Hi Darian, GREAT question! For me, this question has great appeal, as it ‘causes us to search both our intellectual and artistic leanings and to ask ourselves WHY we lean one way or the other. The bottom-line is I would say I definitely lean toward the impressionistic side of the scale but I’m with you on the bottom-line: I like to tie and fish with that which will catch fish.
In answering the “why part, I’d like to throw out there a third consideration or dimension, if you will, to ponder as we consider the impressionistic/realistic scale as it relates to our individual leanings:
In the last couple of decades, we have seen patterns (particularly nymph patterns) featured in magazines that look like almost exact replicas of the natural originals. And yet, experience by others seems to have yielded a consensus that these exact imitations are often far less effective than impressionistic alternatives. Why is that? Is it because we are still getting something wrong even though it looks SO right? I would like to elaborate on the idea that it is not the degree of exact representation TO US that triggers fish to strike but rather the presence or absence of certain triggering cues and impressions that the fish get from our efforts at the bench.
I first started consciously thinking about this when I read M.R. Montgomery’s book collection of essays titled, “Way of the Trout,” wherein he proffered the opinion that trout key in on the PRESENCE of certain colors in a fly, even if the overall fly suggests a single color and even if that single color is "wrong." He speculated that this was a key reason for the effectiveness of the Adams (grizzly & brown hackle, for example) and certain other multi-colored dry fly patterns, which are often effective even though they don’t really match anything. This is also I believe the reason certain masters have been noted to mix 5 or more colors of dubbing to reach a certain shade, rather than simply applying a single exact color of dubbing to match the anticipated shade of the real insect. The idea being, even if the overall color turns out to be “wrong,” the trout would have still took because it was able to key in on the PRESENCE of a particular color that served as the triggering cue. After pondering this, I started looking for similar ideas by others.
For example, Ralph Cutter in his book, Sierra Trout Guide, proffered the opinion that black ants tied with black antron are much more effective than those tied by regular black hare dubbing, because the antron would capture air bubbles in a manner very similar to the way they are captured by the natural insect. So, apparently trout cue in on these air bubbles, even if both patterns look otherwise identical to us….
I have read that Lefty Kreh and Bob Clouser who worked together to come up with the Clouser Deep Minnow believe this pattern is best tied sparsely, rather than with thick bunches of bucktail. Why is that? Well, if you take a 3”inch, THICKLY-tied Clouser and look at it, it looks like a not-very-realistic rendering of a 3” baitfish. However, if you take a 3” SPARSELY-tied Clouser and step back and look at it, what do you see? Or more to the point, what do the fish see? I imagine that, in less than clear water conditions, the fish (stripers, largemouth bass, etc.) see the beginnings of the head and fore body of a much larger baitfish, perhaps anywhere from 4 to 12” long. And with some Krystal flash and flashabou, it seems to also capture the SUGGESTION of the iridescence of the natural fish, as well as a simulation of sunlight reflecting off the scales of the natural when it turns. Sitting on the vise, very impressionistic to us but not realistic to the fish when it’s under water? Not so sure.
I could cite other examples as well, but don’t want to write a longer book here, and I think you get my idea. The point is, whether realistic or impressionistic, the idea of keying in on “cues” and what the FISH may actually see (or not see) is what appeals to me most both intellectually and artistically in my fly tying. Or to put it more strongly, I believe MY fly tying should target these strike-triggering cues and impressions to the fish, and mere thoughts of realism on the bench are at best secondary considerations FOR ME. Having said all that, I don’t want to give the impression I’m claiming to be some kind of great fly tyer. I’m definitely NOT, I’m just someone who constantly strives to do better and who hopes the dim light bulb will go on once in a while to improve my chances out on the water.
-- Mike
Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life.
Bookmarks