor at all.
I certainly am not saying you can't criticize art or the book. I just am not understanding the criticism. I don't think people should criticize just to criticize. I think there should be true merit behind said criticisms. I am just not seeing where your argument actually pertains here. Do the Bayeux Tapestry or Biblical illustrations that glorify war fall under the same criticism as portraying war as beautiful or disrespectful? What about all of the paintings done with the owner proudly wearing their armor for the portrait? That is why I don't follow the argument. These books do not glorify war or belittle the part the armor took in them. They show the detail that went into creating these pieces. Would a book of military decorations that show each medal in exacting detail be considered disrespectful?
There are already books with text. I wish the Boccia books were available in English. If you want to see more comparisons or close up shots of specific things, just ask Carlo. He has loves armor as much as the rest of us here.
Sure, every book could be better. Make requests or suggestions rather than just say it is demeaning and done in a format you don't like. Personally I love the format. It helps fill in the details and shows shots I have never seen in any other books. Would I like to see even more shots of specific things. Of course. But that is true with every book I have ever had. No other book that I own has the detail these books capture. I can look at the huge pictures then check the captions in the back of the book for a description. If I need even more text, I can check one of the other books already out that discuss the item in more academic detail. I don't need one book to do it all. Would be nice but then it would end up being huge and unmanageable. I wouldn't want to sacrifice the size or number of pictures present in these books for more text that can be found elsewhere already.

It almost seems like you are arguing about art in general rather than these specific books.

Andrew,

I think it would be useful for everybody who is reading this thread if you showed us your definition of art succinctly, as I think everybody who is partaking of this thread is at a lose as to understanding your point of view?

I have provided a definition that I think most people can understand maybe you could enlighten us?

I think Carlo has done something that the vast majority of readers appreciate for what it is.

Lawrence Parramore wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur

Wiki is hardly an authoritative source Lawrence, but you did get this bit in the entry, didn't you?

Although most historians today would agree that there is no authentic proof of the exercise of the custom in the Middle Ages, disagreement continues about the origin, the meaning, and the development of the widespread popular belief in this alleged right and the actual prevalence of symbolic gestures referring to this right

Lawrence

Ive already referred to art a number of times above, but okay...

I dont necessarily define art so much as let ''art'' fill in the gaps.

Tools are the things we use and which have some type of physical or near physical use....from wrenches to arithmetic 'flashcards' to teach children how to count. I think its fair to include a sculpture or painting in this category if its used to teach or to provide a form of social teaching (education) tool.


Art....seems to be the objects that either defy the description as something physical or which is applied for some educational use.

I feel true art is a modern concept probably deriving from the latter 19th century onward. The intend of this modern art was to evoke a purely emotional response, as the art in question often had very little realism involved and/or distorted realism to evoke some desired sentiment.

I can look at a modern painting and say....art.
I can look at a modern sculpture and say....art.

By contrast, many historical pieces and many modern things fall under the category of tools with artistic details....attributes which make them more attractive, more desirable to the owner or viewer....and while we would say that that that desirability is an emotional response, it does not overpower the primary function of that tool.

Above all....art is hard to define.... thats no revelation. But if an object is viewed with an eye towards is main function, its primary reason for being created....than that helps to tell us if its a tool...or by default...if it might be art.

So anything could possibly be art....you just have to ask yourself the question....what is the main purpose for using of this thing?? If it has a use that has some utilitarian purpose and/or as a teaching tool...I feel it falls much more strongly into the category of a tool than pure art.
..........but a tool can have an attractive nature or decorative features....this is what I mean by saying its got artistic attributes.

honestly man....I hate defining all this stuff because I dont feel life and objects can always be neatly categorized....nor am I pedantic and stuffy. I am looking at it from the point of view of an archeological and anthropological standpoint and the sieve that a museum might put an object through to determine its use. Sometimes its hard to....but most of the time a fundamental primary utilitarian or teaching function/use can be identified, making it a tool......if it cant, it often falls into the category of 'art'.....but historically we dont see a lot of pure/true art. Its more of a modern phenom.

Chef,

The reason I gave this as reply is that I did not want to veer further off topic.

Whether or not it was an 'actual' law it was a 'given' and was carried out one way or another up till the early part of the 20th century and is still a problem in the modern age with sexual harassment at work, from this you can understand when many people were little more than slaves what was happening.

