New Trends - Weathering and Battle Damage

[Starks333]

I agree with your whole post Dark Sensei

 

no one here is trying to be elitist, i mean scroll the boards and look at how much time and effort we have put into(since its mostly me and lunchbox getting the labels) others' works, either by giving suggestions or even making some tutorials for people

 

naturally as soon as you get to underlying meanings people get all pissy about it, for many reasons....instead of actually reading it, trying to interpret it, and then formulating a response you get all this crap about elitism, people having opinions, and people painting to be happy....the stuff you cant discuss cuz it isnt factual, so it just ruins the entire conversation, because its just an argument about nothing

 

 

what a lot dont seem to get is we arent "complaining" that we dont win, or that people abuse weathering, we HAVE won, but our trophies feel worthless when we turn around and see judges making ridiculous judgements because they dont know anything, dont even get me started on why a GW employee won gold in open in chicago for a piece that was already displayed in WD months back....it RUINS what we enjoy, thus we are not "happy"

 

the judgments are inconsistent from piece to piece, they SAY they judge one way but you look and they cant possibly judge that way, so you are left sitting there going, hmm i guess i might as well not even bother since the judges dont take it seriously why should i spend the time...oh right because its fun, well maybe it isnt, maybe its competition thats fun, painting for a reason other than "for myself"

 

but no, instead of realising other views exist, everyone expects the competitive type(just look at the whiney tourny gamers) to change because all the whiners act like it has to always be about "having fun" which means putting in no work, or not taking anything seriously at all....im sorry but, if you are painting high quality art and not taking it seriously, chances are you arent painting high quality art

 

 

as for this weathering thing, its been said, so we'll leave it at that

[LunchBox]

OK...to the "elitist" thing...I was being sarcastic. I am, however, very proud of the strides I've made. I, like many other aspiring painters want to get better, and want the hobby to flourish. I love painting, teaching, and learning. I have a lot of fun doing it, but I also take it very seriously.

 

Flintlock...your cut-n-pastes are very out of context, and don't really prove your point, whatever it was.

[flintlocklaser]

Flintlock...your cut-n-pastes are very out of context, and don't really prove your point, whatever it was.[/b]

 

No, they were exactly on point, which is why I chose them. The ironic thing is that I've seen your and Starks' work here, and I do find it highly impressive, and I can see the skill and the dedication that must go into it. But Starks made an argument that is patently untrue about the nature of art and the alleged primacy of complex technique, as well as a subsidiary argument about subjectivism that was also wrong. I felt compelled to address both these issues. Neither issue changes the fact that you both do very impressive work; but to claim the quotes I used were not representative of the arguments he was making is disingenuous.

[LunchBox]

Flintlock...your cut-n-pastes are very out of context, and don't really prove your point, whatever it was.[/b]

 

No, they were exactly on point, which is why I chose them. The ironic thing is that I've seen your and Starks' work here, and I do find it highly impressive, and I can see the skill and the dedication that must go into it. But Starks made an argument that is patently untrue about the nature of art and the alleged primacy of complex technique, as well as a subsidiary argument about subjectivism that was also wrong. I felt compelled to address both these issues. Neither issue changes the fact that you both do very impressive work; but to claim the quotes I used were not representative of the arguments he was making is disingenuous.

 

Well, I probably just didn't 'get it' then. I'm a 7th grade science teacher, and it's the day before we get out for the break...so my brain is a bit squishy right now.

 

Also...this goes out to everyone, including myself: the mods here on the B&C are very laid back, but let's not push this thread into the realm of a shouting match and get it shut down. The conversation is healthy...the debate is healthy, and the replies show that this is something on peoples' minds.

 

Thanks for all the replies, and points of view.

[flintlocklaser]

No worries LunchBox, and while I was trying to debate a point, and debate it fairly sharply, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Like you said, it's been very good to see varying viewpoints raised here. As someone who doesn't aspire to be anything more than a competent tabletop quality painter (and who is, in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, a long long way from even that low goal), it has in fact been informative for me to see the viewpoints of people who devote a lot of time and effort to taking this hobby/craft/art form/whatever-you-call-it to the highest levels they possibly can. Keep up the good work, and good luck in whatever competitions you're working on now - even if it's just competing with yourself to surpass the last thing you worked on!

[LunchBox]

No worries LunchBox, and while I was trying to debate a point, and debate it fairly sharply, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Like you said, it's been very good to see varying viewpoints raised here. As someone who doesn't aspire to be anything more than a competent tabletop quality painter (and who is, in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, a long long way from even that low goal), it has in fact been informative for me to see the viewpoints of people who devote a lot of time and effort to taking this hobby/craft/art form/whatever-you-call-it to the highest levels they possibly can. Keep up the good work, and good luck in whatever competitions you're working on now - even if it's just competing with yourself to surpass the last thing you worked on!

