Outside Gate A10 SF International Airport

And the final model

All feeedback is welcome. Many thanks for looking.

Amazing, as always, Vespa Boy.  Man--you've got a real knack for the tiniest details! Very well done!

That's a scene I see far too much, myself--I HATE flying!

Hopefully you weren't stuck on the runway for an hour and a half waiting for clearance when you got that inspiration? LOL!  

Thanks Doog and Manny and Moon Puppy. Your comments a very much appreciated.

Doog: I travel a LOT for work, and spend hours looking at the tarmac out the window I know the feeling.

It's funny how looking at this scene makes me homesick... like I'm leaving on a trip. Fantastic. You are master at realism.

I also love that you show your sketches. I love seeing your idea turn into a physical piece of art, and I'm more than ready for your next project.

Steve

Wirraway wrote:

Gino.....oh Gino,.................where are yooooo........

Gino would be impressed, I'm sure..... 

ps1scw wrote:

All those oil and fuel drippings are a bit disconcerting.

That could be cause for concern about the FBO and the A&P at that airpatch, wouldn't it...

the doog wrote:

Wirraway wrote: Gino.....oh Gino,.................where are yooooo........ ????? Take a good look at the subtlety and precision of the detail in this little scene, Wirraway, and ask yourself if you could duplicate something that precisely? Gino would be impressed, I'm sure.....

No-one is doubting vespa boys ability.  Hell, the guy is an absolute artist IMO.  The unresolved question, (certainly in my mind and Gino's and probably others, is - are these dioramas ?)  I will admit I like to sit back and watch the sparks fly between these two - two intelligent guys both putting forward some valid points - and I probably should apologise for trying to stir things up.  But having said that, I'm curious as to why everybody just blithely accepts that these ARE dioramas ?  Surely a little intelligent discussion/debate, is a good thing ?  A diorama is a snapshot of an event, whether it be a real event or imagined event. I just dont see that with Vespa boys work.  I put them somewhere along the lines of a 3D painting.  OK, I've opened the can of worms, someone else's turn now....

Wirraway wrote:

the doog wrote:  Wirraway wrote: Gino.....oh Gino,.................where are yooooo........ ????? Take a good look at the subtlety and precision of the detail in this little scene, Wirraway, and ask yourself if you could duplicate something that precisely? Gino would be impressed, I'm sure.....  No-one is doubting vespa boys ability.  Hell, the guy is an absolute artist IMO.  The unresolved question, (certainly in my mind and Gino's and probably others, is - are these dioramas ?)  I will admit I like to sit back and watch the sparks fly between these two - two intelligent guys both putting forward some valid points - and I probably should apologise for trying to stir things up.  But having said that, I'm curious as to why everybody just blithely accepts that these ARE dioramas ?  Surely a little intelligent discussion/debate, is a good thing ?  A diorama is a snapshot of an event, whether it be a real event or imagined event. I just dont see that with Vespa boys work.  I put them somewhere along the lines of a 3D painting.  OK, I've opened the can of worms, someone else's turn now....

But still, like you said--"the guy is an absolute artist" for sure!

I think the general consensus was that while they were not technically dioramas with story lines, they really have no appropriate designation, nor any more appropriate forum in which to display them. Ergo, they appear here.

The thing that amazes me is the sheer level of un-overlooked detail that I personally would overlook--the amount of chipping on the paint, for instance, the superb subtelty of colors and shades, the stains and drips...I think this guy is a superb artist who paints and creates in 3-D instead of simply flat canvass.  I'm endlessly amazed!

In any case, Arty hath spoken!--and reflecting the general consensus,....

Hi guys I'm back where I can actually post again (slow hotel connections...)

Firstly thanks again for the comments. I want to explain that the oil and hyraulic fluid leaks are from the vehicles that handle the luggage and catering adjacent to the aircraft.

As to the issue of what is a diorama. Gino's and Wirraway's idea of a diorama is one definition...ground, vehicle, figures and narrative.

What happens if you want to model where the events happened. Is it still a diorama...Anyone read the Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death?

http://www.amazon.com/Nutshell-Studies-Unexplained-Death/dp/1580931456

These are dioramas of an event that has just happened. What if the time line is extended well past the event and the events are less dramatic?

What I am trying to do is show the history of the place I am modelling...the build-up of paint lines, the drips, the chips of paint all tell a story about what happens in that location. It is obvious that vehicles and people play a part in the story. The challenge is to make a scene that has such a subtle narrative interesting to look at, so I work very hard on composition.  

