The elephant in the room

  WOW!!!.....this thread is mentally tiring..... but bring it on. The debate raging here is great, i love it. I am in no way even going to attempt to join as i know nothing. But at the end of it i do think i will......

  I myself try not to get stuck on one particular opinion of what looks good and what doesn't, i try to keep an open mind. Every dio is built by an individual, who's techniques will therefore be individual. I think it has been confirmed that what is 'right' to one is 'wrong' to another. So i am going to read on and learn and apply what i like and reject what i don't like. In the end i hope my dio's are built with 'my' individual flair and still pass some of the standards that others work by. The only thing i do not want to do is stop learning.

  Many on this forum set high standards. Your workmanship is fantastic and you are all humble enough to display your work and teach others. You should all be commended, and i say thanks.

  I STILL HAVEN'T FOUND THE ELEPHANT!!!............

  Boomer...

/\ Absolutely

Thanks for the discussion, it was enjoyable.

zokissima wrote:

No, principals of art are my best weapon in this debate, as well as the obvious success of those modelers who use them vs the ones who do not...I also notice that you do not rebutt any of the answers I give to your questions? Is it because you cannot? Principals of art are an everyday changing thing, thus are a weak weapon at best. Principles of design and harmony on the other hand, I can see. However, it was you yourself that stated "and I throw in mine with that lot" or something along those lines (my apologies to my laziness in going back and quoting correctly) thus you can see how you presented group mentality, largely based on your statements of past successes and such, that you presented an argument with those credentials, rather than with the credentials of the principles of art. I do not rebutt because I'm not out to prove you wrong, I am merely asking a question in the hopes of understanding your opinions a little better. Do you see yourself here trying to prove a "correct" point? I see only two differing points.   All academic disciplines have principals that they are founded on...if you choose not to suscribe to them then write a book and try to change them... Yes they do, principals that largely depend on "truths" based on precedent. Again, group think.   From a philisophical sense you are correct, that is why today we have "artists" submerging religious symbols into bottles urine and feces and calling it art...do you think that art is art because someone says it is?...  lol no comment on this one, I see your point   I feel that most modeled subjects are far more intersting looking than they actually are in real life, particularly when it comes to WW2 vehicles... This I agree on, and thus my point. Based on the utmost historical accuracy, and yet striven to be painted in an interesting way.     lol at Doog post, italics rule man, so easy to emphasize without being LOUD

...good discussion...

zokissima wrote:

No, principals of art are my best weapon in this debate, as well as the obvious success of those modelers who use them vs the ones who do not...I also notice that you do not rebutt any of the answers I give to your questions? Is it because you cannot? Principals of art are an everyday changing thing, thus are a weak weapon at best. Principles of design and harmony on the other hand, I can see. However, it was you yourself that stated "and I throw in mine with that lot" or something along those lines (my apologies to my laziness in going back and quoting correctly) thus you can see how you presented group mentality, largely based on your statements of past successes and such, that you presented an argument with those credentials, rather than with the credentials of the principles of art. I do not rebutt because I'm not out to prove you wrong, I am merely asking a question in the hopes of understanding your opinions a little better. Do you see yourself here trying to prove a "correct" point? I see only two differing points.   All academic disciplines have principals that they are founded on...if you choose not to suscribe to them then write a book and try to change them... Yes they do, principals that largely depend on "truths" based on precedent. Again, group think.   From a philisophical sense you are correct, that is why today we have "artists" submerging religious symbols into bottles urine and feces and calling it art...do you think that art is art because someone says it is?...  lol no comment on this one, I see your point   I feel that most modeled subjects are far more intersting looking than they actually are in real life, particularly when it comes to WW2 vehicles... This I agree on, and thus my point. Based on the utmost historical accuracy, and yet striven to be painted in an interesting way.     lol at Doog post, italics rule man, so easy to emphasize without being LOUD

No, principals of art are my best weapon in this debate, as well as the obvious success of those modelers who use them vs the ones who do not...I also notice that you do not rebutt any of the answers I give to your questions? Is it because you cannot?

Principals of art are an everyday changing thing, thus are a weak weapon at best. Principles of design and harmony on the other hand, I can see. However, it was you yourself that stated "and I throw in mine with that lot" or something along those lines (my apologies to my laziness in going back and quoting correctly) thus you can see how you presented group mentality, largely based on your statements of past successes and such, that you presented an argument with those credentials, rather than with the credentials of the principles of art.

I do not rebutt because I'm not out to prove you wrong, I am merely asking a question in the hopes of understanding your opinions a little better. Do you see yourself here trying to prove a "correct" point? I see only two differing points.