 

Thanks...In fact, the next year or two will be spent competing with myself, and not at GD's. I'm taking some "time off" to build a playable army again, work on other projects, and even paint a few mini's for some collectors.

 

Back to the point, it's all good. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to want to paint competition quality stuff. My beef is with people that say they do, then take every available short cut.

[Starks333]

you werent debating anything...you brought up canvas artists, which i already mentioned isnt included because its a different media...

 

then you tried to make it seem like i contradicted myself when i didnt....natural opinion, is your natural thought, aka something you do, without choosing to...like a brushstroke, or favouring red over blue

 

the rest of the opinion, is the "educated" opinion, the one you learn as you grow up, and you create it, its your "likes" and "dislikes" which amazingly enough change as you learn more, age, and explore

 

saying your opinion cant be argued is right, because its an illusion, a creation made by an individual to explain something they can not explain

 

why do you think red would look better? i donno its my opinion

 

but there is ALWAYS a factual reason behind it

[flintlocklaser]

you werent debating anything...you brought up canvas artists, which i already mentioned isnt included because its a different media...

If you meant for your statements about the primacy of technique to only apply to miniature painting and no other medium, then you should have said that. If you want counterexample that aren't canvas art, there's Modigliani, Philip Glass, Hemingway, Isadora Duncan, E.E. Cummings, et cetera.

 

then you tried to make it seem like i contradicted myself when i didnt....natural opinion, is your natural thought, aka something you do, without choosing to...like a brushstroke, or favouring red over blue

 

the rest of the opinion, is the "educated" opinion, the one you learn as you grow up, and you create it, its your "likes" and "dislikes" which amazingly enough change as you learn more, age, and explore

 

You did contradict yourself, by using the same word to mean two totally different things with no explanation. As you frame it now it makes more sense - before you were trying to use this argument to deny the subjective entirely. In this rephrasing you argue for the value of an educated or seasoned palate in judging, which is uncontroversial and which I agree with entirely. It's the one complaint I've seen you make that I am in entire agreement with - for a competition to have any real validity, the people judging it must be conversant with the subject. You can't get people who've never watched, say, competetive diving before to validly judge a high-dive competition.

 

saying your opinion cant be argued is right, because its an illusion, a creation made by an individual to explain something they can not explain

 

why do you think red would look better? i donno its my opinion

 

but there is ALWAYS a factual reason behind it

 

Joe likes tomatoes. Sally doesn't. Is there a factual reason behind that? Perhaps more to the point (or more to what I think your point is, as you've contradicted yourself again in this paragraph by now moving back to denying subjectivity), is a good sonnet better than a good sestina? Is good blues better than good jazz? If you argue there is no such thing as stylistic differences in miniature painting, I'll defer to your judgment as you've put more time into its study than I have. But an art form with no room for variations in style isn't really much of an art form, it's more of a hobby or craft. In something one-dimensional like that, then sure, you can just go down a checklist and mark off the different techniques that got used and give the trophy to the person who filled in all the little bubbles on your sheet. But if you're talking about an actual art - and I am willing to consider mini painting an art - then 'technique above all' is an argument that basically died sometime in the 1860s at the latest. But this has moved pretty far afield from LunchBox's original point (which I totally see the merit of) and has basically moved to you and me debating the nature of art itself. Heady stuff, and even fun to do, but not terribly productive.

[Vaaish]

It seems this has devolved from a discussion on the overuse of a particular effect to a discussion on the nature of art and how it should be judged which I think is a much more interesting turn. I'd like to make a few comments on this so I apologize if I clip a few comments eclectically from you Starks, but yours seemed the best starting point. In hopes of avoiding a misunderstanding on my perspective of this, let me lay a few presuppositions. First, the term "art" can be applied to any object or item simply by taking it from it's context and placing it on display. For example, Duchamp's Fountain is art because the artist chose the item and removed it from it's context. This means that anything can be art as the Dadaists showed. Since anything can be art, the better question should be what is GOOD art. Returning to the example of the Fountain, it may be art, but if you could metaphorically squeeze the art out of it like sponge, very little art would come out as opposed to something like the Sistine chapel or perhaps a piece by Brancausi. Second, technique does not make art better or worse. Someone such as Rembrandt may appear be better in technique than Pollock or Rothko, but it does not make one better than the other. Finally, art is not entirely science. There are principles of composition and color theory, but just knowing them does not make one a good artist. Look at Thomas Kincaid, he might know composition, theory, and perspective but it doesn't make his work good.

