Ok,'rules' is probably a bit strong! - and implies something to be obeyed.
What I want to get over is that I think it important for woodcarvers of today to be aware of those conventions that make Green Men what they are, and others which make for distinct, albeit similar, images.
My understanding of Green Men comes from 2 sources: looking at originals whenever I can, particularly in churches in England, and from 2 of the best books around (Green Man by William Anderson and Clive Hicks(Photographer) and The Green Man
by Kathleen Basford).
These books depict mostly the Green Men in which I am interested. They are old - as in 13th and 14th centuries - and, to me they are the earthy models on which later, and modern, versions are based.
A wonderful Green Man from the rood screen of the Eizabethkirche, Marburg an der Lahn, Germany (?1349) in Anderson's highly recommended book. Photograph by Clive Hicks.
With these sources as my reference, it is easy to see patterns ('rules' for want of a better term):
Green Men are:
- Male, of varying age (only one or two female heads are known; more bestial and distorted is a little more common)
- Represented by their heads only (no hands parting the bushes; very rarely body)
- Seen from the front
- Foliate: leaves erupt from the face itself, mouth, nose eyes etc, rarely flowers
- Not hairy: they don't have long beards; nor fangs for that matter; nor horns (though primitive beards and hair do occasionally appear).
This is in no way a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'.
You see that I keep making exceptions: for every rule there are, of course, exceptions; but that is what they are, exceptions.
The majority of what I might call the 'classic' or 'traditional' Green Men follow a very simple pattern: male head, front view, leaves - and I suggest this is what we call the 'Green Man', finding other names for other images.
These Green Men are not 'Wild Men of the Woods', Father Christmas-like Wood Spirits, Ents, Pan, Goblins, and so on. Those are later, even modern, interpretations.
This Green Man is taken from Basford's indispensable book: a 13th century carving from the former abbey at Ebrach, German.
A carver could take a design like this and develop it a long way. Compare it with the one below.
I would like to see some variation in the names for what is being carved; carvers seem often to be talking about different products. (For example 'Wood Spirit' could be more the swirling beard type.)
In this way interested carvers don't arrive at a website expecting the 'true' Green Man only to find a sort of Gandalf with birds in his hair, and a token twig.
And Green Men were carved, not modelled; this gives them a very distinct character. They were carved because that is what builders did then (we have no examples of architecture-free Green Men, as are carved now; or pottery ones from anything but recent times).
Note too - they were not spoiled by sanding but kept the freshness of the chisel.
So, for me wood and stone are the materials of choice. Woodcarvers can give the Green Man that special carved look which is alien to the way of handling clay and making pottery.
This Green Man is 13th century, from Southern Germany and appears in my Woodcarving Tools Materials & Equipment book.
I loved the stylisation when I first saw it, the hard 'choppy' style (wood!), tight shadows and the receding, almost obscured face.
The classic Green Man arose out of a particular worldview and experience.
None of us has that now, and it is quite right that we carve what we feel; the results will look different unless we are simply copying.
I'm all for seeing the whole genre explored deeply, as I think it is beginning to be; and it's easy just to do 'your own thing'. I think that clarity is needed to focus both carvers in their explorations, and the Green Men that appear.
More and more, woodcarvers are engaging the theme and I find myself thinking about who and what is being carved.
So, these are just my thoughts. Are you a carver of Green Men? I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.