Is Modeling Art--or--"How superficial do you think I am"?

Gip:  Modeling is a true form of Art.  Hobby or not, you still create something from nothing.  Even if you build straight from the box, you still are creating it and painting it your own way with your own technique (IMO).

This argument again? LOL

Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you behold it as art, then art it is.

I consider scratch building an art in that you are indeed building something from nothing.

I consider assembling a kit to be a craft, and left unpainted it is really not much different from assembling a bookcase from Ikea, both come with instructions and we often have parts left over! Painting an aircraft realistically is also a craft in that the design work is pre-existing and all we are doing is reproducing it. Painting a Tiger tank to look like a tiger should be considered art. Painting a wall with with latex paint is a chore, no matter how well we do it.

There is no shame in our hobby being a craft. Arts and crafts are often mentioned in the same breath, and indeed, share many characteristics.

A carefully assembled model, that is painted with care, is indeed a thing of beauty and should be appreciated by everyone who views it.

Mmmm..........this has been a touchy subject with people not familiar with our hobby. To my mind, model making is an art form just like any painting, piece of music, film, writing or sculpture.
However, there are many who do not share that view, they see the model builder as someone who glues a structure together and paints it as if they were decorating their living room, purely a functional task with little creative input.
OK, maybe we do not consider ourselves to be artists, in fact I would venture as far to say that most of us don't-we just enjoy building models. So I would not say we as a group are superficial, though we may meet the odd individual who is and when they argue about a certain shade of grey instead of enjoying the model in front of them then I know why we are not seen as artits, artistic licence is simply not allowed..........


Darren.

Upon thinking about it, I guess I would have to consider modeling as a form of art, if for no other reasons than acquiring really good looking results is more of an art than a science.  At the same time, I don't consider myself an artist; a major part of this is that I basically put together the pieces that are planned by other people... sculptors start with a big block of clay or wood, painters start with a blank canvas, illustrators start with a blank piece of paper... scratchbuilders may qualify as artists, but putting together kits OOB or adorning them with AM doesn't quite ring to that level in my book... it's a more of a craft.

"Creative juices" to most modelers may be somewhat oxymoronic, in that most choose to adhere rigidly to history.  But in a sense, I guess that's part of why I build... I like opening the box, seeing the kit for the first time, and mentally envisioning the potential of how it could turn out.  Although it never turns out exactly the way I had envisioned, there is a good feeling that comes with building and accomplishment.

Talent is necessary to get good looking paint jobs and smooth seams without creating flat areas.  Creativity is less required; figuring out how to accomplish a tricky task can take some thinking, but much of the coloration and markings of the project have already been established by history.

As for the last statement, I would have to declare it false for those who work OOB or with AM for the reasons given in my first paragraph... the Faberge artists start with a blank slate, while much of the groundwork has already been laid for the kit builder..

from a newbie's point of view: it's art if the finished product is original. if i finish a model of a corvette and it looks exactly like it's full size counterpart then it's not original. just like some guy painting exact replicas of famous paintings would be considered a great painter but maybe not an artist. so i believe modelers are great gluers and painters...but maybe not artists, unless they took the model in an original direction. hope i make sense .

Art is very subjective, i saw a "artist" on the news today that is staging a show of his works and one of the various mediums he works in is to pour MILK on himself or objects and i guess films it and this is called "art"  so why can't the elements like painting models to looks as realistic as possible be called art?

Whoo...That's a difficult question.

There are a few ways one can answer.

One way is to look at art as defined as:

 "skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art."

In that case, I would absolutely say that model building, as the diligent application of craftsmanship towards a desired end, could be defined as an art. I think we can all agree on that.

Where I would differ from the larger definition of art, however, is that I see the role of the artist as one who is able to take raw materials and from them, create something new.

By new, I do not mean something so incredibly different as to be entirely unlike anything else. Rather, what I mean is that the artists put something distinctive of themselves into the application of the medium.

Here is an analogy for you. In Japan, when one learns a craft such as ceramics, one spends a number of years practicing a craft in a very proscribed fashion, in order to create a specific style of work.

One term that one finds in Japanese martial arts that is relevant to this is the term "kata"- which can be translated as "mold"- a fixed form for casting.

In traditional Japanese arts, one spends a good deal of time following the form very closely. This is a foundation of craft, whether one is learning folk dance, woodworking, or swordsmanship.

It is only after that lengthy period of apprenticeship that one is allowed to make departures from the fixed form in order to explore one's tools and options.

To extrapolate to a larger definition of art, I believe that the point at which one may consider one's endeavor an art is the point at which one has learned and practiced sufficiently in one's craft that the work one creates offers a certain degree of departure from the fixed form, and creates a unique perspective or voice for the particular media being used.