 

.its not the work, its the difficulty level

 

and believe it or not, difficulty level in art has a direct correlation to the end result...because just like math, the more advanced the more specific and detailed you get

This is incorrect. it is the work that is important, not the difficulty level. A painting of Elvis on black velvet may be more difficult to complete but as a work of art it is kitschy compared to the works of Picasso or Matisse. In art, things are important because of what was done, not so much how it was done. Advanced and specific does not equal difficult either. Mondrian was concerned with a specific aspect in his art as was Rothko, but the works of both are not all that difficult to produce. I can come up with a most arcane and difficult method of achieving an effect, but it doesn't mean that it is immediately better. Difficulty of technique should never be a criteria for artistic merit.

 

and since some people cant seem to read an entire post.....i said canvas art is different, it takes out the 3d element and requirements....you are more free because you are less restricted as the surface is already flat, you have the option to do flat art or 3d art...figure painting has th same thing, except that it comes in the form of freehand

The chosen medium does not make one more or less free creatively nor does the surface itself cause restriction in technique or style. So, too, the flatness of a surface does not create freedom, just like the 3d nature of a sculpture or miniature does not remove it; both simply present the same question in different words. The difference is that 3d miniatures or sculptures present the artist with infinite changing viewpoints in which to create his solution while a canvas presents a relatively fixed viewpoint.

 

but im tired of this whole "judging is opinion" crap, its an excuse, thats all it is, and it is not "fair", nor acceptable(in large competitions) for those who put the time in, to be burned because the judges know nothing(whether its sports, cooking, art related, or taste testing)

It is not an excuse, it is a fact. The judge is chosen to put out an educated opinion of which piece contains the highest artistic merit. The very fact that he must choose necessitates he have an opinion in order to do so. The real question is if his opinion is that of an individual qualified to give it. You can't take some random guy on the street and expect to have an accurate opinion compared to a master artist or you fall back on "like" opposed to artistic merit. Eg, I may like Mondrian more than Rothko but it doesn't make one better than the other artistically.

 

Now how does this tie into miniature painting? Basically a piece should be judged as it is not how it was done. Just because wet blending or glazing might be more difficult to do than layered highlight doesn't make one better than the other. What does make it better is the overall effect of color choice, continuity of style, skill in execution, and creativity in composition to create a visually interesting and aesthetically good piece. To that end, Art is a whole governed by universal principles that can be combined creatively in an infinite number of solutions to produce equally good work regardless of method, chosen style, or medium.

[Dark Sensei]

Stark

 

formulating a response you get all this crap about elitism, people having opinions, and people painting to be happy....the stuff you cant discuss cuz it isnt factual, so it just ruins the entire conversation, because its just an argument about nothing

 

Thank you Stark, hope you don't mind if I don't answer to this ? In fact, I just quote this elegant writing because it countains the answer. Stay smart 8).

 

Now the same guy with less mouldlines

 

what a lot dont seem to get is we arent "complaining" that we dont win, or that people abuse weathering, we HAVE won, but our trophies feel worthless when we turn around and see judges making ridiculous judgements because they dont know anything, dont even get me started on why a GW employee won gold in open in chicago for a piece that was already displayed in WD months back....it RUINS what we enjoy, thus we are not "happy"

 

the judgments are inconsistent from piece to piece, they SAY they judge one way but you look and they cant possibly judge that way, so you are left sitting there going, hmm i guess i might as well not even bother since the judges dont take it seriously why should i spend the time...oh right because its fun, well maybe it isnt, maybe its competition thats fun, painting for a reason other than "for myself"

 

So if I see your point, you HAVE won but your trophies feel worthless because when you turn around, judges make ridiculous judgements around ? And all this RUINS what you enjoy ? This is a cut-off but I've got the idea no ?

 

Now tell me. What is so important about the fact judge are so bad while you HAVE won ? Do you just start to discover that GD judges are well... Not so much an ultimate reference, maybe? Or that perhaps, they work for a company that wants to see some minis and not some others representing their catalogue... Dunno, well maybe you should think about this = GD's are not only a painting competition.

 

Perhaps should you wonder if judges started to judge in such a crappy way after you won (I'm not criticising your work at all and for the best reason of all : I don't know what you've done). I mean, your whole post means that they're not as good (or competent or whatever) as they should be, (I agree that the guy from staff competing and other examples I have often go in this way) so I'd push reflexion further than keeping on thinking about what happened after you won but while you did.

 

And well finally. I really can't see why you feel so pissed about what they do. Sincerely I don't.

I've seen quite a bunch of crappy things wining toothpicks and truely killing minis gaining none. And so ? Does it proves anything ? How can you be so badly affected by such un-reliability from the judges if your real aim is to progress ? Its a pity you discarded my humble arguments about painting for ourselves and friends so easily because it is the point and nothing else.

 

Lunchbox

 

Thanks...In fact, the next year or two will be spent competing with myself, and not at GD's. I'm taking some "time off" to build a playable army again, work on other projects, and even paint a few mini's for some collectors.

