The elephant in the room

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...

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: 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...

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!

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.

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

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...

/\ Absolutely

Thanks for the discussion, it was enjoyable.

  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...