Diorama "The Western Front"

m1garand wrote:

One thing I noticed that is that Machine Gunner on the back of the vehicle looks like he is shooting at something to the rear, but all other infantrymen are marching forward.

Yeah, I saw that too.  If I have one 'complaint' about the dios that Model Maniac posts, it is that there always seems to be one element that is kind of 'off' and doesn't fit in with the 'story'.  In this case it is the machinegunner firing to the rear while everyone else is facing front and apparently moving quite 'casually'.

Other than that, it is a nice dio.

Maybe he isn't firing, maybe he is just covering their "six" as they move foward. Even if they are in the vehicle they should or would most likely have someone pulling "slacK" unless they are in a totally secure area.

I don't think "casual" depicts the movement. They are moving forward slightly crouched with weapons at the low ready, which (at least through my experience / deployments) is common for patrolling or movement when there is the threat of possible contact. "casual" would be with barrels pointed down or weapons slung and walking errect.

  Let's not forget that it is a diorama, built by the modeler for their enjoyment or the customers wishes if it is commisioned. It wasn't posted as being 100% accurate.  Remember, advice is great (I always learn something from another's builds) but to say that there is "always" something "off" with someone elses work is really subjective and probably shouldn't be voiced here.

Semper Fi,

Doc 

FLTMEDIC wrote:

Let's not forget that it is a diorama, built by the modeler for their enjoyment or the customers wishes if it is commisioned. It wasn't posted as being 100% accurate.  Remember, advice is great (I always learn something from another's builds) but to say that there is "always" something "off" with someone elses work is really subjective and probably shouldn't be voiced here. Semper Fi, Doc

By posting on-line, there is a implicit invitation for comments, good or bad. One can't say he's only building for himself and post for all the world to see. As to the "always somthing off"  comment, having seen very many of Model Maniac's posts of Art Intrsutor's efforts, I would only modify that with the word "almost." Unfortunaltely, this site is filled wo so many back- slappin', attaboy, wish-I-could-build-half-as-good-as-that posts, that honest, constructive criticism seems unduly harsh. Fawning encouragemnt is worse for growth than honest critique.

LPT319 wrote:

Then comment about the work (the modeling) and share us your insights into tactics.

Did you mean "spare?"

Sorry, the story of a diorama is its central element. The best work on indivuidual pieces in a confusing story does not make a good diorama. In this case, having the guy manning the mg creates confusion, especially when the other guy in the half track is standing upright and NOT taking any kind of cover. Having the two guys in halftrack looking to the left creates more artistic confusion since all the other figures are looking tp the right.

To make this scene much better, you'd drop a figure into the turret to provide cover to the infnatry if they came upon an adversary. Eliminate the guy on hte mg and turn the other figure forward as well. That would put all your visual elements into harmony and create focus.

These concepts really have little to do with tactics, per se, but everything to do with art and persentation.

Very good point. I whole heartedly agree that the story of a diorama should be focused. At the same time I try to give the builder some consideration (historical or experience) into why they did what they did. Not just a flat out thats "off" or "wrong".

As far as tactics, no theories, as that varies from person-to-person just as much as unit-to-unit, I was referring to what I have experienced and seen over 23 years and 3 combat tours (yes I do have a Purple Heart courtesy of an AK-47).

I also believe that you are open to all replies if you choose to post here. I also believe that there is a big difference between constructive criticism (even harsh) and what could be construed as a slap in the face.  Criticism is a great learning tool but really doesn't mean anything if all you give is "hated it". Gotta have some feed back and suggestions.

S/F

Doc

Have a look at this site for some rules of artistic composition. This dio pulls the viewer away from any focus. The infantry is looking/moving off to the left and the main gun does the same with a very strong visual line. The the two guys in the vehicle are drawing the viewer to the right as are the strong lines of the mg and the shrubs in front.

Even if this is plausible, with these figures being driven from the rear into an enemy line in the front, artistically, it lacks a focal point.

bbrowniii wrote:

m1garand wrote: One thing I noticed that is that Machine Gunner on the back of the vehicle looks like he is shooting at something to the rear, but all other infantrymen are marching forward.    Yeah, I saw that too.  If I have one 'complaint' about the dios that Model Maniac posts, it is that there always seems to be one element that is kind of 'off' and doesn't fit in with the 'story'.  In this case it is the machinegunner firing to the rear while everyone else is facing front and apparently moving quite 'casually'. Other than that, it is a nice dio.