 

Well, its a fine thing preparing a good army and quite time consuming too. I'm certain your one will roxx if I beleive what I saw from you on this very forum. But about GD, well, why not putting your army minis under the spots ? As a reminder, this is what GD was supposed to be, quite a time ago while only the UK one existed, and THIS is the real spirit of the whole thing or it should be.

I know a cool guy nicknamed Oldblood (Bruno Grelier) that comes to GD with his playing army minis wrapped in a simple towel, all upside down together. I'm not sure about the fact he has 2 or more toothpicks I'm not even sure he kept them (and I'm talking about tough GD, guys). He is a player, he is a painter and he come enjoying a good time and see other painters.

 

Back to the point, it's all good. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to want to paint competition quality stuff. My beef is with people that say they do, then take every available short cut.

 

Well, not that sure. Too few people have real talent but everyone can work. To me, its unbeleivable to win sword when a serious competitor is in front of you, but to paint competition quality stuff and grab a few statues is all a matter of work and a few years. Let's keep a cold mind about our meagre displays.

 

DS

[LunchBox]

Joe likes tomatoes. Sally doesn't. Is there a factual reason behind that?

 

I can't speak for Starks...but I think he means that Joe likes tomatoes for a reason...meaning his opinion is based on facts; ie, personal experiences. Sally would be an idiot (in my opinion), because tomatoes rule. :P

GD's are not only a painting competition.

 

I think that's what irks him.

 

 

Lunchbox

 

Thanks...In fact, the next year or two will be spent competing with myself, and not at GD's. I'm taking some "time off" to build a playable army again, work on other projects, and even paint a few mini's for some collectors.

 

Well, its a fine thing preparing a good army and quite time consuming too. I'm certain your one will roxx if I beleive what I saw from you on this very forum. But about GD, well, why not putting your army minis under the spots ? As a reminder, this is what GD was supposed to be, quite a time ago while only the UK one existed, and THIS is the real spirit of the whole thing or it should be.

 

Actually, half my entries this year were for my army! I ended up changing directions with the army, and sold those pieces. But...I will use parts of my army to fill GD slots when I do go back...maybe 2010.

[mario]

Tim Holly gets his awards because the judges like his work most. That has nothing to do with effort because the rules (in this competition) are primary based on "fitting in the Games Workshop universes" and painting quality. They say nothing about being painted realistically or regarding your point of view on optimal miniature art. You are missing the point of the competition.

 

no, see a competition, by default is a place to go to compete, to compete is to put in work, to constantly improve in order to best the others.....but if there are no guidelines other than what the judge thinks is cool, there is NO WAY to improve, and thus it is no longer a competition

I agree. That's the point. Games Workshop competitions are not about painting better. The main criteria seems to be the "fitting in the Games Workshop universes" thing; with painting quality in second place (but still very important). That's why Jakob Nielsen's stuff wins that often. Contrasting colour schemes (that fit the Games Workshop hobby), great details and painting, and a metric ton of atmosphere in the miniature (or some obscure reference to old Games Workshop illustrations) but not 100% realistic lighting. And his miniatures won against others that have a more realistic rendered lighting scheme because that is how the competition was judged. In this case pure technical proficiency is not enough to win the trophy and this is stated in the rules.

 

If his work fits the competition's criteria then, absolutely, yes! They should give him the award if they think it is worth it. Everything else would make the competition pointless.

 

so what you are saying is if say a child were to judge(same level of knowledge) but because hes a kid and happens to like transformers, he picks the tau crisis suit that looks very plain...but thats ok, because as a judge, he has the complete right to disregard the duty of putting effort into the competition to officiate it as fairly as possible, and just choose one he likes to look at

 

this is essentially what you are saying, im just using a ridiculous example

If there were no other criteria other than to chose what the judge likes then yes and your example would not be ridiculous but nobody, not even Games Workshop, would use such an extremely biased judging system. Tim Holly seems to get high local maxima on a broad set of criteria and wins because the Golden Daemon competition is not purely a technical painting competition (global maximum in one specific criterium).

 

Is it really a crutch (or even deception) if people paint flat colours, then apply weathering on the miniature, and are happy with it?

 

this is just the thing that pisses me off

 

if the world was ever ACTUALLY happy nothing would ever be wrong...THAT is real life

 

truth is, art is always gonna be an individual thing, because everyone pulls out the opinion and bull<DELETED BY THE INQUISITION>...it will never ever actually get better, people will never actually get more knowledgeable with it either...it does make me sad to know so many people ruin something with their selfishness

I was trying to make a point regarding someone else's possible personal opinion (if a person likes it and is happy then it is not our job to criticize them for not making it better) and you view it again from your point of view without regard for what the actual painter wanted from it.