For example, I look at the people who create displays for the Museum of Natural History in New York. They are using the skills of model building to create convincing replicas of scale model pyramids, villages, settlements, or other dioramas. Their craft is impeccable. What distinguishes these works, however, is that they are not simply working from a kit and following instructions, but rather they are improvising to solve problems and creating their own individual templates for the various elements.

I think that improvisation might just be the key word here. The level at which one is performing an art is the point at which one has the freedom to take a larger measure of initiative in the process, and in doing so, to create a truly unique piece of work.

Looking at it that way, I might say that art is the highest evolution of craft. That is not to say, either, that there is anything wrong with a craft not being art. Some people work simply to preserve and practice a particular set of skills and techniques, and that is an entirely respectable endeavor.

Just a few thoughts. 

Bgrigg wrote:

This argument again? LOL Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you behold it as art, then art it is.

Seriously. This thread always seems to reappear. Last time, we had a pretty good discussion, and the above was the general consensus.

?? Somebody is agreeing with me?!? I have to tell my wife!

Krzysztof, well said!

In my opinion, it all depends.  In my case (building straight out of box, no real weathering or any sort, etc.), it's as much art as a paint-by-number kit.  On the other hand, if you're doing scratchbuilding, or applying complicated weathering techniques, it's no different than sculpting or painting a picture . . . .

-Jonathan

In the Art Gallery only 5 minutes drive away they have on display a lawn mower with 6 barstools welded on it, now if that is considered art then IMO model making is, but only to a certain extent, anyone can glue a kit together but it takes years of trial and error to learn all the different techniques that it takes to bring a model kit to life.....

I've been modeling on and off all my life and i only consider the models that i have made in the last couple of years to be art, but on the flip side i don't really consider myself to be an artist.........

Hmmmm this one really gets you thinking doesn't it, i'd better stop before i go cross eyed.....

I thought all Aussie lawn mowers came with a bar stool attached to it?

I've seen "art" like that in art galleries and am always reminded of the old "Fools and their money" saw. Which gets me wondering how much I could get for an old saw with "Fools and their money" painted on it, and mounted in a frame?

richard bent wrote:

i saw a "artist" on the news today that is staging a show of his works and one of the various mediums he works in is to pour MILK on himself or objects and i guess films it and this is called "art"

 

 

j.s.harrison wrote:

In the Art Gallery only 5 minutes drive away they have on display a lawn mower with 6 barstools welded on it

 

Actually, this is the sort of thing that really gets my goat.

 

One of the real issues I’ve had in general with college level arts education in this country (I can’t speak for the art scene outside of the US) is that there is far too much in the way of trying to force students to “reinvent the wheel” so to speak. One of the reasons why I chose to go into Illustration, rather than Fine Arts was because the education in the Illustration department placed a much greater emphasis on being able to use technical skills in order to communicate an idea, as opposed to the overemphasis on an “intuitive” approach to the media, which often ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and creating a cult of narcissistic symbolism that eschews a good 3000 years of craft and visual culture.

To be perfectly honest, I would go as far as to say that 90% of the work we that we think of as fine art that predates the middle of the nineteenth century is closer to what might now be called illustration, insofar as this was work created with the clear intention of using the visual medium to communicate a specific subject, meaning, or idea.

 

 

styrene wrote:

1.  Do you consider modeling to be an art form?  If so, have you ever thought of yourself as an artist? If modeling is not an art form, what is it?

As stated before, yes...and yes.

styrene wrote:

2.  Do you model as an outlet for your "creative juices", or is it "just a hobby"?  Or are there deeper, or more superficial reasons you do what you do?

Both and no.

styrene wrote:

3. Is talent and creativity necessary to the hobby, or is this the last stop for people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

Necessary? No...Desired? Yes. I won't comment on the second question.

styrene wrote:

Certainly painting is an art form; our canvas happens to be plastic, resin, and metal.  And our brushes use compressed air as well as horsehair or nylon.  The only difference between the artist who created the intricately detailed Faberge eggs, and an aircraft modeler who accurately creates or recreates an intricately detailed cockpit, is the medium that's being worked.      TRUE or FALSE?

True

 

I must agree. It is an art form. to take something from nothing and make it as good as we can.

I think the question of "art" is more of an opinion itself. Anything can be considered art. I may find something so beautiful, I can't live without it, but you may find the same thing hidious! I think this hobby is to a point "art" but can you really define art? I mean from the dictionary? is there a definition? that would tell you if it is or not, and if there is no definition, we should call it art, just to sound all fancy and that kinda junk!