 I think that what I make are dioramas. I understand that many people on this board don't but I greatly appreciate the chance to share them (one other board was not so generous).

I would hope that Wirraway and Gino and others who share their p.o.v. could appreciate my models as diorama bases at the very least.

If I can draw a parallel with paintings.

There are paintings that depict a narrative (Charge at the battle of Waterloo)

and those that don't (Dutch still life)

And those that are abstract images (Piet Mondrian, Tableau No. 2))

Where do you draw the line?

If you go to an art gallery you will see them all, and they are considered valid.

Why would the same not apply to dioramas?

Great points, Vespa Boy!

"...the history of the place I am modeling..."--well, mission accomplished, Vespa Boy! You capture that perfectly! 

I think we're so used to seeing "traditional" diorama's, plus the fact that we're so  UN-used to seing someone "break out of the box" so radically, that it may take a while to expand our collective consciousnesses about what constitutes a "story".

You make a great point about the paintings. I do hereby amend my personal definition of "Diorama"!

I stlll think you've got mad skill!

the doog wrote:

Wirraway wrote:  the doog wrote:  Wirraway wrote: Gino.....oh Gino,.................where are yooooo........ ????? Take a good look at the subtlety and precision of the detail in this little scene, Wirraway, and ask yourself if you could duplicate something that precisely? Gino would be impressed, I'm sure.....  No-one is doubting vespa boys ability.  Hell, the guy is an absolute artist IMO.  The unresolved question, (certainly in my mind and Gino's and probably others, is - are these dioramas ?)  I will admit I like to sit back and watch the sparks fly between these two - two intelligent guys both putting forward some valid points - and I probably should apologise for trying to stir things up.  But having said that, I'm curious as to why everybody just blithely accepts that these ARE dioramas ?  Surely a little intelligent discussion/debate, is a good thing ?  A diorama is a snapshot of an event, whether it be a real event or imagined event. I just dont see that with Vespa boys work.  I put them somewhere along the lines of a 3D painting.  OK, I've opened the can of worms, someone else's turn now.... Fair enough, Wirraway --we actually had this discussion when vespa boy started posting here at first--everybody was like, WTF? But still, like you said--"the guy is an absolute artist" for sure! I think the general consensus was that while they were not technically dioramas with story lines, they really have no appropriate designation, nor any more appropriate forum in which to display them. Ergo, they appear here. The thing that amazes me is the sheer level of un-overlooked detail that I personally would overlook--the amount of chipping on the paint, for instance, the superb subtelty of colors and shades, the stains and drips...I think this guy is a superb artist who paints and creates in 3-D instead of simply flat canvass.  I'm endlessly amazed! In any case, Arty hath spoken!--and reflecting the general consensus,....

Doog,

You state that there is no other appropriate forum to display them in......what about scratchbuilding ?  As In "Here is my scratchbuilt tarmac section", or "here is my scratchbuilt section of urban street"  There is a very good section of German WW1 trench in the scratchbuilding forum at the moment....No figures in it to be sure....maybe it doesnt really need any....its good enought to stand on it own.   But the guy didnt post it in the Dios thread either.....

Wirraway wrote:

[ Doog, You state that there is no other appropriate forum to display them in......what about scratchbuilding ?  As In "Here is my scratchbuilt tarmac section", or "here is my scratchbuilt section of urban street"  There is a very good section of German WW1 trench in the scratchbuilding forum at the moment....No figures in it to be sure....maybe it doesnt really need any....its good enought to stand on it own.   But the guy didnt post it in the Dios thread either.....

???

Incidentally, I would have urged the guy with the trench model to post it here. Honestly. To me, scratchbuilding builds stuff like Tanks, airplanes, etc. "Groundwork"  to me is a"diorama". But that's just my

HeavyArty wrote:

I don't even consider them still lifes.  By its name, a still life is a still picture of something once  alive; i.e. fruit, flowers, etc., or a collection of objects that tell a story.  Just like an abstract painting (which I don't consider art at all), is not a still life either.  Yours are empty diorama bases at best.  They are depictions of inanimate, man made-objects with no sign of life, and there is not a collection of objects that tell a story.  If you applied the same talent to a model and some figures and place them on your bases, then you would have a diorama.  I don't really care if the are here or in Scratchbuilding or any other forum.  I just don't have to join the "Wow, those are awesome dioramas, the best I have ever seen!!" bandwagon.

Gino, your posts always have such "personality"

Well, technically, from www.dictionary.com, a "still life" is defined as:

1. a representation chiefly of inanimate objects, as a painting of a bowl of fruit.