 

 

Lets assume two painters, one using the simpler layering highlight, paints better than someone else who uses the harder wet blending technique. Both paint the same miniature according with a realistic lighting scheme. You really would propose that the wet blender should win because the work was harder even if the aim of the competition were to give the award to the better painted miniature?

 

lets not, because once again you are measuring the wrong aspect....its not the work, its the difficulty level

 

and believe it or not, difficulty level in art has a direct correlation to the end result...because just like math, the more advanced the more specific and detailed you get

Advanced (and hard) mathematics are theoretical and aim to be as generic as possible with the least amount of special cases. Solving an equation is the simple and specific part of mathematics and applying some higher level generic expression in an useful way or finding a new one that is useful is the hard part, thus dissolving your argument. ;)

 

I agree with you that advanced techniques can get better results but that doesn't make it automagically the right thing to do: E.g. the recent Slayer Sword winner (Forge World inquisitor; I think) that was filled with freehand text on the robe(arguably more advanced than not having the text). Great details, hard work, and dedication but I think it weakened the overall composition of the miniature.

 

 

i guess now i remember why i feel like throwing my GDs out...they are worth nothing, and no one "cares" whether they win or not...except the ones who are actually painting to improve, and use most of this stuff already, but even half of them act like winning doesnt matter....

If you already know that this competition does not fulfill your criteria for a good competition, then why do you participate; and when you participate knowing this why is there still all that frustration? The rules state something ambiguous like "Overall, the judges will be looking for well-painted models that adhere to the imagery and ethos of the worlds represented in the fictional worlds of Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000." (source: Wikipedia.org) and that won't change. Then you have the ever changing categories and judges. There won't be real objectivity in the judging under these conditions. Dark Sensei already mentioned all that in greater detail.

 

It looks to me that you are focused on the art as craft road a lot and value the technical aspect as a primary criteria. Some poster above already made some points why it may be interesting for you to go off-road a bit and explore.

 

It, however, is strange how you, white focusing on the representational and technical side of things, use it as a restriction on miniatures (sculpture) but not on on a canvas or other media. There is some great stuff that is not representational three dimensional art (sculpture). E.g. deconstructivism (architecture) or Theo Jansen's strandbeesten (kinetic sculpture).

 

Don't be afraid to look it up, it might inspire something in your representational work. ;)

[Brother Weasel]

Back to the original topic...

 

any technique can be a crutch. Simple as that. if you do one thing in the exclusion of others, spacificaly if you do it because you are better at it, then it's a crutch. You glaze, and if you do that exclusivly then your glazing is crutch.

 

simple rule of painting, use whatever tools you have to get the effect YOU want. i don't care if you glaze, wash, place one pigment at a time, or throw paint at a mini from 20 feet away, if you like what you do.

 

Go ask Jeremie what he does... or what he teaches, he'll use any technique he feels will get him the reslut he wants the fastest... he doenst worry about painting, he worryins only about lighting and color... does any of it matter, only if you want to paint like him.

 

onto judging and other stuff... it's been subjective at the demons for as long as i've been painting, 15 years... i enter to enter, it's all about fun, if you arn't having fun, for the love of all that is good... find somethign that is:)

[Starks333]

perhaps its my lack of strength in writing, so let me make point notes:

 

-i am not saying you can use only one(or certain) technique on figures, i am saying you must use them in a more precise manner in order to work, unlike canvas(canvas you can use thick and heavy paint for texture, but there are only certain ways and cases that works on figures) a figure is less free because of how it works...a flat empty canvas has tons of options because you get to create everything from how the eye perceives it...a figure is perceived as a 3d object and cant be changed

-canvas is different because you have the option of staying 2d, or making it 3d, a figure has no option, except in its freehand(flat) art which is a place to apply out of the box art styles that you can carry through a figure with the light and colour

-figures aka monsters/people and so on, have to follow natural laws of physics and human/animal anatomy in order to look "right" the more accurate the anatomy the "better" the design appears...the same thing occurs when painting the surface, if flat colour was good enough we wouldnt need to do anything but "basecoat" to be complete a perfect figure

-you can always choose to paint your way, and be happy with what you do

-sometimes "out of the box" stuff works, when done right, on the right surface....kostas world expo piece for example, was bizarre but works for a 3D environment

-cyril abati still paints cartoony but realizes that even a 3d cartoon must conform to light and colour(see toy story the movie for another example or anythign by pixar)

-you dont get awarded for attempts, you get awarded for using a technique well, but an advanced application of technique used well will almost always beat a basic application of technique used well...because you are simply improving on the basics, thats what the advancement is...i am not making any specific references, im not saying washed out colour, french style, specific amounts of lighting or anything

 

 

competitions:

 

if the concensus is, that they will always be the same because people enjoy how pointless they are, then ok....instead of wasting my energy trying to change them i will simply no longer participate, it saves the trouble

