painting - RevuAIR

Why Three Views are Necessary

By fStop Fitzgerald | 2 July 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

We live in a three-dimensional (physicists may say four, fantasists say more) world. To visually represent that, one needs to meld length, width, and depth. Absent any one and the result is a bizarre view of the world.

buy ivermectin Hence, we can start with something as seemingly complex as this flat, 2-dimensional—up and down, left and right—drawing . . .

Nandaime

And get something that looks a bit more real-worldly with not only left-right, up-down, but also front-back.

What if one dimension is missing?

Archaeologists, historians, and other scholars have for years been wondering what the Confederate submersible H. L. Hunley really looked like. The historic vessel was discovered a number of years ago, has been raised, and is currently under minute excavation and discovery in Charleston, South Carolina. Many questions have been answered, especially what she looked like. (https://hunley.org/) Here is a link to the most recent detailed (extremely!) analysis of the vessel by the Underwater Archaeology Branch of the Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/sites-and-projects/ship-wrecksites/hl-hunley/recovery-report.html)

But before this, to envision the boat, historians had to rely on a written record, no known photographs exist. There were a few sketches and one watercolor wash painting by R. G. Skerrett, which gave a fair idea of her form, but they—as is all art—were reliant on the artist’s eye and especially, hand. What is real? (Naval History and Heritage Command)

One of the early references was this two-view tracing of a predecessor boat, the “Rebel Submarine Ram” Pioneer. It was from a contemporary 1864 Civil War report from U.S. Navy Fleet Engineer William H. Shock to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. (National Archives and Records Administration)

The upper drawing shows a side view of the ram, with some interior details. The bottom drawing shows a top view looking down of the vessel.

There is nothing, however, to show us the third dimension, a front view. The illustrations below will demonstrate the impact of that missing third dimension.

All the views you will see were made with this set of lines that I pulled from the original drawing. The only thing that is different between the pairs of renders is that in one, I let the original drawings determine the final shapes, and in the other one I assumed the third dimension to be curved.

These are the top views of the two versions, the lower has many more lines because those are necessary to draw the curves in the 3D rendering of these lines. Note however that the external lines of each part are identical. This reflects the lines’ origins from the lines pulled from the original.

This shows the resultant 3D render.

Similarly, here are the side views, again with the lower drawing and render showing the addition of curved lines.

And this drawing shows the resultant third dimension, the front views, based on the base (left) and curved lines.

Here are the resultant images in full 3D.

Note that, both 3D renderings match the original 2D drawing. Which is correct?

While that is certainly obvious, this is just an illustration of issues that can occur in the absence of information.

This rendering further illustrates the need for three views. Notice the two highlighted areas.

Many times with all three views provided, even that information is not enough. Sometimes it is a confusion on the part of the original craftsman with regard to how a particular line should be depicted in each of the three views. More often, however, lines are hidden. These require either additional drawings, or better yet, a perspective drawing of their intersections. No examples come immediately to mind, but I am certain at least one will crop up on an upcoming drawing. I will address that when it happens.

This final rendering shows the curved 3D version over the original lines. The other version would similarly line up.

Not as Advertised

By fStop Fitzgerald | 10 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

When is the Battle of Midway NOT the Battle of Midway?

Research is everything. Your output, no matter what the format—words, painting, oratory, conversation, whatever—is wholly dependent upon those nuggets of information it stands on.

Assume you know nothing about the battle, which was remembered just last week on the 75th anniversary. You go to a “primary” web site, such as the Navy’s own Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/) This is official Navy. It is their history site. On it you will find many original documents and images from throughout the Navy’s nearly 250 year history. It is a great resource. [ed. note: I am employed by NHHC and thus am not an impartial source.]

A search for the site for “Battle of Midway” results in some 963 hits. The fourth entry is this painting by Rodolfo Claudus. Its title, by the artist, is officially “Battle of Midway, 3 June 1942.” And that is where the rub is. Nothing about the battle as depicted by the artist is correct. It is not inaccurate, it is flat wrong.

First, take the title. Most historians—and in particular, the U.S. Navy—deem the battle as spanning from 4 to 7 June 1942. On 3 June, a PBY patrol plane spotted the occupation force, not the main force including the carriers as reported. Nine Army Air Force B-17s launched from Midway to attack the fleet. After three hours of flight they found the transports some 660 miles from their base. Battling through heavy antiaircraft fire, they dropped their bombs and claimed four hits. In fact, they inflicted no damage. This attack, solely by the Army, on the transport force was the only combat on 3 June.

This segues into the content of the painting. There are four elements and one action.

The actions shows a carrier in combat. Nothing like this occurred on 3 June.

The primary element is an aircraft carrier. The artist has done a credible likeness of an Essex (CV-9)-class carrier, in particular the long-hull variant. Now the “howevers” begin . . .

The first and name-ship of the Essex class was not commissioned until December 1942, so obviously, none of the class fought at Midway. The artist does mark the ship with the number 10 on the funnel, indicating CV-10, USS Yorktown. That would be appropriate . . . if . . . that was the right Yorktown. The Yorktown at Midway was CV-5, which was badly damaged on 4 June and sunk on 6 June. Another relatively minor point, but a factual error nevertheless, CV-10 was a short-hull Essex, not long-hull.

The next most prominent element is the Japanese aircraft. There is little to quibble here except, of course, that none were shot down on 3 June.

The third element, to the left, is a destroyer. The artist has depicted either an Allen M. Sumner (DD-692)- or Gearing (DD-710)-class ship. In either case, the very first of these ships was not laid down until July 1943. They didn’t exist at the time of the battle.

The final element is a battleship to the right shrouded in mist or haze. Unlike the other two ships, this is a bit less specific, however, its length, shape of the bow, and closely spaced, tall thin stacks favor the North Carolina (BB-55) class over the Iowa (BB-61). It is definitely not meant to be a single-stack South Dakota (BB-57) or any of the pre-war battleships. Once again, in any case, this element is moot. No U.S. battleships were anywhere near Midway and none participated in the battle.

So, what you have here is a painting that in every element has no relation (except perhaps ships at sea, in combat, with aircraft) to its title.

Sadly, it must be filed under its official title, hence, misleading the unknowing.

Everything hinges on the caption, and the one provided is of no help. It gives the painting as c.1950, yet in the artist’s hand it is labelled 1956.

Bottom line—question everything. Even these comments.