2.the category of subject matter in which inanimate objects are represented, in painting or photography.

So, technically, by definition, they actually are "still lifes". Unconventional, to be sure, but they do fit the definition.

I'm sure that the same debate goes on in other forums; still, unlike Model Maniac, this guy builds/paints his own chosen, admitedly quirky models/bases/Art. There's obvious planning, and a supreme amount of attention to detail--I think the guy deserves his props for that...

HeavyArty wrote:

Just like an abstract painting (which I don't consider art at all), is not a still life either.  Yours are empty diorama bases at best.

Gino: You have shown that you have strong opinions and a narrow viewpoint.  Your position on still lifes and abstract art really places you outside the mainstream.  Museums of modern art would not have such significant presences if there were not popular support for them. I have a feeling that trying to convince you otherwise will be about as fruitful as talking science to a creationsit or presenting a liberal (note that this term is from the same semantic stem as liberty) viewpoint on the O'Reilly factor. What I do ask is that you refrain from insulting me by telling me what my models are "at best", and that we can behave like gentlemen and walk away from this with different opinions. Thanks

 Thanks for your support Doog.

HeavyArty wrote:

I don't even consider them still lifes.  By its name, a still life is a still picture of something once  alive; i.e. fruit, flowers, etc., or a collection of objects that tell a story.  Just like an abstract painting (which I don't consider art at all), is not a still life either.  Yours are empty diorama bases at best.  They are depictions of inanimate, man made-objects with no sign of life, and there is not a collection of objects that tell a story.  If you applied the same talent to a model and some figures and place them on your bases, then you would have a diorama.  I don't really care if the are here or in Scratchbuilding or any other forum.  I just don't have to join the "Wow, those are awesome dioramas, the best I have ever seen!!" bandwagon.

Curious comment. I wonder how abstract painting could not fit into your definition of art. With all due respect to your opinion, this reminds me of someone who claims that rap "isn't music". I would have expected more from you, considering your artistic training.

Steve 

Yes, we have different opinions on what is art.  Mine will not change as well.  If you don't want to hear anything negative about your pieces, don' t post them on a public forum.  Not everyone will always agree with you.  I was asked my opinion and gave it.  So be it.  Many of those "Modern Art" galleries you mention are quite a joke too.  Anyone can claim their 'creation" is art, doesn't mean it is though.  Like the ones who paint in feces and call it art, or display headless mannequins, etc.

I would have expected more from you, considering your artistic training.

Steve, I hope that was in jest.  I don't remember the extensive artistic training I received in Boot Camp, or the Officer's Basic and Advanced Courses, Command and Staff College, etc.  Guess I missed that day. :^)

Nothing to see here...move along. :^)

Guys,

You're more than welcome to argue/discuss the definitions and merit of various art forms. Please, though, refrain from personal attacks.

Kelly, FSM 

Wow, I was going to post some my thoughts here but I see the topic is getting a little heated.

I guess the only thing I have to ask is, If you take a diorama with a sherman and 5 figures and hang it on the wall does it suddenly become a painting?

I could not, can not stand the "paintings" of Andy Warhol!

"What a complete fraud!" I would say every time I saw his simplistic, color-tinted, reproduced photographs hung up somewhere and called "Art". !!

"Who the heck would ever hang that in their bathroom?" I would muse...

Recently, a cropped, duplicated, color-tinted mess called "Green Car Crash" sold at an auction sale for Artwork. It sold for $71,000,000.00.

Yup, That's right. S-E-V-E-N-T-Y O-N-E M-I-L-L-I-O-N- D-O-L-L-A-R-S.

His "Lemon Marilyn"--a garish, yellow-tinted photo of Marilyn Monroe sold at the same auction for $28,000,000. Twenty. Eight. Million.

I'll bet Andy is laughing hysterically in his grave.

What the hell do I know?

Something to think about?.......

Back to Vepsa's diorama... I applaud you for your efforts, and welcome your work in the Diorama forum. In my book it belongs, despite what Shep's says.

Sure, it's sad to read when people have a hard time wrapping their black and white mentality around Vespa's conceptual, "grey area" diorama work and, instead of moving on, they recite IMPS guidelines in attempts to invalidate (without posting dios of their own creation on here).

I think it takes a lot of guts for Vespa to post his work here and take flak from people who won't put their own dios on the same slab. A lot more than it takes to knock it. Or beckon, and then hide behind, someone who will.

No more flamin', I swear.

Steve