Also it is the Victorians that tried to destroy the belief not forward it, the Victorians liked to whitewash history and make it more romantic.

In other feudal areas such as Latvia, it was carried on throughout the 19th century also for example, though the marriage was then organised by the local lord and he took his choice of maidens, his own or anyone else's.

I was led to believe in the story of the men surrounding wearing armour from a story of a medieval case from outside my home town, but finding the story on the web is a little difficult!
It goes something like this, a local Lady was widowed and another local Knight wishing to increase his lands took her with his men to a chapel that is now a barn and whilst surrounded by these armed men in a kind of ritual 'took' her, this later became a case of rape as she had re-married, rape at the time was a very difficult legal area as you I am sure appreciate, if she had not re-married then this 'ritual rape' could have been what the knight wanted.
It happened at a place called Thorpe in Balne.

Edit, in trying to find the case I have become quite amazed at the amount of clergy at the time, monks, bishops etc with children, some in prominent positions, I know there was a lot of it going on, but weren't they supposed to be celibate?

Andrew Young wrote:
Art....seems to be the objects that either defy the description as something physical or which is applied for some educational use.

I prefer the definition I gave earlier, do you know of any art authority or dictionary that shares your understanding of the word art?

I have read again the thread starting from the very beginning and I had the feeling that a chinese man was trying to speak to a german fellow! Obviously a barrier in languages is there ... if no one wishes to learn and translate!

Well, at least now everybody knows that this new book contain a lot of gorgeous pictures!
Mine should be in my dirty hands soon.

Mine too.

Soon you will be amazed!

Yes, but *how* soon?

- Scott

Lawrence Parramore wrote:Chef,

The reason I gave this as reply is that I did not want to veer further off topic.

Whether or not it was an 'actual' law it was a 'given' and was carried out one way or another up till the early part of the 20th century and is still a problem in the modern age with sexual harassment at work, from this you can understand when many people were little more than slaves what was happening.

Also it is the Victorians that tried to destroy the belief not forward it, the Victorians liked to whitewash history and make it more romantic.

In other feudal areas such as Latvia, it was carried on throughout the 19th century also for example, though the marriage was then organised by the local lord and he took his choice of maidens, his own or anyone else's.

I was led to believe in the story of the men surrounding wearing armour from a story of a medieval case from outside my home town, but finding the story on the web is a little difficult!
It goes something like this, a local Lady was widowed and another local Knight wishing to increase his lands took her with his men to a chapel that is now a barn and whilst surrounded by these armed men in a kind of ritual 'took' her, this later became a case of rape as she had re-married, rape at the time was a very difficult legal area as you I am sure appreciate, if she had not re-married then this 'ritual rape' could have been what the knight wanted.
It happened at a place called Thorpe in Balne.

Edit, in trying to find the case I have become quite amazed at the amount of clergy at the time, monks, bishops etc with children, some in prominent positions, I know there was a lot of it going on, but weren't they supposed to be celibate?

My grand-granny slapped in the face a famous count who wanted her with various kind of menaces. She held him at (kitchen)knife point to defend her body.

I guess around 1900 .

Despite the fact that nobility had still an immense social importance then, she got no problems, neither he could bring to effect any of his blackmails.

Hi Bruno,

I think we could fill a book with such things, lets hope the future is not a return to these situations.

I'm only a couple of pages into this thread, so forgive if I'm repeating the comments of others, but I felt compelled to respond to the following:

Andrew Young wrote:To me, and the point Ive been bucking mostly to wit (and trying not to belabor the point) is how something is presented.

I dont like the presentation of armour as art.

In a modern sense, to many at least.....armour is either a silly remnant of the past (I mean, how many movies have we seen in which armour is presented as something of a melodramatic absurdity of the past and is lampooned somehow....I can think of a dozen movies). ....or....in a modern sense armour is presented as a form of art.

But it was not art in the strictest sense. Armour was a tool.

A tool is something that has a has a utilitarian use.

Does art even exist in that sense?.....truthfully, it depends on the age.

The difference between a tool and art depends on how it used and where it falls on the spectrum.....a tool being on one side of the spectrum ....art being on the other end of that spectrum.