 

Awards have no meaning, or value if they are simply given out to whoever shows up, and its sad when people actually get disappointed for winning like Chris Borer was winning his whatever(5th?) slayer

 

its great to win your first award, no matter the competition, but after the first, you dont want to win unless its worth it....while i dont respect Tim Holly for his arrogance, I understand what he means by having a closet full of useless awards....because they hold no value other than maybe selling the piece on ebay to cover the expense of the trip

 

whats the point of being the best of the mediocre?..."you dont have a choice when they dont show up" ya you do, you find ways to get them to show up...teach new people, spread the love, the enjoyment, the knowledge

 

 

hell i dont like saying it, but the time and effort ive put into people like Lunchbox, Vtraxx and others, has been well worth it, because since i put my nose into their business, they have started and never stopped improving...all because they let their opinion work when its needed and they throw it out when it comes time to learn, because it isnt needed

 

i dont force anyone to do anything any particular way and you can ask them...i always give options(because real life always has options even in difficult times), and it should show in Lunchies work, his stuff is nowhere near the same as mine, its style, a result of his personal insinct...not his (educated)opinion creating his style before he even picks up the brush

 

the people ive taught in this past year have combined for a total of 20ish awards i believe....none paint the same way, but all use the basic fundamentals to their advantage, thus proving art isnt as subjective as everyone acts, but until you can see and understand the difference, its easy to claim there is none......colour evokes emotion so does shape and artists and advertisers have been using it for years...marketing and advertising is all about psychology of concepts, so is art, as well as many other aspects, which is why it is so hard to be the best at it, because its the most encompassing field in life

 

as for the tomato thing, lunchies right...i dont know why people like certain tastes over others, or why they can like something and then hate it later in life, but i know theres a reason behind it, and to claim there isnt is just foolish

[Brother Merrick]

I am not only late to this conversation but terribly under-qualified to debate it. I just wanted to take issue with the whole notion that a brilliant model must have consumed a lifetimes worth of work. I actually teach fine arts at the university level and I will often tell my students that if a piece is uninspired, unoriginal, and poorly thought out I really dont care that it was labored over for what to them seemed like an eternity. Its not the time or the fact that an artist used such and such technique... its the idea behind the piece that to me is what allows us, the viewers, the create a dialogue about the work, to become inspired or entertained by it, and to ultimately enjoy experiencing it.

 

The model pointed to earlier by Darren Latham isn't a bad piece because of the blending he did or did not use, its ultimately just uninspired. Big Thrud protects curvaceous vixen. Wow.

 

Sometimes, and oftentimes, the most amazing work of art comes from a very simple, but very good, very original idea. Of course, that idea has to be executed well but only just so. Think of the haiku. It doesnt take a dictionary's worth of words to make a good haiku just a few really good ones.

 

M

[flintlocklaser]

I am not only late to this conversation but terribly under-qualified to debate it. <snip> I actually teach fine arts at the university level

 

On the contrary, I think this probably makes you the first person in here who's actually qualified to debate it at all! As for the rest of your post, I could not agree more.

[Dark Sensei]

Actually, half my entries this year were for my army! I ended up changing directions with the army, and sold those pieces. But...I will use parts of my army to fill GD slots when I do go back...maybe 2010.

Selling his own playing mini is not the best way to achieve an fighting army, you know ? 8) Personnaly, if I sell a squat, I sell 20 hours work and 8 points (while I hardly reach 2k5 atm), so... I don't sell anything and growl upon anyone approaching with money.

 

All this stuff about painting and competing makes me think about this :

Amongst other things, I happened to be an unfocused and rather poor kendoka. My Master was an powerfully buildt but ageing man (will be 71 this year with more than 50 years of ken behind him) with a crippled left knee.

Nearly everytime our studients went to kendo competition, they came back with prices. Inevitably (and that was quite funny to me who never competed) they were openly criticised by our Master for this behaving.

Reason was that competing kendoka distracted themselves from the sword in their vain quest for prices. He all too often witnessed that once those competing people would grow slower because of age or wounds, they grew bitter about kendo and abandoned competing and kendo all the like while a real kendoka would carry on in a spirited mind in spite of the physical and mere stupid results.

 

This is of course very different from sports where the physical prowesses are necessary where competing proceedes from the activity in a natural way. For instance, when you think about the thing, there is something strange about even the theory of a painting competition, no ?

As Vaaish said :

A painting of Elvis on black velvet may be more difficult to complete but as a work of art it is kitschy compared to the works of Picasso or Matisse.

This is exact.

And this is partly true too (thx flintlocklaser) :

On the contrary, I think this probably makes you the first person in here who's actually qualified to debate it at all! As for the rest of your post, I could not agree more.

