SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

The elephant in the room

5535 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:37 PM
 9 Toe Tanker wrote:

All I can say is that ....if AI is only building those dios for MM to settle a debt owed. We've probably only made his life tougher because MM is gonna expect him to live up to the suggestions made and he will slow down his build rate and clearance of debt owed to accomodate those suggestions. I know nothing about this situation however.

I do think that other than the binnocular situation mentioned on the other dio...it was a pretty good one. But what do I know? I'm a nobody...I haven't finished a model in years, a situation that I'm gonna remedy on my Brummbar.

I live in a glass house...

...you live in a glass house? Another cool dio idea!

I just don't understand the argument for these huge bases...is it like a macho, "size" thing? I'll never forget the time I was attending an IPMS Regional and a guy rolled in a six foot long contraption that featured a couple of Dragon Wagons and other tanks on it...it was huge and the modeling was average at best...but did it draw a crowd...and more "oohhs and ahhhs" than a newborn baby...maybe it is in our culture...

...if you look at any art-form, space and size are key...art IS how you use space, or misuse it...it is a principal you can't change now matter how much you believe bigger is better...look at any Monet or Rembrandt and I defy you to find one piece with space for the sake of space in it...period...

...as far as building a generic base to feature your built models in, I have no problem with that...and I understand if in those cases the base is not customed to the vehicle, etc...I also agree that Verlinden crammed too much "crap" into every nook and cranny in most of his dios, but even in his case his dios were not that big...the guy that has built some of the biggest dios is Bob Letterman (of VLS fame) but all of his space was filled with things that furthered the story or idea of the dio...I also believe in building for yourself to make yourself happy...but that still doesn't change mainstream thinking of the art, or the fundamental principals of it...

  • Member since
    August 2007
  • From: Looking over your shoulder
Posted by 9 Toe Tanker on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:17 PM

All I can say is that ....if AI is only building those dios for MM to settle a debt owed. We've probably only made his life tougher because MM is gonna expect him to live up to the suggestions made and he will slow down his build rate and clearance of debt owed to accomodate those suggestions. I know nothing about this situation however.

I do think that other than the binnocular situation mentioned on the other dio...it was a pretty good one. But what do I know? I'm a nobody...I haven't finished a model in years, a situation that I'm gonna remedy on my Brummbar.

I live in a glass house...

Best Regards Joe
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:06 PM

 the doog wrote:
its not like we haven't treid to get him to be a little nore personable and involved in WE, to whom he presents his acquisitions and relies upon for those precious "attaboys"! The collective ire we have exhibited is. I believe, a symptom of our collective frustration with his baffling intransigence.

Yeah, what the doog said!

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:00 PM

Hmmm, I can only say that I "know it when I see it"--like, it's art to me, and I just feel like I have an eye for composition. It's like when I see a painting or a dio or whatever, there's an innate sense of what I feel is correct...even though I'm willing to admit that I may be TOTALLY wrong in other people's eyes. It's a balance thing, as well as a "plausibility" thing. 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"!

I agree with everything you posted there; from the IPMS book. AND the comments you made.

I TRULY feel that AI has absolutely NO INCENTIVE to improve his work, because he's really just building models like a factory worker stamps his pieces--to make "quota"--the more he finishes, the closer he is to being debt free. So I guess that if there's a difference between a modeler who builds for commission, and one who builds for fun, it comes down to passion. I'm currently building a Tamiya Hetzer for a commissioned build, and its NOT the same as when I built one for MY personal collection! I couldn't DREAM of giving away one of MY models--but the one I'm building for someone else is just a plastic model--the ones I build for myself are my "children"!

I don't know if that makes any sense, but that's the only way I can think of answering that question! I feel a little bad for the severe razzing we gave MM recently, but its not like we haven't treid to get him to be a little nore personable and involved in WE, to whom he presents his acquisitions and relies upon for those precious "attaboys"! The collective ire we have exhibited is. I believe, a symptom of our collective frustration with his baffling intransigence.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:52 PM
...come to think of it, an elephant in a room would be a cool dio...
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:13 PM
 ajlafleche wrote:

Wheile almost anything is possible, in the universe of all possibilities, not everything is probable, likely or liogical, As Gino pointed out, deploying a fire team under the barrel of a tank is not a llogical thing to do, though it would be physically possible to be in that position.  

 

Thanks for the list of rules - having never competed I have not seen these before.