I would argue that modern art is really the truest sense of pure art because, it has almost never has any functional purpose other than to evoke an emotional purpose. (which I guess could be argued as a tool, but thats really pushing it). Modern art that is designed to convey a statement, either political or social, comes close to the defintion of a tool.

I would even argue that historical sculptures and depictions are tools as opposed to "art" because they were a form of defining the social status and station of institutions and higher ranking persons.

.....and its always debatable as to how its viewed.

So if we look at the purpose of armour...to protect people from being hacked to death.....would anyone rightly call that """art""" --I wouldnt because it was not intended for an emotional response...it was a tool designed for a utilitarian purpose.---to keep people alive and to outwardly proclaim their social rank.

...........that armour could be considered beautiful is in the eye of the beholder. That it is usually pretty impressive is less debatable.

But to view arms and armour as a pure form of art is not correct.

I don't agree that this was the intention of the book. Nor do I agree with your definitions of (and distinctions between) "art," "tool," and or even "history." As you yourself admit, the lines between these elements of culture have been blurred throughout time. If you like everything in a neat little box, then it makes sense that such blurred distinctions annoy you. If you cannot learn to appreciate BOTH the form and the function of something, then you are indeed missing the point of much of the product of creative thought.

It was not designed to purely evoke an emotional response any more than a blow to the head from a """gorgeous""" polearm would.

This is just flat-out wrong, particularly as one gets later into the period. Even swords were manufactured to be purely "decorative accessories," rather than functional weapons. Even earlier in the period - many helms were designed with both the function (to deflect blows) and form (to intimidate enemies) in mind.

So the point I am making is that if .........after all these years folks like us have tried to academically understand armour......than the word of caution I have is that we strive to view armour in its historical context, through its historical footprint.

To display or present armour in a setting that suggests it is art, or artistic it to bastardize its original purpose, its authentic reason for being.

Again, only if you incapable of considering both the form and function of an item.

Prunners photos are great. But I believe his approach to the book by presenting armour as "art" is devoid of its true meaning, its historical purpose.

One must certainly answer "yes" to the question of whether some (perhaps even the majority of) armour (particularly early period) was created without neither a thought nor care for it's aesthetics. That does not diminish the aesthetic qualities of the work, particularly for those who make it today.

How would we react to a book with huge high resolution photographs of Nazi paraphernalia, or high resolution photographs of historical guillotines and torture devices?

The analogy is both appropriate and faulty: Nazi daggers, for example, were crafted primarily with aesthetics in mind, particularly given the fact that the primary sidearm of the era was a projectile weapon. On the other hand, what aesthetic value rests in a tortute device? Or a spark plug, for that matter? As noted above, an item MAY indeed be crafted for purely utlitarian reasons, with limited or no aesthetic value. One simply cannot say the same thing about armour - what utilitarian value is added through acid etching, for example, or brass or gold fittings or plating?

I realize that armour was not inherently bad....but it does, on a fundamental level, represent war and humanities inability to settle things peaceable.

Ah, here's the key flaw in your argument: "on a fundamental level," you are of course correct - at least partly. But aesthetics does not operate merely on a "fundamental level." What one man finds pleasing, the other does not. The definition of "art" is highly subjective. You insist on categorizing all armour as either one or the other, when there are a myriad examples of both, clearly intended by their makers to BE both.

So turning the machines of war into art...is troubling to me. Yet I temper that with say, the "fun" of SCA tourney combat....or an appreciation for the values and institution of knighthood, an understanding of history, and so forth.

But not aesthetics, apparently.

I just think there is a fine line between high resolution glamor photos and high resolution academic photos. I hope my point is understood. This isnt that big a deal...but there is some truth in the essense of what Im saying.

I have no qualms with your right to have such opinions - I'm just trying to point out the flaws in your arguments. This is indeed an interesting discussion, however.

OK, having read further, I really do see where you are coming from, even though I disagree. Let me take just a few points:

Andrew Young wrote:One of the reasons why the concept of art as applying to more objects is because art is subjective. I alluded to this above. When youre in the museum archeological and anthropological field as it pertains to museumological field and you need to reconcile the preservation of something, it is considered more objective and more academic to strain things through a series of filters such that you can say without doubt, whats its primary function was. It most cases, most objects have a primary goal that is deeper than their aesthetic decorative value.