All academic disciplines have principals that they are founded on...if you choose not to suscribe to them then write a book and try to change them...

Yes they do, principals that largely depend on "truths" based on precedent. Again, group think.

From a philisophical sense you are correct, that is why today we have "artists" submerging religious symbols into bottles urine and feces and calling it art...do you think that art is art because someone says it is?... 

lol no comment on this one, I see your point  

I feel that most modeled subjects are far more intersting looking than they actually are in real life, particularly when it comes to WW2 vehicles...

This I agree on, and thus my point. Based on the utmost historical accuracy, and yet striven to be painted in an interesting way.

lol at Doog post, italics rule man, so easy to emphasize without being LOUD

btw, I appreciate you taking the time to fully explain your viewpoint with the reasoning behind it. That's what I was trying to understand.

WOw, what a fascinating thread and what a great discussion! Lets just strive to keep it civil, Gentlemen; we're all "digging pretty deep" on this subject--and there's really no "right answer"!
( god, I love that "italics button" ! ! ) 

Zokissima, I totally read you on your point now. I see what you mean by comparing Arty's and my builds. Arty DOES finish his builds in a "hyper realistic" mode, as compared to my "artistic" rendering of what I believe should be considered "realistic weathering". (In fact, I was really surprised to read that vehicles in-field with the US Army are actually kept in a rather pristine condition!)

I guess that really, in perfect truth, it comes down to what you said; "Art is in the eye of the beholder" and maybe our criticism is all just "fluff"!? Some people say "Picasso", I say !!! (not a fan! ) 

I must unabashedly admit that sometimes, the "need to criticize" is just an attempt to say something to feel like I'm contributing to the thread or topic. If it helps the recipient or not, that's up to them to decide!..............Italics ROOOOOOL!

zokissima wrote:

Manstein: I suppose if you chose to use the group think mentality as your best weapon, be that as it may. Granted, it is military modelling and most viewers here will have an interst and/or knowledge of military history. However, you're using some fairly academic terms to judge what you deem to be artistic. I hate to fall to the obvious cliche, but what is art is only what is in the eye of the beholder.  Like I said before, I don't understand the distinction between striving for a very realistic setting and theme, while not striving for the most relistic finish; but rather striving for a stylized representation of a realistic paint finish. I"m talking painting techniques strictly here..

Manstein:

I suppose if you chose to use the group think mentality as your best weapon, be that as it may. No, principals of art are my best weapon in this debate, as well as the obvious success of those modelers who use them vs the ones who do not...I also notice that you do not rebutt any of the answers I give to your questions? Is it because you cannot?

Granted, it is military modelling and most viewers here will have an interst and/or knowledge of military history. However, you're using some fairly academic terms to judge what you deem to be artistic. All academic disciplines have principals that they are founded on...if you choose not to suscribe to them then write a book and try to change them...as have I hate to fall to the obvious cliche, but what is art is only what is in the eye of the beholder. From a philisophical sense you are correct, that is why today we have "artists" submerging religious symbols into bottles urine and feces and calling it art...do you think that art is art because someone says it is?... Like I said before, I don't understand the distinction between striving for a very realistic setting and theme, while not striving for the most relistic finish; but rather striving for a stylized representation of a realistic paint finish. I"m talking painting techniques strictly here...I agree with you on this point...all military modeling is stylized to a certain extent, by necessity and by artistic license...it is virtually impossible to shrink a full sized tank down to 35th scale in an identical fashion...one must use techniques to "fool" the mind's eye into seeing things the artist wants to convey...I feel that most modeled subjects are far more intersting looking than they actually are in real life, particularly when it comes to WW2 vehicles...

Manstein:

I suppose if you chose to use the group think mentality as your best weapon, be that as it may.

Granted, it is military modelling and most viewers here will have an interst and/or knowledge of military history. However, you're using some fairly academic terms to judge what you deem to be artistic. I hate to fall to the obvious cliche, but what is art is only what is in the eye of the beholder.  Like I said before, I don't understand the distinction between striving for a very realistic setting and theme, while not striving for the most relistic finish; but rather striving for a stylized representation of a realistic paint finish. I"m talking painting techniques strictly here..

zokissima wrote:

Manstein: What I was getting at, in particular with the Pz.IV was that even though yes it was based on an actual unit, and the vehicle itself did in fact exist, does not neccessarily make it a better piece of art. What I found artistic was the actual representation of reality, speaking specifically in terms of the techniques employed to paint the model. We strive to replicate a 'realistic' end result, but I'm confused by what exactly 'realistic' entitles.   Also, what if the Pz.IV HAD been displayed on a 4x4 base, would that have lessened the overall impact of the piece?   Doog, that's why I brought up your models in comparison to HeavyArty's. If on the one hand, the artistically successful model is one that represents as real of a vehicle as possible, one aspect of that is historical accuracy, and the other, obviously, is the actual painted finish of the vehicle. Now, while we strive for such historical accuracy in the scene depicted, how is it that we so strongly push towards a very unrealistic and stylized painted finish of this same topic? Arguably, it can be said that HeavyArty's models are amongst the most realistically finished models displayed on this site. Looking at museum pieces, and even looking at period photos, our techniques produce a very 'enhanced' effect to that of the actual vehicle, and alltogether do not really look as 'real' as possible. So that's what I'm confused about, what constitutes the value of art in this instance; that combination of a historically accurate setting and theme, combined with very stylized paint and finish?   Aj, with the example you brought up, I can see what you're saying. However, that is a far cry away from the other large dio posted in this thread, for example. I find it all too often to be the case that the deconstruction of a particular piece is carried to an extreme. Granted, a house under attack probably would not have an aircraft being repaired in the basement, while guys quietly sip on coffee. However, that is another world when compared to deconstructing whether a specific I-beam has fallen a specific way and in a specific angle in front of a piece of artillery...

Manstein:

What I was getting at, in particular with the Pz.IV was that even though yes it was based on an actual unit, and the vehicle itself did in fact exist, does not neccessarily make it a better piece of art. What I found artistic was the actual representation of reality, speaking specifically in terms of the techniques employed to paint the model. We strive to replicate a 'realistic' end result, but I'm confused by what exactly 'realistic' entitles. Does not necessarily make it a better piece of art but it does the things that doog pointed out, such as making it easier for the piece to "invite" the viewer into the scene, as most Military Modelers do have an interest and a knowledge of history...don't forget, we are still talking about MILITARY Modeling, not abstract bronze sculpture..

Also, what if the Pz.IV HAD been displayed on a 4x4 base, would that have lessened the overall impact of the piece? Yes, and I believe it would not have won, honestly...obviously the person who crafted this piece is very talented and he DIDN'T place it on a base that was too big for his subject matter...I guess he falls into mainstream thinking...I'm throwing my lot in with him...can't argue with success...

I guess if anything, I can conceed the point that a large diorama, in all likelihood, is much more difficult to pull off effectively, and ultimately would have many areas of detail and paint that would suffer due to the sheer size.

I guess dioramas by Bob Letterman (sp?) and the like are merely exceptions to the rule...

Manstein:

What I was getting at, in particular with the Pz.IV was that even though yes it was based on an actual unit, and the vehicle itself did in fact exist, does not neccessarily make it a better piece of art. What I found artistic was the actual representation of reality, speaking specifically in terms of the techniques employed to paint the model. We strive to replicate a 'realistic' end result, but I'm confused by what exactly 'realistic' entitles.

Also, what if the Pz.IV HAD been displayed on a 4x4 base, would that have lessened the overall impact of the piece?

Doog, that's why I brought up your models in comparison to HeavyArty's. If on the one hand, the artistically successful model is one that represents as real of a vehicle as possible, one aspect of that is historical accuracy, and the other, obviously, is the actual painted finish of the vehicle. Now, while we strive for such historical accuracy in the scene depicted, how is it that we so strongly push towards a very unrealistic and stylized painted finish of this same topic? Arguably, it can be said that HeavyArty's models are amongst the most realistically finished models displayed on this site. Looking at museum pieces, and even looking at period photos, our techniques produce a very 'enhanced' effect to that of the actual vehicle, and alltogether do not really look as 'real' as possible. So that's what I'm confused about, what constitutes the value of art in this instance; that combination of a historically accurate setting and theme, combined with very stylized paint and finish?

Aj, with the example you brought up, I can see what you're saying. However, that is a far cry away from the other large dio posted in this thread, for example. I find it all too often to be the case that the deconstruction of a particular piece is carried to an extreme. Granted, a house under attack probably would not have an aircraft being repaired in the basement, while guys quietly sip on coffee. However, that is another world when compared to deconstructing whether a specific I-beam has fallen a specific way and in a specific angle in front of a piece of artillery...

