Wyeth's "Gunfight"

[AK103K]

Looks like he might make it in under the "rule of threes" here too.

#1 is out of it, and being used as cover, #2 looks to be going down, and might could even have hit #3 in the leg(or not), from the looks of the smoke coming from his barrel. #3 might have a chance and looks determined, but hes not moving, and thats likely his only chance, get off the "X" to the left and take a shot.

The look on the face of the boy whos shooting, pretty much says it all. Hes in it to win, and well on his way.

I wonder if he was in Japan with Tom Cruise? Looks like he might be an aikijutsu practitioner to me. Keep'm close, tie'm up, use'm against each other, and take them down.

[serf 'rett]

Very impressive to be able to cross draw at contact distance and get the elavation...

[Bake]

Very impressive to be able to cross draw at contact distance and get the elavation

One question, where did he get gun, I don't see a rig on him, or maybe a shoulder rig?

[JohnKSa]

Maybe it was just shoved in his belt.

[lamarw]

Could of been a cross draw or even more spectacular is he took it off # 1. ??

Maybe not, since it appears #1's revolver is on the floor.

[AK103K]

Or that pocket. It looks a little tore up. Pockets were big in those days and a lot of people used them in that manner.

#2 and #3 dont appear to have a gun belt on either. Although that might be a holster under #3's vest on his right side.

[Double Naught Spy]

#1 is out of it, and being used as cover, #2 looks to be going down, and might could even have hit #3 in the leg(or not),

The use of double ambiguities does not strengthen the argument, LOL.

#3 might have a chance and looks determined, but hes not moving, and thats likely his only chance, get off the "X" to the left and take a shot.

First of all, ain't none of them moving. It is a still image of an action scene and you can tell who is necessarily moving or not. #3 was using #2 as cover. For that matter, he was using #1 as well. So far, it has worked out well for him.

The guy on the far left isn't getting off the X either.

Lots of ambiguities in a painting from 100 years ago.

[DA/SA Fan]

The use of double ambiguities does not strengthen the argument, LOL.

Neither do the grammar police! And why does it have to be an argument? Is that why you come here?

[AK103K]

The use of double ambiguities does not strengthen the argument, LOL.

Straight to the English lessons I see.

First of all, ain't none of them moving. It is a still image of an action scene and you can tell who is necessarily moving or not.

If you look, you can tell.

The boy on the left is pushing forward with his hips and left leg, and holding #1 up, thats pretty obvious. #2 is trying on getting, or just flat out, going down. #3 looks to be starting to recoil rearwards a little, and pulling his left shoulder back. He still hasnt even started to try and get his gun on target, unless thats just the start. Maybe he was worried he'd shoot his buddies. Either way, the boy on the left still has a good chance of beating him to it. The gunfire is pretty obvious, and you can almost taste the smoke in the air. If you look over their heads, its obvious, there were other discharges.

Lots of "movement" going on there, if you look.

[Double Naught Spy]

#3 looks to be starting to recoil rearwards a little, and pulling his left shoulder back. He still hasnt even started to try and get his gun on target, unless thats just the start. Maybe he was worried he'd shoot his buddies. Either way, the boy on the left still has a good chance of beating him to it. The gunfire is pretty obvious, and you can almost taste the smoke in the air. If you look over their heads, its obvious, there were other discharges.

Lots of "movement" going on there, if you look.

#3 still hasn't started to get his gun on target? If you "look," He has already fired a shot and it thumb cocking it again. That puts him ahead of the curve of the boy on the left.

As for the double ambiguity, sorry I was so subtle. That is the problem with interpreting still image artwork where motion is interpreted, you might could say. In complex images such as this, you have a LOT going on, but it isn't evident what went on leading up to this or occurring afterwards. #3 may already be retreating. The boy on the left may already be shot for all we know. He isn't using #1 for cover. That was his buddy who is collapsing on the kid on the left, after being shot and turning away for help, but he just isn't going to make it, is he?. The kid caught him and is now defending him from the two attackers.

Heck, it may be that #1 was being chased by 2 and 3 and 3 shot him in the back. Hearing the commotion, the kid on the left heard his buddy being chased and was drawing his gun as his buddy collapsed in his arm, the kid now trying to shoot the attackers.

Many possibilities.

[g.willikers]

I didn't know Wyeth did paintings like this.
Charles Russell did plenty of great Western scenes and the one hanging over my loading room couch is a print of his.
He did quite a few dynamic gun fights in and among his life like scenarios.
http://www.charlesmarionrussell.org/...ete-works.html
http://www.charlesmarionrussell.org/Smoke-of-a-.45.html

[Frank Ettin]

The problem with trying to discuss training and tactics based on a painting is that there's no way to figure out how much of the scene portrayed is based on a real event and how much is purely the imagination of the artist.