The fundamentals are unclear in a painting competition. Judging style is a matter of personnal taste, judging the idea is important too (see V. Lamb work to appreciate the truth of this), the techniques (please tell me who is capable to appreciate all sculpting and painting techniques...) and in GD, the commercial orientations...

How can such a thing be something else than a pure joke ?

 

 

but im tired of this whole "judging is opinion" crap, its an excuse, thats all it is, and it is not "fair", nor acceptable(in large competitions) for those who put the time in, to be burned because the judges know nothing(whether its sports, cooking, art related, or taste testing)

 

Do you think that all those non-chinese competitors from the last Olympic Games that have suffered from the decisions of blatantly corrupted judges should stop to do what they love and gave their life a meaning just because these decisions were an unfair mockery of sport ?

So ok, this is boring, I agree. Many painters here do not compete anymore and discarded GD for more serious events where judges have a more serious opinion on thing and less commercial thoughts about it. Historical minis events are now often including a "fantasy" category or simply mix it with the historical ones. You want to see what a serious weathering is ?

 

DS

[Starks333]

I am not only late to this conversation but terribly under-qualified to debate it. I just wanted to take issue with the whole notion that a brilliant model must have consumed a lifetimes worth of work. I actually teach fine arts at the university level and I will often tell my students that if a piece is uninspired, unoriginal, and poorly thought out I really dont care that it was labored over for what to them seemed like an eternity. Its not the time or the fact that an artist used such and such technique... its the idea behind the piece that to me is what allows us, the viewers, the create a dialogue about the work, to become inspired or entertained by it, and to ultimately enjoy experiencing it.

 

The model pointed to earlier by Darren Latham isn't a bad piece because of the blending he did or did not use, its ultimately just uninspired. Big Thrud protects curvaceous vixen. Wow.

 

Sometimes, and oftentimes, the most amazing work of art comes from a very simple, but very good, very original idea. Of course, that idea has to be executed well but only just so. Think of the haiku. It doesnt take a dictionary's worth of words to make a good haiku just a few really good ones.

 

M

 

for those who focussed solely on the "inspiration" aspect, you may want to refer back to

 

--------> uninspired, unoriginal, and poorly thought out

 

ONE part is inspiration, one part is creativity, and one part is the actual work knowledge and planning

 

inspiration is great, it moves you along, creativity lets you be original, but you cant create good work without the last bit...where as you can create "good work" with ONLY the last bit, it just wont be inspired or creative work, and even better if its creative and well planned but not inspired...its like 2/3s of the awesome pack, it could be even better but its still good....comparing to miniatures, thrud is still good, but it could be even better....the thread topic, weathering too much can still look good, but holding back can look even better....my point, there are rules to everything, and until you know them you wont be able to control your work...your opinion flows without you choosing to, when inspiration flows...it flows in your creativity...it does not flow in your knowledge, if it does, its an excuse, or an area you have not yet learned

 

 

art doesnt need to be inspired, or inspiring, thats a false idea....sure its easier, and it can look better when it is, but so is everything in life, when someone is inspired to build a house they are likely to build a better house but it doesnt mean the uninspired houses are bad...the are simply average, or good, but not great

 

davinci's art isnt just inspiring, isnt just creative, its technically(almost) perfect, its why its so beyond everyone elses work...lots of people have creativity and inspiration, but lack the knowledge to better their work

 

 

taking time, doesnt mean taking an eternity, it simply means taking the amount of time needed to execute properly, and to a high level

 

 

 

Do you think that all those non-chinese competitors from the last Olympic Games that have suffered from the decisions of blatantly corrupted judges should stop to do what they love and gave their life a meaning just because these decisions were an unfair mockery of sport ?

So ok, this is boring, I agree. Many painters here do not compete anymore and discarded GD for more serious events where judges have a more serious opinion on thing and less commercial thoughts about it. Historical minis events are now often including a "fantasy" category or simply mix it with the historical ones. You want to see what a serious weathering is ?

 

perhaps GD is simply a step, perhaps it will never be a serious event and in order to attend one you need to spend a lot of $$$ and fly to europe to actually find yourself amongst artists or serious painters

 

and me and military modelling dont get along, i think the work is mediocre half the time while historical outside of the tops, are usually just regurgitated copies of each other, not just because thye are the same figure, but because they are painted the same way with the same colours and atmosphere

 

 

as for your kendo comment, it is correct, and does agree with me

 

i teach people to paint a piece and then enter, instead of painting for competition

 

i tell them constantly, that going to small award shows to "clean up" is a waste of time, and that there is no point in competing for the sake of competing, it does not improve you, and it wastes time you could be spending on actually improving

 

however there is a difference between small and big....competing once a year at a big time show allows you to see how much you have progressed without competing for the sake of it....this is helpful in maintaining confidence in ones ability(if they are good) or knocking them back down a level in case they grew too much confidence