Art and reality are distant cousins. Make a list of the 10 best things in your life. The really important stuff, things that you could write a chapter about. On paper.  One of mine is when I lived in a national forest in Denmark. Every morning when I went to work I walked a mile to a whistle stop that had a light bulb at the top of a pole, with a switch. Then, sit down and attach a meaning, not a reason, to your opinion about each item. Let it sit for a week. Then come up with an overall score art/reality.

I know the answer but I'm not going to tell it, and it was of course told to me.

Zokissima, thank you for the compliment on my work; I haven't taken anything the wrong way; in fact I'm a little confused by your post's reference to my stuff...I don't see any comparison at all with Arty's models--he's definitely in the "Clean(er)" camp, so the comparison eludes me for the moment; not to disparage your attempted point--nor Arty's fine work--but I'm not sure what you were trying to say?

I also have a hard time following what you called "ludicrous"--about the impossibility of accurately depicting a model and being correct in still calling it "Art". I quote Tolstoy:

       "Every work of Art causes the reciever to enter into a certain kind of relationship with both him who produced, or is producing the art and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently recieve the same artistic impression"

I agree with Tolstoy in that when I am moved by someone's model or dio, that feeling is not inhibited by the degree of accuracy: it is in fact enhanced by the feeling that I'm "getting" what the builder has tried to depict; I am "in a relationship" with the builder's vision and intent. 

However, a model which does NOT "hit me" usually does not because I'm not sharing the builder's vison of what is attempting to be depicted; i.e., I have not "entered into a relationship" with the builder.

This is why I expect a certain amount of what I feel is plausibility and accuracy in a model. I mean, let's be honest; unless I have the modeler standing right there next to me, explaining in detail why that Jagdtiger is lime green with white daisies, I'm not going to "get" his vision.

I disagree with you that "you are already replicating what is already there". I think that when a person looks at any piece of "art", they see it with not only the literal eyes, but the "eyes of the mind"; that is, they meld the literal visual impression of what they see in front of them with the subjective memory of what they remember seeing, or of  the desire to see what is being portrayed in the way in which they would desire to see it portrayed. It's like looking at an old lover--you see them not only as they are, but as you remembered them, and to some degree,, as you would wish to see them.

When we are creating "art", it is most effective when we synchronize those elements all together as one--the way things are, the way we remember them, and the way that we would like to see them. Perhaps this is why the great "Art" that we all recognize is universally lauded, because it encompasses and embraces some sort of "ideal" which transcends cultures, languages, nationalities, etc...Anything less is simply "reality" But if it meets those lofty requirements, only then, do I believe, does it qualify for the title of "Art"!

Does that make sense? Oh, my brain is tired!

zokissima wrote:

I don't quite understand why a diorama that is 1) very large and/or 2) depicts a topic of action not likely to have occured have all your collective feathers ruffled so much.

Z, I don't think anyone is saying a large diorama can't be good nor that every dio must be meticulously researched. It's been my experince over the last 27 years of attending shows, however, that it's harder to do a good large dio. Builders often put in too many disparate element that don't mesh. I remember one in Maine about 10 years ago. There was an attack in a town square from the left by a group of US soldiers. Germans were defending it. In the building used for a backdrop, there were German officers quietly dining. On the level below, just above the water, a group of mechanics were working on a Bf-109. All the elements were good, but as a plausible, realistic story, it didn't work.

As to a fictional vs a well documented scene, unless there's a photo that's used as reference, or there is a well documented vehicle, Wittman's Tiger, the Memphis Belle, the Enola Gay, I don't know a judge who would not give the benefit of doubt to the builder, unless there were egregious errors, e.g., an M48 at Normandy, without the builder explaining that this was alternate history.

In short, if it looks realistic, is well built/ presented and is plausible, it's getting good points from me.

Hey doog,

I found this quote from you in the "City Street with Downtime" thread:

"As protection, firepower and mobility are the three legs of the triangle regarding a tank's success, so are subject matter, composition, and skill of execution the tripod of a successful dio."

I find this comment to be particularly relevant considering the nature of this thread.  I think (IMHO) that you summed things up pretty nicely here.  It's concise.  I like concise...

the doog wrote:

Ajlafleche, that's an excellent exposition of that dio--and I have to admit that I concur with you about that dio--it just forces you to take so much on faith that it really does strain the credibility meter!