I believe this to be patently and fundamentally untrue. While it is certainly true that decoration was/is often added to enhance the aesthetic value of a functional item (indeed, the whole basis of the field of "design"), one cannot say that even within the field of armour that items were not created for purely decorative value without disregard for their utility on the field of battle.

As such, they are and can be fairly reconciled as tool. This is not to say that the Ark of the Covenant is a mere box....clearly some things have meaning that transcend their physical nature. But on a physical level, the Ark of the Covenant and its contents are very much 'tools' because they were designed to affect and impact physical society and the constraints of living in a physical world. Even now, in this age, we have begun using the term 'tool' with respect to what physical practices and interactive practices can be used to enhance life. Do note that I have issues with the term tool being used quite so broadly...

Yes, the basis for your entire argument is that "tool" and "art" must be separate and distinct entities. We disagree.

I prefer the term skills which makes more sense. e.g.: Dr Phil or Oprah will teach you skills for social success.

I can't disagree with this, but neither of these terms seeks to categorize the essence of the object like your apparent definitions of "tool" and "art." Your logic is flawed.

A synoptic definition of tool is technically defined as anything created by humans to aid their physical condition and promote physical progress or to enable their learning or diffusion of learning such that has direct impact on the social conditions of the physical world.

By this definition, a sculpture or effigy of a religious figure begins to accurate fall into the category of tool because its primary function (its reason for being created) is to teach the real, ie physical history of some predecessor as it has direct impact upon society.

What about the decorative carvings on such? Why not leave it at a depiction that serves merely to identify the owner, rather than "embellishing" with decorative forms? Does each and every symbol appearing on an effigy serve the utliitarian purpose you describe? No. Obviously, an AESTHETIC purpose is INTENDED. Not accidental. Intended. Very important distinction, that.

Art by contrast has a ambiguous and ethereal role---by definition art is subject to the beholder...is it not? So its very difficult for 5 people to say something IS art when 5 people totally disagree. So art can rarely be an applied categorical measure for most objects.

Here you're contradicting your own definition of modern art. Ironically, I dislike most modern art BECAUSE it often does not include ANY utilitarian function whatsoever. I like my "non-compartmentalized" way of looking at the world and the things around me.

This is hard for people to get their minds around....but again I simply reiterate....what is art to some, is trash to an equal number of people. Thus the term art is highly ambiguous and a risky categorical application.

If one MUST "categorize." Again, I don't think that was the purpose of either of Carlo's books. Instead, his purpose was to examine utlitarian items IN an aesthetic way - to gain a different level of appreciation for these items. If you have no use for that, then fine. But you can't expect everyone to agree with such a rigid interpretation of either utilitarianism OR aesthetics.

Art and decoration are usually things that are designed to enhance the emotional value and relationship with the object. Contrarily, if we view the objects functional purpose ....and we ask a series of questions:

1] Can the object be stripped of its decoration?

2] What, then is the main function of this object?

3] Can the object, devoid of decoration, function in the same manner? (this is a different question). This determines what is or isnt decorative value.

4] Does the decorative value of this object affect its function

5] If the object cannot be stripped of its decoration, what objects or meaning is the object attempting to teach with respect to physical condition of the current society. (ie, if a statue of Moses is designed to remind people of the Ten Commandments, which do have a direct bearing on the physical and material society than the statue is by definition a "teaching" tool. Who then can say its "art" if its created meaning had a direct bearing on the education of those who viewed it, with respect to their physical and material society?----see what I mean... 'art' as a descriptive appellation has a weakened value from an academic, ie, archeological and anthropological standpoint. Its meaningless to say something is ""art"" when the society of the time and modern society might have an equal number of people who find the very aesthetic value of the piece disagreeable to begin with. That it might still likely be thought of an attempted figurative representation of some figure to reinforce physical and material society, is far less likely. One might say, 'it doenst look that much like Moses to me....but I know its supposed to be Moses and it reminds me of the story" removes the subjectivity surrounding the objects reputed art status, and more clearly defines the purpose of the object itself as a tool used to reinforce physical and material culture of the society.

This is all quite legitimate if (and ONLY if) you're intent is to categorize, define and analyze the function of an object, rather than appreciate the aesthetic qualities that might exist inherent in it - whether the maker intended it or not. You yourself agree that "art is in the eye of the beholder." What, therefore, prevents me from appreciating the aesthetic qualities of the aforementioned spark plug? It may have some, if I choose to appreciate them. It does not demand that everyone do the same.

