Realistic fantasy warriors in art

Image by auchard via Flickr

I'm a fantasy enthusiast.  But I do have a realistic bent.  Lately, my realism has led me into... well, history.  I'm reading Le Morte D'Arthur, and Xenophon's Anabasis at the same time.  These are actual... well ok, one's mostly fictional, and the other is heavily embellished.  But they are real in terms of representing life as it was 1,000 to 3,000 years ago.  Well, not really real, in terms of representing a partisan aristocratic view involving inherent assumptions of natural inequality... for the most part. 

Image by Passetti via Flickr

Anyway, I read history, and fantasy, and was once involved with Elfwood.  I like the fantasy warrior art, but it is so shallow... and modular in terms of always catching the person at the picture perfect moment... and without food, water, a tent, enough clothing to be warm, armor that can be moved in, and that actually would work at all in battle, etc. 

Image by peterjr1961 via Flickr

People draw armor similar to what one puts on for Halloween.  You imagine up the craziest thing, make it, wear it, then go home.  The real stuff wouldn't even be getting put on except for the real thing, and might take hours to get into and out of. 

Now take a look at this guy's armor below.  Really?  Is it because all the computer generated enemies always strike at his shoulders?  He can't turn his head.  he can't raise his arms at all.  He can't bring his knee to his chest.  He can't fight anyone to the sides or behind him without turning his whole body around.  Even getting his hand to his mouth to eat would be uncomfortable. 

http://wowwhimsy.wordpress.com/category/gear/

And then we get into worse waters. 
But you get this fantasy stuff like this:

Image by Ramona.Forcella via Flickr

This isn't about protection, or combat... it's about lust.

Here's another one.  Really?  It's a combination of wanting to show that she's fierce and ready for battle, and wanting to show as much skin as possible.  It gives new meaning to the term breast plate.  Yep.  There's just one.  And it almost covers one side of her bikini top. 

http://wweapons.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html 

And then at the end of the day we are struck with reality again: real warriors that have long histories of success in their cultures have been carrying about this amount of equipment for 3,000 years, starting with the Greek panoply. 

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/03/13/amelioration-of-battle-space-weight-and-women-in-combat/
But seriously, all you artists and writers out there.  If you can include these things, it can make a brief floating whisp of a picture or setting into a fleshed out and memorable experience.  Take Lord of the Rings for example.  You've got Lembas bread, tomatoes, Aragorn hunting some type of animal in the wild, cheese, all kinds of foods and food related scenes that bring realism.  They travelled with Bill the pony, who carried a lot of their equipment until they lost him. 

http://kjswanson.com/blog/2010/01/one-meal-to-feed-them-all-one-meal-to-find-them-one-meal-to-bring-them-all-where-watching-movies-binds-them/

It seems that for Fantasy art, the only equipment that may be used is weapons and armor.  I think every creator of fictional work needs to ask themselves a few basic questions while designing their final product.  What do they eat and drink?  Where/how do they sleep?  What would they learn by using all five senses?  How do they deal with hot/cold or wet/dry environments? 

I wouldn't say a full set of equipment for a multi-day journey is always needed.  If a place is near where there is food/shelter, or if there is a large force with a supply or baggage group, then there would be no need.  Obviously, most fantasy art that includes environment puts people in an unfriendly or uninhabited environment, where a person would have equipment with them. 

Come on friends, let's keep it real!

Related articles

• Drew Shea's answer to Xenophon's anabasis reviews make it read like a boys own romp through Persia and a cracking read. Is it a fair reflection and thus is it a must buy? (minimalj.wordpress.com)
• September 15, 2011 Arthurian Fact of the Day (caridwen.wordpress.com)
• Armor reduces performance - its science (trolldens.blogspot.com)

Thoughts on Meat and Grass

I have similar views on meat and grass. They are both great. But they are also both over-utilized. Kind of a default in meals or landscape planning. I think changes would be beneficial in both cases. Let's start with meat:

Meat comes from animals. These animals lived for a certain length of time before they were killed for their meat. During their lives, they had to eat to grow. This usually means grains, like corn, wheat, etc. How much acreage of these grain plants are used just to feed animals that will in turn feed us?
http://www.extension.org/faq/4027

The link above reviews how the numbers vary, from 2 pounds of corn per pound of cow, to 20 pounds of corn per pound of beef. In any case, I'll just say 10 pounds of corn makes one pound of beef. So a 1/4 pound burger requires 2.5 pounds of corn that the animal fed on. Obviously a guy eating corn will be responsible for less acreage of corn planted to feed him than a guy that eats beef. So for our meat we have all the processing and space required of cows, and all the processing and space of their grain feed required. Eating lots of meat is costly for the environment, as compared to eating grains.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/lappe01.htm

According to the previous link, 1/2 of all our harvested acreage goes to livestock feed. It also compares eating grain-fed animal meat to driving a cadillac. The quantity of land required to support meat production is one reason not to eat so much meat. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't see any pressing need to become one, but I do think that we could cut down on the amount of meat in our diets.

My second issue with meat is the huge disconnect between the living animal and what we put in our mouths. It is my personal opinion that every person should have to kill a cow before they eat beef, kill a chicken before they eat one, etc. This makes a lot of people queasy. But seriously. People that are willing to eat dead animals should be willing to appreciate that they are responsible for killing dead animals. We need to be ok with that. I think if everyone killed an animal once or twice, or even watched a video of it, maybe people would find it easier to consume a little bit less meat. I think consuming less meat is a good idea. Especially for me, because I can be a pretty hard core carnivore sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-cor1uZ2AM&feature=related

The above is a link to Overlooked: The lives of animals raised for food. May bring tears to your eyes. Anyway, I think it's a good thing to see. More and more people are decreasing their consumption of meat, and I think it helps in terms of money, health, and the environment.

As far as grass is concerned, think about it. Why do we have to have it everywhere? Why grass and not something else? It's soft underfoot, but we put in sikewalks and try not to walk on it. Some might say it looks nice. I think maybe we are raised to think this. But think about it, if you're going to have a landscape portrait on your wall, would you rather have one of grass, or plants native to your area, or other plants? You don't see many huge portraits of grass. As the matter of fact, I've never seen any. There may be grass in a portrait, but it is never the focus of the piece.

The guy in the following link thinks grass is analogous to debt. We have both because we want to have what others have: http://www.debtreductionformula.com/blog/history-of-grass-lawns/
I don't have any problems with grass. It's a good place for a picnic. It's a good place to walk bare foot on. It's a good place to run and throw balls and play. But think of all the places that have grass in them. It's not just areas that are used for these things. You see it in lots of places that people never are meant to walk on. Here at University Village, there are huge swaths of areas between parked cars and buildings, and between roads and fences, and behind buildings... places that no one wants to walk, or picnic, or play, when there are so many better areas away from the cars.

Now consider how much it costs to water all of this grass. How much time and effort it takes to mow the lawns, use fertilizer, weed killer, etc. All the digging for sprinklers. Grass gets used in places like Utah where it is too dry, and so it costs more than in other areas. And yet we do it. Because everyone else does.
When I go up to research park to the clinic on my bike, there's this tiny little patch between properties that is untended by people. At some times of the year, there are sunflowers. There are also purple flowers, white flowers, yellow flowers, and a number of green plants. There are mice there, and maybe some snakes. A number of birds are always about there too. There are bees and bugs, and all kinds of little things. At some point it will get 'developed' and all this will disappear. And it will become grass and cement. I don't think grass can compare, and cement certainly can't.