Gotta agree with you there - I have never seen that particular dio before, but after reading Manny's analysis, I'd have to say it does push the boundaries just a bit too far for my taste.  A road going over a building...?

the doog wrote:

Hmmm...now that's a real stumper!....hmmmmm.. In this case, I would have to assume, if I were a judge, that the modeler was in error, and take points against that. I believe that part of the purpose of a dio is to convey some sense of historical perspective or topical relevancy--even if it could technically be categorized as "fantasy" For instance, in my "SPOOKED!" dio, I have a destroyed PZ IVJ with ghosts coming out of the rear, set in Portigny, France, in 1944. Now, I know that PZ IVJ's could indeed be found in that area at that time in Europe, and also, the "ghosts" (which are depicted "in uniform") sport the correct panzer uniforms for that branch of service and time period.

You REALLY did a dio with ghosts coming out of the destroyed tank?!  That is stellar!  Do you have pics of it posted anywhere, 'cause, man, I would love to see that!!!

zokissima wrote:

Wow, so many long-winded posts in this thread I don't quite understand why a diorama that is 1) very large and/or 2) depicts a topic of action not likely to have occured have all your collective feathers ruffled so much. In some way, I can see this thread as a couple of individuals sitting around an art gallery and tearing into the works being displayed. Modelling, such as it stands today, at least when you look at current weathering techniques, and works being finished in most magazines today, seems to be a fairly unique blend of both art and fanatical accuracy. Unfortunately, it pulls off neither very well. Manny, you mentioned the last few winners in European competitions. I've been avidly following this competition, and take great influence from the fantastic works displayed there. Consider the Pz.IV that won last year. The painting, weathering, and overall finish of the vehicle were absolutley phenomenal. However, they were so incredibly stylized, so absolutely posed, and the painting techniques employed were done in a fashion to increase contrast, to mould light, and to guide the eye in a certain way. This is the art, and this was the ultimate winner. Compare this to a couple of guys who may have straddled a Pz.IV in real life. Aesthetically and visually speaking, the model would look far more interesting to me. The vibrance and play of shadows and light is something that is almost never seen at that level in real life.   The doog, don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen the works you put out. They are amongst the best I've seen on this forum, and very much subscribe to the very modern school of modelling and particularily weathering (it is a school I myself tend to lean towards). Contrast your builds with, say, those of HeavyArty, and which is the more realistic and the more artistic?   I guess the argument that replicating reality in every dimension possible, that including of composition and atmosphere and even credibility of the situation being presented, can be said to be an art. But IMO I find that ludicrous. You are merely replicating what is allready there. Modern painting techniques, drybrushing, composition, large-scale dioramas that may not be based on real facts, whatever, all of these are methods of stretching the plausible and the credible when compared to real life.  But this satire is what I find art.

PS: my feathers aren't ruffled; I am merely stating mainstream thought in modern modelmaking (and to a certain degree, art in general)...if you don't subscribe to it that's fine with me...to each his own...but be prepared to defend any techniques that stray from the mainstream, as most who view it also subscribe to the convential, time-tested artistic principals of the hobby...doesn't make you wrong, just puts you in the minority...IMO...

Wow, so many long-winded posts in this thread

I don't quite understand why a diorama that is 1) very large and/or 2) depicts a topic of action not likely to have occured have all your collective feathers ruffled so much. In some way, I can see this thread as a couple of individuals sitting around an art gallery and tearing into the works being displayed. Modelling, such as it stands today, at least when you look at current weathering techniques, and works being finished in most magazines today, seems to be a fairly unique blend of both art and fanatical accuracy. Unfortunately, it pulls off neither very well. Manny, you mentioned the last few winners in European competitions. I've been avidly following this competition, and take great influence from the fantastic works displayed there. Consider the Pz.IV that won last year. The painting, weathering, and overall finish of the vehicle were absolutley phenomenal. However, they were so incredibly stylized, so absolutely posed, and the painting techniques employed were done in a fashion to increase contrast, to mould light, and to guide the eye in a certain way. This is the art, and this was the ultimate winner. Compare this to a couple of guys who may have straddled a Pz.IV in real life. Aesthetically and visually speaking, the model would look far more interesting to me. The vibrance and play of shadows and light is something that is almost never seen at that level in real life.

The doog, don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen the works you put out. They are amongst the best I've seen on this forum, and very much subscribe to the very modern school of modelling and particularily weathering (it is a school I myself tend to lean towards). Contrast your builds with, say, those of HeavyArty, and which is the more realistic and the more artistic?

I guess the argument that replicating reality in every dimension possible, that including of composition and atmosphere and even credibility of the situation being presented, can be said to be an art. But IMO I find that ludicrous. You are merely replicating what is allready there. Modern painting techniques, drybrushing, composition, large-scale dioramas that may not be based on real facts, whatever, all of these are methods of stretching the plausible and the credible when compared to real life.  But this satire is what I find art.

