Jump to content
Fly Tying
Fred H.

How as a fly tier do you view realistics?

How do you veiw realistics  

571 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Personally i believe all forms of tying are forms of art, it takes a lot of skill to tie realistic and classics, but now a days, theirs these extremely advanced dry flies and streamers and such that take incredible patience and practice. I respect anyone who can tie any form of fly in such an advanced degree. I didn't vote, as my opinion is not truly replicated in the options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went for another kind of classics. My first thought was art form, but then I thought that art (in my opinion) really isn't about replicating. If it's taken one step further, coming to framed collections or also creating enviromental cutouts (like stones, wood pieces etc.) to make real ornaments out of the flies, then I would think of it more as an art form, since the creativity part of it gets a little stronger.

 

Withot something "around" it, I just think of it as fly-tying... highly advanced, but still only fly-tying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ketill... you're right that art involves a creation or a new way of seeing something, however to be good art, the artist has to have very good technique. Lots of old artists trained by copying old masters' work to improve their technique. If you're able to replicate any kind of fly, especially a realistic, then you probably have good technique. Now all you have to do is come up with a new idea. I'll bet you've already thought of new things you'd like to try some day. Go for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ketill... you're right that art involves a creation or a new way of seeing something, however to be good art, the artist has to have very good technique. Lots of old artists trained by copying old masters' work to improve their technique. If you're able to replicate any kind of fly, especially a realistic, then you probably have good technique. Now all you have to do is come up with a new idea. I'll bet you've already thought of new things you'd like to try some day. Go for it!

I hear you and I don't disagree. We're just thinking a little bit different. Good technique - definitely. And also creativity already there, to figure out ways to do this and that. It's still a rather new field and not much literature to learn from, right.

About replicating, I just mean that a fly that's identical to the insect, the less creativity. For example a bodybuilder stonefly with a beard and a cowboy hat is what I mean with more creativity.

 

I really respect a tyer who can tie a stonefly that is identical to the insect. I will call him an artist. But he has still done it after a drawing. When he start to come up with his own insects or create something WITH his replica, then I will see the result as real art. But don't get me wrong. I will always see him as an artist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in short why I didn't vote for art is that I see realistic tying as "highly advanced imitative tying of flies that aren't practical by the water but very good to use for creating artwork".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure those realistics wouldn't work well on the water. I'm pretty sure dronlee uses his flies to fish with, and he catches lots of fish. Most people, myself included, would just think it's a shame to let some fish tear up something so pretty.... and they are really beautiful to look at! Terje's photographs are not creating something new, but I think most guys on this site would say his photos are works of art.

 

To paraphrase an old saying: if it looks like art, and quacks like art, it's art. That's what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read what we both are saying, the more I believe we also think the same thing about realistics as a field of tying. I think most of what might look like differences in opinions lies in how we define the words we're using... art... artwork... artists... and so on. I'm quite sure that, in a longer discussion, we would see that what we meant was the same but we had different ways to describe it.

 

Two people with different definitions of words can say the same thing in different ways. But when they say the same thing they will instead mean two different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted an Art. It takes attention to detail that is otherwise not required for flies that you will fish.

 

I have tried the realism and classic side of tying. Though my results I felt needed work, when I heard the wife scream because of realistic spider I tried I knew I was on the wright track. I want to put more time into classic salmon flies but some of the materials can be tough to find around here.

 

Either way I think everyone should give it go. It will only help develop your skills for the flies you tie for your everyday fishing needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't like them. If others make them (notice I did not say "tie"), sell them, fish them, then that's fine. I personally have no interest in making them or fishing them. They remind me of the plastic insects that kids get out of the little vending machines in the department stores (near the store entrance) that come in clear plastic round cases. To me they are not flies at all. A fly is not tied to be an exact duplicate, but to suggest an insect by it's size, shape, color and/or subtle movement in the water. That is why so many "generic" dries, wets, and nymphs work so well. I believe that the movement of the hair and feathers as well as the visual presentation of the fly is what triggers a fish to strike. Too many of these qualities are missing in the replica "fly."

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If others make them (notice I did not say "tie") ...

Not trying to change your opinion, but if you look at many of the realistics presented by members here, they ARE tied. Thread, feathers and fur, just like any representative pattern ... just done to the extreme.

Very few actually fish realistic patterns ... they are done for display.

But guys like DronLee creates realistic patterns that are usable and fairly easy to tie up.

 

As I said, I am not arguing your point ... I feel the same way about classic salmon patterns (except I know they're tied, not "made").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic with such a diverse set of opinions. Not my style, but I know my classic style is not most peoples style either, so let it be!

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument here just my opinion. I chose "highest form" because the demands for exact reproduction, materials innovation, proportion, and final synthesis of colors and shades surpasses all other tying efforts whether for art or for effectiveness on the water.

 

Do I do it Not ever. I know my limits in skills, patience, and resources.

 

I am also under the impression --wrong perhaps -- that those who do it mainly pursue it as a personal challenge or maybe bragging rights among their peers. But for all I know there are clandestine auctions among high roller collectors for the best work..

 

Anyway, just my ramblings.

 

Rocco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...