 I'd have to point out here that there would have to be someone pulling rear security, if their training was anything like mine. Not commenting on Model Maniac's (or Art Instructor's) other dios here, but it seems to me like this one is pretty accurate. Just at first glance, I wouldn't have assumed that the machine gunner on the halftrack is firing at something to the rear, but is rather training his weapon rearward for the purpose of covering that direction while his comrades move forward at the ready. I did the same thing many times, back when I was a grunt.

Now, whether it makes for effective diorama storytelling, I don't know. I like it, but some judges might not, because not all the figures are facing the same direction. If you look at photos of troops - any nation, any war, any time period - very seldom are they all facing the same direction. But that's something people are looking for in a dio these days, so I dunno.

Please don't think I'm trying to offend anyone - far from it - but I'm starting to develop concerns. There seems to be more focus, at this point in time, on "artistic composition" and "drawing the viewer's focus" than on realism in modeling. But I, for one, am a modeler, and not an artist. I want to recreate (or replicate) realistic, even in some cases actual, military scenes, and I don't know squat about how to properly frame the focus of my composition so that the panzer's turret draws the viewer's focus toward the second panzergrenadier on the left, etc etc...

 Jerry

i totally agree with jerry . from my military experience and deploying our hummers in either a convoy or a patrol always went lead vehichles gunner was scanning the road ahead next vehichle scans right and only right (unless contact left then he would rotate and support) the third vehicle scans left and the rear vehichle always  watches our rear this way all angles are covered.

so i am another one on the wagon for the soldier manning the mg facing the rear. there is always a possibilty of being snuck up on.

as for artistic compostion . i myself do not consider myself as an artist. i am a builder and i enjoy what i do. i do like to post pics and let people see what i have done and i dont mind criticism . but i also do not like to be bashed because something is out of place or not historicaly correct. myself and most people on this board do what we do because we love to build and we are proud to show our friends and family something we take pride in eventhough it is not perfect.

i myself enjoyed this diorama and all the models posted on this site even if they are not the best in the world because someone took the time to do something they love to do.  i will give advice on something i may know but i would never put anyone down or make them feel there build was inadaquit that just pushes people away from the hobby we love.

well enough from me hope you all keep on building and having fun at what we all enjoy!

kenny

You're building a diorama, a three dimensional painting, if you will (and putting them out for the whole world to see) to tell a story. Put elements in the story that confuse the viewer and you're not telling a good story. If were to write a novel about the settling of the American west and suddenly threw in a sentence about a twentieth century man in Bombay, you, the reader are going to be confused. It's the same in a diorama.

You're not a phototjournalist taking photos of action, and even if you were, you and your editor would be tossing dozens of negatives in the bin to find a picture that told the story in a cogent, concise and, yes, artistic manner.

If it makes you happy to throw a tank on a piece of wood with some back yard dirt glued to it with a box or two of Tamiya or DML figures that don't pull together, great. But don't post it out here and expect others to keep saying what a great job you're doing. Oh, wait, that's what this is all about, unearned self esteem.

Why do I bother? You can't teach someone who won't learn. Fuggedabouddit!

ajlafleche wrote:

You're building a diorama, a three dimensional painting, if you will (and putting them out for the whole world to see) to tell a story. Put elements in the story that confuse the viewer and you're not telling a good story. If were to write a novel about the settling of the American west and suddenly threw in a sentence about a twentieth century man in Bombay, you, the reader are going to be confused. It's the same in a diorama. You're not a phototjournalist taking photos of action, and even if you were, you and your editor would be tossing dozens of negatives in the bin to find a picture that told the story in a cogent, concise and, yes, artistic manner. If it makes you happy to throw a tank on a piece of wood with some back yard dirt glued to it with a box or two of Tamiya or DML figures that don't pull together, great. But don't post it out here and expect others to keep saying what a great job you're doing. Oh, wait, that's what this is all about, unearned self esteem. Why do I bother? You can't teach someone who won't learn. Fuggedabouddit!

Al I remember we discussing this at the model show this past fall

Couldn't agree more.  Al is right.  There is getting to be too much "Wow, that looks great!!" when people post, without actual constructive comments given on how to make better models.  No one learns anything that way.

ajlafleche wrote:

If it makes you happy to throw a tank on a piece of wood with some back yard dirt glued to it with a box or two of Tamiya or DML figures that don't pull together, great. But don't post it out here and expect others to keep saying what a great job you're doing. Oh, wait, that's what this is all about, unearned self esteem. Why do I bother? You can't teach someone who won't learn. Fuggedabouddit!

HeavyArty wrote:

Couldn't agree more.  Al is right.  There is getting to be too much "Wow, that looks great!!" when people post, without actual constructive comments given on how to make better models.  No one learns anything that way.