Ajlafleche, that's an excellent exposition of that dio--and I have to admit that I concur with you about that dio--it just forces you to take so much on faith that it really does strain the credibility meter!

Also, Manny, your post as well was very well-spoken---great point about "Wittman's Tiger"!

Great thread, bbrowniii!

Hmmm...now that's a real stumper!....hmmmmm..

Well, I think that "hypotheteicals" are fine; like, I've build a few dio's that have straddled the line between fantasy and reality--involving ghosts and/or scenes that would best be defined as "fantasy"--and I think that's fine and I admire others who venture the same. I appreciate the incentive, and the imagination, and furthermore, if a person really pulls it off, then the sheer inventiveness and skill to bring the viewer along into the builder's mind is a superior attribute of a work.

I think, IMHO, that if a dio is more along the lines of "realistic", and it has notable "historical" errors, then it is probable to assume that the errors are unintentional, and fair to assume that they were indeed the fault of inadequate research--unless the perceived erros are specifically indicated by the title of the dio, such as "Jagdtiger at Juno Beach?"!! (heaven forbid!)

In this case, I would have to assume, if I were a judge, that the modeler was in error, and take points against that. I believe that part of the purpose of a dio is to convey some sense of historical perspective or topical relevancy--even if it could technically be categorized as "fantasy" For instance, in my "SPOOKED!" dio, I have a destroyed PZ IVJ with ghosts coming out of the rear, set in Portigny, France, in 1944. Now, I know that PZ IVJ's could indeed be found in that area at that time in Europe, and also, the "ghosts" (which are depicted "in uniform") sport the correct panzer uniforms for that branch of service and time period. 

In another dio of mine, an Sdkfz 222 led by a military policeman follows a group of panzergrenadiers into a graveyard, where the bodies of victims have risen from the graves to seek vengeance--when I entered this dio years ago into the "military" category, some "stickler" judge moved it into the "Sci-Fi" category with the Star Trek and Dr WHo entries!--yet I have correctly researched the uniforms of the military police, with correct waffenfarbe and accoutrements, as well as the particulars of the pzgrenadiers and the Sdkfz...

To be honest, if I see, say...a LATE Panther G with zimmerit and painted in overall Panzer grey, I will honestly NOT give that model the benefit of the doubt, because I willl have to assume that the modeler has NOT done his research--in my experience, most armor modelers are pretty "anal" about their research and portrayals of their models, and if I were to see such a model so provocatively portrayed, I would HAVE TO assume that it was from lack-of-research based upon my experiences with other modelers!

HOWEVER: if it were portrayed in a dio with a soldier spraying on the Dark Grey coat and titled "Breaking the Rules", I would unquestionably give it more leeway--get what I mean? 

Little things like "open horned track guides", the perceived "incorrect zimmerit width for that tank" or the "incorrect fire extinguisher type" fall somewhat too close to "rivet counting" for me, and I wouldn't let things like that necessarily jade my opinion of a model--unless it was in a "Master" category where such things would be obvious "flaws". Or in the case of where two models were more-or-less "equal" in depiction, and then you'd have to start "nit-picking".

I also appreciate both "Historical models" ie, "Wittman's" Tiger, but also feel that these can be just plain overdone--and I appreciate seeing something totally fresh. I build most of my builds as "generic" vehicles.

In the case of the dio's you proposed, I would look carefully at the skill and finish of both dios and then base my judgement on that. In my experience, bigger dios are sometmes an excuse for mediocrity; more experienced modelers tend, in my experience, to build more concise, compact dios which pack more punch in a tighter package. Except Manny. Manny LIKE big dios! (just joshin' with ya Manny!--your dio's are SUPERB!!

bbrowniii wrote:

But what about the question of historical accuracy?  Many times we see commentary in the forums that a  particular vehicle or figure could not possibly be in the presented setting because it is the wrong type, uniform, etc.  Also I often get the impression there is almost an expectation that when you model a vehicle, it should be a specific vehicle from a specific unit at a specific time.  Can it be 'random, generic Tiger I', or does it have to be 'Wittman's Tiger at...'?  Using that huge diorama that you judged recently, it everything in a dio is completely made up -unit, time, setting, but the quality of the build is outstanding, but right next door is a more mediocre dio, but with identifiable historic accuracy, which would score higher?

I would always go with the plausible, better built, dio over one that depicts an historical event but is less well built/presented. By far, most dios I see are representative of a scene during a particular time. I look at it as a scene from a purely fictional movie, kind of like why most of us loved Saving Private Ryan and deplored Pearl Harbor.