I LOVE applied decoration...it makes life more fun.

I also live amongst that which you might call art.

I also sculpt.

I draw sketch and paint.

I work with wood making functional and decorative furniture.

I build functional and fine armour reproductions.

I collect antiques and have a love for Jacobean and Victorian furniture.

......not by a long shot could you say I live a boring life.

......Nor do I chose to surround myself with bare walls and dirt floors.

The reason I am standing my ground is because many people erroneously use the word art for just about anything....its become a popular phrase these days that isnt accurate. We hear it in the news, in the movies.....the art of war.....the art of politics....the art of selecting the right coffee bean....I mean, geesh....its the art of art. We are over using, over applying the term art when we should be saying something has artistic decor to it....and we enjoy it. But that does not make it art per se. If anything is a tool with artistic design, decor.

I guess that's my problem: Why is this distinction important? It's obviously not that you don't appreciate such things - it's that you seem to demand to categorize these objects as either one or the other. I don't see the point - particularly when we agree that what qualifies as "art" is subjective.

I could go on with the rest of your post, but I'd be repeating myself, largely.

I do agree that this discussion need not be personal - it is clear that we disagree on a fundamental way of interpreting our surroundings, but that doesn't bother me, and it doesn't keep either of us (apparently) from buying Carlos' book.

Which begs the question in my mind - why ARE you buying it...?

Andrew Young wrote:honestly man....I hate defining all this stuff because I dont feel life and objects can always be neatly categorized....

Despite the fact that your whole argument DEPENDS on such categorization? Then maybe I really don't see where you're coming from. That, or you're applying circular logic.

nor am I pedantic and stuffy.

That I won't accuse you of, although apparently others have.

I am looking at it from the point of view of an archeological and anthropological standpoint and the sieve that a museum might put an object through to determine its use.

You may think that you are, and that may indeed be what you intend, but your logic is flawed. Museums themselves do not exist purely for the archeological and/or anthropological categorization of their objects - as you surely must know, having worked at the Smithsonian, arguably one of the most diverse collections of museums in the world. There are entire buildings in the Smithsonian which approach their collected objects in entirely different ways - many (I would argue most) of them aesthetic. For example, I was in the Natural History museum just this past Tuesday, and struck by the aesthetic qualities of many of the objects on display in the Oceans exhibit - desite the fact that aesthetics was obviously not the primary intent.

Sometimes its hard to....but most of the time a fundamental primary utilitarian or teaching function/use can be identified, making it a tool......if it cant, it often falls into the category of 'art'.....but historically we dont see a lot of pure/true art. Its more of a modern phenom.

This is a very limited set of definitions, which (as I have argued previously) cannot be applied successfully to the spectrum of arts and armour history, design and construction. Simply put, an object may be appreciated for both form and function - a decorated object can rarely be appreciated ONLY as one or the other. The function of an item can certainly be appreciated and understood separately from its design and decor, JUST AS the aesthetic qualities can be appreciated separate from the object's function. Obviously the two are related, and it is up to the viewer to reconcile how.

None of which diminishes the approach which Carlos has taken with his books. Buy 'em and enjoy 'em - however you please.

Wow this thread has grown since I last checked it! I have just recieved my copy from Kinniekat today, an amazing christmas present. Yet more fabulous images, some seriously useful details, some I just wish there was a little more fitted on the page but I'm very happy!!! Well done Carlo.

Merry Christamas all

Matt

Thank you Matt!

Gwydion Caithnes wrote:

Andrew Young wrote:I realize that armour was not inherently bad....but it does, on a fundamental level, represent war and humanities inability to settle things peaceable.

Ah, here's the key flaw in your argument: "on a fundamental level," you are of course correct - at least partly.

Andrew Young wrote:So turning the machines of war into art...is troubling to me.

"What greater thing can a king own than the armour which protects his body during the combat?"- Emperor Maximillian

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:"What greater thing can a king own than the armour which protects his body during the combat?"- Emperor Maximillian

He really meant what he was saying.
Bravo!!!!!!!

Just a quick note that there are only 150 copies left of "The Wallace Collection".

http://www.hansprunner.com/#/the_wallace_collection

Also "The Churburg Armoury" is about to start running low.

http://www.hansprunner.com/#/the_churburg_armoury