"Irbis" brings anew...:

Title: Friday
Scale: 54 mm
Resin
Sculptor: S. Lupanov
Numner: IM 54-81
Price: 60 €, plus shipping




Template was this painting by Frank Moss Bennett...:




http://irbis-miniatures.com/magazin/folder/art


Cheers

I have mixed feelings about 3D reproductions of paintings (why not to make your own scene with a cavalier and a lady?). This is good as far as it goes, but I do not think that the table in the painting is triangle (look at the position of the tankard on the table).

Hu Sergey!

I think, it is such one...:

Triangle table, Oak, 17th century, England...:




Cheers

Thanks, Martin. I am not saying that triangle tables did not exist, but look at the read lines which indicate how a triangle table would have looked in the painting. Note that there would have been no place for the tankard on such a table. This is why the sculptor had to remove the tankard to the broad end of his triangle table. The green circle indicates the forth corner of the table in the painting (more precisely, the table cloth hanging from that corner). Admittedly, this is not the best painting in the world.

Best wishes,
Sergei

I think both Martin and Sergei are right

Look at Martin's photo and note that it is a triangular table with a hinged leaf joined to it's longer side (hence the 4th 'gate-leg').

The painting must have the extended leaf raised* (otherwise, as Sergei says, the tankard would be in mid-air).

So, it's a triangular table in its extended, square configuration as:



... and no, it's not the best painting in the World and even if the above is correct some of the perspectives are wrong

There are examples here and here and some round variations here and here.

*oops: in my initial posting I mistook the dress's stripes for the 'gate-leg' support )

Another international incident resolved... my work here is done

I have made two of Irbis "Art" vignettes amd have one on the stash. Very nice sculpting and a treat to paint but......this one will not be on my shelf. When you make a 3D version of a painting the fun is to stay as close to the original as possible and this one does not do that. The chair is different, the position of the swordhanger is different, the table legs are too big, I miss the hat and the maid looks the wrong way. I miss the pipe (and the knife ) but I guess it's just not in the picture. I would have loved to have the walls too, with the window and the cabinet...but still, great sculpting.

That's an interesting idea, Neil. Much depends on the position on the table's horizontal beam which connects the two visible table legs on the left. Unfortunately, we can not see where the beam terminates on the right side. If it comes to the table leg which is between the cavalier's legs, then the table has three legs. If the beam connects the table's two legs on the right (one of these legs being invisible in the picture) as is does on the left side, then we have a 4-leg table. It seems to me that the latter option is more probable. Also, those three-leg foldable tables look rather flimsy compared to the sturdy table in the picture. But the painting is too imprecise to decide.

Yes, I recognise that and it is possible that it is a four legged, square/rectangular table.

There's also something strange about the overhang which seems much more on the left that the right and however much I play about with the geometry of the legs/stringer, I can't make sense of it.... perhaps just sloppy draughtsmanship?

Whichever, the kit is wrong.

[There's also something strange about the overhang which seems much more on the left that the right and however much I play about with the geometry of the legs/stringer, I can't make sense of it.... perhaps just sloppy draughtsmanship?

Whichever, the kit is wrong.[/quote]

NeilW, the more I look at the picture, the more probable your idea about an unfolded three-legged table is. The longer left overhang apparently corresponds to the unfolded left part of the table. Also, a four-legged table would have the three lines marked below parallel, especially the red and green ones. Frank Moss Bennett was not a Rembrandt, but even an art college student would be able to draw the perspectives of a four-legged table correctly.

Best wishes,
Sergei

Hi Sergei,

Yes, you've identified some of the strange misalignments that I did. I reckon that some form of opened out triangular table is the only solution. It's bang in the right period as well (both Dutch and English).

Whatever, the model is incorrect (though still good in its own right)

Cool

I think it's a rectangular table but with exaggerated perspective. The guy's elbow and leg and the ham cleverly cover the problem spots, allowing the eye to be tricked, see how hard it is to determine where exactly is the far edge of the table.. As for the reason, I guess the painter wanted to keep the group compact; drawing the table in correct perspective would make the far right corner larger. I also think making the table triangular in 3D serves the same purpose and is therefore conceptually correct. (Leonardo did some pretty wild distortions of perspective in his mural of the last supper, I haven't heard anyone call that sloppy.)

A trick known as theatrical perspective (alongside of linear and aerial perspective) has been used by artists for centuries. It's essentially
a distortion of normal lines of sight, and known in some arty-farty circles as visual anamorphosis - Bennett has used this technique to
help his composition. It looks simply like Irbis have decided to convert the table into a triangular gate-leg. Whatever.... it's a handsome
little vignette of nice quality.

Mike

Sorry Henkm but I don't buy it.

I know about distorted perspectives (and thanks Mike) and realise that the piece is 'inspired by' rather than a slavish copy but how is a triangular table 'conceptually correct', and why move every element on it (bread, ham, jug, platter) and re-position the woman and the man's right leg and sword?

In fact, the more I look at it, the less it reflects the original's interest and dynamism ... eg, the relationship between the two figures to me implies some gentle flirting that is entirely missing from the model (the slight tilt of her head is vital) and the inward sloping sword serves to draw the eye back into the central composition rather than drawing it out of frame.

To my eye it works OK as a standalone piece (albeit clumsy in parts) but I think that Martin did Irbis few favours in posting the original and thus inviting this conversation

Very good points about distorted perspective. I also agree that moving the woman and the guy apart in the vignette kills the plot of the painting which is all about flirting and innuendo. With his fist on the table the cavalier in the miniature looks more threatening than flirting (and generally speaking, the hands of both figures are the weakest part of sculpturing). Having said that, Martin did a great job by posting the source painting (it also appears on the Irbis website). I have always preferred detailed analysis to “wow, another masterpiece!”

Ah, yes, I now see Irbis also post it. What I meant was that Martin's posting it raised issues that otherwise might have gone unnoticed ('did them few favours' is meant ironically... you may also say that Irbis 'shot themselves in the foot' by posting it )

Looking again, I have to say you're absolutely correct there. The replaced leg seems to make an awkward angle in the sculpt and much as I hate smoking, the pipe is a set piece from the era. Leaving it out feels wrong.

I assume the ham etc are provided loose so can be positioned to your liking but her head tilt requires some surgery.