Here's a picture of a dio that's taken numerous awards.

All the elements are superbly painted and assembled, yet, to me, it doesn't work. Here's why. The sides of the base strongly suggest this is a building with stairs on the sides and corrugated metal walls on the back. Note the windows on the left wall and the rubble at the rear base of the ride side.The builder says there is a road over this building on which the tank was driving. Somehow, neither the tank riders or the driver sat the supposed road ended and now they are falling onto the Germans below. If you look closely, you'll see the PaK 40 being loaded. Look again, and you;ll see a girder about 4 scale feet infront of the muzzle.

While every individual part is excellent, IMHO, the final product fails to tell a plausible story.

bbrowniii wrote:

the doog wrote: I can't really explain it--it's like the difference between "erotic" and "pornographic"--no one has to tell you, you just "know it"! Hey Doog,  I think this is an excellent point, and one echoed by other posts, though perhaps not as.... eloquently as your analogy here. I certainly do not consider myself an accomplished modeler or diorama builder.  I build what I can, when I can, so my skills progress slowly.  That being said, I do consider myself an accomplished VIEWER.  I know what I like in a dio (or any other art form) and even when I can't vocalize what it is, it is something that I know when I see. But what about the question of historical accuracy?  Many times we see commentary in the forums that a  particular vehicle or figure could not possibly be in the presented setting because it is the wrong type, uniform, etc.  Also I often get the impression there is almost an expectation that when you model a vehicle, it should be a specific vehicle from a specific unit at a specific time.  Can it be 'random, generic Tiger I', or does it have to be 'Wittman's Tiger at...'?  Using that huge diorama that you judged recently, it everything in a dio is completely made up -unit, time, setting, but the quality of the build is outstanding, but right next door is a more mediocre dio, but with identifiable historic accuracy, which would score higher?

...in my experience, someone building a "what if" dio is very clear up front about what it is...again, using, MM's work as an example, I am fairly confiodent that his dios ARE supposed to reflect historical accuracy as he has not indicated to the contrary and enough accuracy is there to also lead the viewer to that belief...in other words, I haven't seen any Panthers in Japanese markings attacking Chinese troops, which would obviously be a "what if" dio...

...I don't agree that the "nit-picking" has gone down to unit markings so much, except in rare cases where a SINGLE vehicle is trying to be depicted and there are refs that are indisputable about what is and is not accurate, such as Wittman's 007 Tiger... 

the doog wrote:

I can't really explain it--it's like the difference between "erotic" and "pornographic"--no one has to tell you, you just "know it"!

Hey Doog,

 I think this is an excellent point, and one echoed by other posts, though perhaps not as.... eloquently as your analogy here.

I certainly do not consider myself an accomplished modeler or diorama builder.  I build what I can, when I can, so my skills progress slowly.  That being said, I do consider myself an accomplished VIEWER.  I know what I like in a dio (or any other art form) and even when I can't vocalize what it is, it is something that I know when I see.

But what about the question of historical accuracy?  Many times we see commentary in the forums that a  particular vehicle or figure could not possibly be in the presented setting because it is the wrong type, uniform, etc.  Also I often get the impression there is almost an expectation that when you model a vehicle, it should be a specific vehicle from a specific unit at a specific time.  Can it be 'random, generic Tiger I', or does it have to be 'Wittman's Tiger at...'? 

Using that huge diorama that you judged recently, it everything in a dio is completely made up -unit, time, setting, but the quality of the build is outstanding, but right next door is a more mediocre dio, but with identifiable historic accuracy, which would score higher? 

I don't want to beat a dead elephant, but a couple more points thought have been in my head:

...actual combat scenes are extremly difficult to master in a realistic, tasteful and artistic way...that's why most dio's are modeled during "lulls" in fighting...very few modelers (that I have seen) can pull off a combat scene effectively, especially an intense one or one that is trying to depict both sides on the same base...

...secondly, someone mentioned Paine's dio's being made to be "realistic"...I have studied him to some degree and that is true...but another aspect of his modeling, which isn't as well known, is that he has modeled several dios and shadow boxes after famous classical paintings (primarily 17th and 18th century work), which is the point I am emphasizing since I think it adds validity to earlier arguments about modeling as art...  

  Hey, i still haven't found the elephant....................