 

at the same time, it is owed to those competitors to be judged correctly...as mentioned there is always bias, but when bias changes per event, per year, per figure, there is no consistent bias to work with

 

i have watched judging, and they have been asked how they judged, their OWN CLAIMS do not even show in their judgments

 

this isnt about winning awards, which is why i mentioned i already had some, its about creating a positive competitive environment....giving out awards to anyone and everyone or mediocre figures(whether "opinion" or not) is what creates the kendo effect, its what makes people think they are better than they are "i have multiple golden daemons, they are just as earned as yours are in europe" ya right, they arent even close, and its not at all a "style" reason

[Brother Merrick]

Seems to me this judging issue is a secondary thread to the OP's idea of weathering as a quick way to cover up poor technical skills. Of course, judging anything creative can only be subjective. Get over it. What matters is the quality of the judge. I have to evaluate student artwork on a daily basis and unlike maths or most of the other subjects taught in the university, there is no one right answer in the fine arts context. I grade in a large part on a subjective basis. What gives me the right to do this is the 8 years I spent in school, my terminal degree in fine arts, my exhibition track record and other professional experience that pretty much says I know a thing or two about the subject that I evaluate my students on. That however doesn't and shouldn't mean everyone agrees with me either. Of course there is no degree in model painting (that I know of) so all you, as the judged, can do is assume the person who is judging is also in some way qualified to judge your work. If you have quantifiable proof that a judge is not up to standards feel free to make it known (I wont comment on the qualities of competition judges - this is something I know nothing about). Otherwise accept that judging will be, has to be subjective and move on.

 

And can we please drop the comparisons to DaVinci, Matisse, Picasso, Mondrian, and Black Velvet Elvis.... its just embarrassing! There is a lot of artwork made over the last 50 years we could talk about instead. :cuss

[Brother Weasel]

when it comes down to games day, it's all about taste of the judges, weither you like it or not. the one that is going to win is the one the judges like the best. I don't care if you flawlessly exicuted the mot difficult stile of a blend, with perfect lighting, and shading, if the color you chose looks wrong you won't win. art is not all technique. period. art is also not a contest. who cares if tim holly thinks ther eis no competition, bully for him. you don't think the judges do it right? stop entering. ebter some of the money comps, some of witch are very corrupt and good luck winning unless you know the judge. with any copetition that's not based on a simple thing, judging will be subjective. from mini painting to gymnastics... it's not a simple matter of who crosses the line first.

 

weathering can be a crutch, no doubt about it, if you are a mini painter, and not a gamer whos intrest isnt' painting minis all day long, someone who wants to advance skill, then use everythign at your disposal to get the look you want, dont' worry about what the elitists think, all that matters is what you think.

[Vaaish]

And can we please drop the comparisons to DaVinci, Matisse, Picasso, Mondrian, and Black Velvet Elvis.... its just embarrassing! There is a lot of artwork made over the last 50 years we could talk about instead. laugh.gif

 

Would you prefer Rauschenberg, Gonzalez-Torres, Johns, Gilliam, Warhol, Close, or Bearden? :) You are right there are other artists we can talk about, but I didn't feel those made as clear of a point that difficulty of technique does not make art good. Black Velvet Elvis was meant as a stark contrast to art by several of the names mentioned earlier and by no means was meant as placing it on par with something like Guernica or The Red Studio.

[Brother Merrick]

See I was thinking of the wild junk constructions of Sarah Sze whose elaborate displays are an absolute modelers dream or the outlandish painted cast metal skeletons, unicorns, and hairy guys of Liz Craft or the numerous scale models used in some of Chris Burden's works like the Medusa's Head, Pizza City, or a Tale of Two Cities, or the garage kits and anime inspired, mass produced, super flat work of Takashi Murakami all of whom have had major museum exhibitions at MOCA in LA, MOMA and the New Museum in New York, or the Baltic in the UK in the last 10 years. Google-fu is your friend... but enough of the art lessons.

 

;)

 

On topic, I very much enjoy the cross-overs with the modeling community and weathering is the technique it seems for those guys. Ive recently been playing with oil paints to create rain streaks and blast marks in my recent work, mostly on the flat spaces of vehicles. I quite enjoy it and think it gives another dimension and a touch of "realism" ;) to my models. Of course this can be taken to a silly extreme and maybe thats what Lunch is railing against.

 

M

[Starks333]

"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions. "

Leonardo da Vinci

 

 

 

enjoy

[flintlocklaser]

"Academic training in beauty is a sham. We have been so deceived, but so well deceived that we can scarcely get back even a shadow of the truth." (Pablo Picasso)

 

Enjoy!

[LunchBox]

"Scratch it if it itches, even if it's in yer britches."

 

LunchBox