True? Maybe. But definitely off topic. The concern is whether or not Art Instructor's peice has any artistic merit and realisim based on composition. What "confuses" some is seen with clarity by others. The fact that it has provoked this debate makes it art. And people with military training understanding the layout gives it a basis in reality. As for focal point(s) and how my eye is coaxed through the composition, I see no unforgiving problems, nor do I see a masterpeice. But the silhouette of the half track does the job, as do the MGs. For me, at least. This was not enough for Al, and I respect his opinion. Speak your mind and move on. However, this thread's tide has turned towards bitterness regarding it's etiquette. And it's criticism of criticism of criticism. That's the way it's reading to me.

I'll start a new thread in the General Discussion section and we can duke it out over there. I invite you to follow me.

SteveM

FLTMEDIC wrote:

Maybe he isn't firing, maybe he is just covering their "six" as they move foward. Even if they are in the vehicle they should or would most likely have someone pulling "slacK" unless they are in a totally secure area. I don't think "casual" depicts the movement. They are moving forward slightly crouched with weapons at the low ready, which (at least through my experience / deployments) is common for patrolling or movement when there is the threat of possible contact. "casual" would be with barrels pointed down or weapons slung and walking errect.   Let's not forget that it is a diorama, built by the modeler for their enjoyment or the customers wishes if it is commisioned. It wasn't posted as being 100% accurate.  Remember, advice is great (I always learn something from another's builds) but to say that there is "always" something "off" with someone elses work is really subjective and probably shouldn't be voiced here.

Wow, didn't expect my comment to spark such a discussion.  And me, not taking part... shame shame.

I would agree with people who say it is militarily sound, during any movement, to have someone covering your rearend, particularly if you are the tail of the movement.  However, in my experience, when you are the guy on the gun, you tend to adopt a more... relaxed position until there is some threat to deal with.  That crouched over with the weapon in your shoulder, particularly in a moving vehicle, gets pretty uncomfortable and pretty fatiguing pretty darn quick.  To me, that figure manning the machine gun appears to be firing the gun, and in my opinion, it detracts from the overall diorama, because it creates a confusing picture.  (And, OK, yes, I agree, 'casual' was a poor choice of word to describe the pose of the other figs).  You can talk all you want about what is SOP or tactically sound out in 'real military land', but 'real military land' is confusing and chaotic and sometimes makes no sense.  On the other hand, in my opinion, a diorama needs to make some kind of sense to convey its message or meaning.

And Doc, I am sorry if you feel I was doing model maniac an injustice by saying there is 'always something off' with his dios (or the ones he has built), but I am going to stand by that statement, because, more often than not when I see one of his dios, there is at least one element to it that makes me say, 'hmmm, what he heck...?'  But, again, this is just one guys opinion, and I have commended model maniac in the past for the dios he posts, because I do think they are creative, of interesting subjects, and tend to be well done.  I just don't think it is necessary to provide psychological everytime someone posts something...  And further, when I do say something 'negative' about someones work, I always try to explain my point, as I did in this case by discussing the machine gunner.

'Subjective'?!  Of course it is subjective.  What post on here is not?  Is it any less subjective for model maniac (or anyone for that matter) to think his dios are worth posting than it is for me or anyone else to comment on them? (I'm really not trying to pick a fight here, I just like a good, heated debate )

And, hey Doc, SEMPER FI to you too, man.

SteveM wrote:

ajlafleche wrote: If it makes you happy to throw a tank on a piece of wood with some back yard dirt glued to it with a box or two of Tamiya or DML figures that don't pull together, great. But don't post it out here and expect others to keep saying what a great job you're doing. Oh, wait, that's what this is all about, unearned self esteem. Why do I bother? You can't teach someone who won't learn. Fuggedabouddit!    HeavyArty wrote: Couldn't agree more.  Al is right.  There is getting to be too much "Wow, that looks great!!" when people post, without actual constructive comments given on how to make better models.  No one learns anything that way. And people with military training understanding the layout gives it a basis in reality.

Wait a minute.  I'm a guy with military training.  19 years worth.  All of it infantry.  And apparently it was my comment that started this whole little shindig.  And there are lots of things that go on in the military that someone could use as a  'basis in reality' but don't lend themselves to being displayed in the diorama form.  Sometimes, I think, in my humble opinion, you have to sacrifice a little bit of 'reality' to allow the plastic to convey the 'story' you are trying to tell.  Sorta like Hollywood... Oh, wait, I said a little bit of reality...

I also agree that this is not a fatal flaw in this dio.  As I said in my original post, it is just an element that seems a little bit off to me.  As you said Steve, I think this dio is not horribly flawed, but it is not a masterpeice either. 

I guess I will see you in the General Discussion thread...