  Ok, i have been meaning to put a useful reference site up for ages. Now is a s good a time as any. I came across a landscape composition article ages ago. If you like building dioramas is is quite interesting. It is long, 23 pages all up, but it is all illustrations and simple and informative comments. Although it is all landscape composition, have a browse through it. It is quite enlightening as it points you in the direction of what a viewer likes to see and how to capture interest, and how to make a work of art 'aesthetically' pleasing. And we have already established that dioramas are a work of art........

  Enjoy.......LANDSCAPE COMPOSITION RULES

  Boomer...

I thought this thread was provocative, but the opposite has happened and I would like to (standing ovation) cheer all of you.

I kinda would feel like I was playing the Red Sox if I were MM, but thats probably not his perception.

I'd like to add an observation. I am a successful design professional, teacher, architect and amateur modeler who's been recreating reality with his hands and eyes for about 50 years now, in addition to designing big buildings like highrises and museums. I've noticed an underlying thread in all of your comments about "I know it when I see it".

Do not be afraid or abashed of that notion. You are all where you are in the art of modeling because of that ability. That is NO small thing. It is a fine thing and one to be proud of. We are living in a culture (rant narrowly averted) where this ability is not at the top of anyone's list, either because it is not renumerative, smacks of supposed elitism, or is not expainable in a fifteen second sound bite, and therefore is suspect.

An eye for aesthetics is a gift, and most people do not have it well developed, and won't ever. But, use it and use it wisely.

In my own case, I don't express those views on these forums because I am in a position where I can't see the forest for the trees; I'm too trained in critique to make broad aesthetic judgements.

When I look at a diorama, I search for the initial thought. Those are always the most perceptive. It is a truism in my design firm to never throw away the first sketches, because so often we come back to them in the end. A good diorama cannot be designed by a set of rules, you have to be talented.

the doog wrote:

Well spoken, Manny! I agree with you 100% about "huge base dio's"! AT SYRCON this year, a guy entered a massive 5-foot-square dio of 4 buildings, with like, 7 vehicles, about 50 soldiers (literally!) and every type of action happening that you could imagine--tanks rolling over kubelwagens, panzerfausts firing with smoke trails, the obligatory building on fire, the smashed .88 with bloodied crew, the tank riders on a T-34; I mean, the amount of detail was truly OVERWHELMING--and I mean that literally. You just looked at it all and said, "Well, all that would never happen". It was a commendable amount of work, and well-done, but it just seemed to be overkill. There was SO MUCH detail that it was actually hard to judge! There were good points, but some very mediocre, and even BAD points--but of course, it walked away with a first--I believe because of the sheer size of it. Trouble was, there was another smaller dio--but still like, 3 square feet--there which was actuallly much better done, but was almost swallowed by this dio and therefore got a 2nd place. My little 1/72 dio of the E100 took third; it didn't have a chance against those behemoth!s!

...this is a WIP dio I am working on that has plenty of figs, two vehicles and a building facade...I didn't feel the need to model 3 feet of base to represent the terrain the soldier on the far right is pointing to (as the viewer would assume that the terrain continued); I also didn't feel the need to include more than the front of the building as it was my intention to keep the dio small, but I know the viewer will realize that the building does have depth but showing the other 3 walls for the sake of showing them doesn't further the story, there are little sub-plots in the scene that are composed of 3 fig groupings that (once complete) will hopefully draw the viewer in and lead them around the dio in a pleasing manner...am I achieving this? I don't know---it isn't for me to decide, but I am trying to adhere to time-tested principals of the art...

...do I need to model a vast plain of snowy steepe on this one to convey the guy is looking at a far off position? I suggest that NOT showing it creates tension and drama into the dio...

...quality over quantity...

Well spoken, Manny!

I agree with you 100% about "huge base dio's"! AT SYRCON this year, a guy entered a massive 5-foot-square dio of 4 buildings, with like, 7 vehicles, about 50 soldiers (literally!) and every type of action happening that you could imagine--tanks rolling over kubelwagens, panzerfausts firing with smoke trails, the obligatory building on fire, the smashed .88 with bloodied crew, the tank riders on a T-34; I mean, the amount of detail was truly OVERWHELMING--and I mean that literally. You just looked at it all and said, "Well, all that would never happen".

It was a commendable amount of work, and well-done, but it just seemed to be overkill. There was SO MUCH detail that it was actually hard to judge! There were good points, but some very mediocre, and even BAD points--but of course, it walked away with a first--I believe because of the sheer size of it.

Trouble was, there was another smaller dio--but still like, 3 square feet--there which was actuallly much better done, but was almost swallowed by this dio and therefore got a 2nd place. My little 1/72 dio of the E100 took third; it didn't have a chance against those behemoth!s!