I agree with your comment about anything being possible - in fact, some dios that I have seen (and I can't think of any right off the top of my head to use as an example, but I am sure there are some!! Confused [%-)]) use this idea of 'yeah, this is possible but highly unlikely' to great effect to tell the story.  For example, even though it is not a dio, over in the favorite armor pic thread is that photo of a Merkava (I think) that went over the cliff and is, in effect, standing there propped up on the main gun.  Those, 'oh my God I can't believe that really happened' type situations make great dios, so long as they are done effectively.  However, I also think that falling into that 'everything is possible' simply to justify poor composition or layout (aka the fire team under the maingun muzzle) is a common pitfall...

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:06 PM
 HeavyArty wrote:

It depends on who or what you build for.  If you are building for contests, there are set rules or guidelines for judging for each organization, such as AMPS or IPMS.  AJ can site them better than I can.  If so, you should use those guidelines to build by.  If you are just building for yourself, do whatever you like.  There are some general rules that are accepted by most modelers though.  I'm not sure who started them, most likely modelers like Shep Paine or Francois Verlinden.  But they also have a background in art where it is more appealing to the eye if you follow them.  These are as you have posted; not leaving big open areas, not having your lines parallel to the base, etc.

OK, cool, so when you comment on or critique the works of others, whether it is posted here or in some other venue, are your comments geared towards making asthetic improvements to improve the artistic value, or do you look at it with an eye towards what a competition judge might see?  Or is it a combination of both?  In your personal opinion, what are the absolute no-no's for a dio builder (perhaps other than the whole parallel line thing or the huge swaths of empty space)?  For example, somewhere I was reading a thread (armorama, maybe) about Shep Paine vs. Francois Verlinden (I think you may have participated in that, Gino, am I right).  Anyways, some people pointed out that Verlinden goes way overboard with the whole empty space thing by cramming every corner full of (usually) 'his' stuff (for sale).  Shep Paine, on the other hand, was singled out for compromising historical accuracy for artistic sake (the example was the dio in both editions of the "How to Build Dioramas" books of the Dragon Wagon in Israel).  So which is 'worse' - blatantly filling a dio of stuff that may or may not reasonably be expected to be there or sacrificing 'history' for the sake of 'art'?

That actually makes me think of another related question - a dio is supposed to tell a story, but does it have to be a 'true' story?  Can it be a completely fictional unit, in a completely fictional battle, in a completely fictional setting?  For example, if I wanted to construct a dio of the link up between German and Japanese forces in Outer Mongolia in the spring of 1943 could I and would it be a 'valid' dio?

P.S.  Yeah, believe me, I get the whole MM thing - but I don't want this to be a discussion of why people have a hard time with him.  We spend enough time on that already Banged Head [banghead]

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
Posted by ajlafleche on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:11 PM

From the IPMS Competition Handbook:A diorama is a combination of model(s) and a believable setting that tells a story, sets a mood, or creates a charged atmosphere. In addition to evaluating the modeling of a diorama's individual elements, the judges will consider the strength of the diorama's story line or mood and the overall presentation of the diorama. These three factors are equally important. Dioramas with superbly modeled components but a weak story line and presentation will almost certainly lose to a diorama with well-modeled components and strong story and presentation.

Model Components: The individual model components of a diorama will be judged according to the criteria specified in the appropriate individual class. That is, armor pieces will be subject to armor judging criteria while figures will be evaluated according to the figure modeling guidelines. As always, the basics of construction and finishing are of prime importance. Terrain, roadwork, buildings, and accessories that set the scene of the diorama will be evaluated similarly to the primary model components. Basic construction and finish are once again paramount.

Presentation: The diorama base should comprise individual elements that combine to form a realistic and/or plausible setting for the primary model component(s). Each of the elements also should be believable in its own right and consistent with the action or mood being depicted. The degree of imagination and inventiveness used to pose the main elements will factor into the overall presentation evaluation. The base should provide a focal point for the scene and fit or enhance the story line or mood of the diorama. Dioramas with a well-defined focal point highlighting a simple story generally will have a stronger presentation than those attempting to portray an entire battlefield.

Story Line, Mood, Atmosphere: This element is what separates the diorama from models merely set on a base. A simple derelict vehicle rusting away in a field can set a mood as well as, or better than, a complete recreation of the Battle of Waterloo. The story, mood, or atmosphere created by the diorama should be obvious; the judges shouldn't have to strain to see it. Stories can incorporate historical or even humorous aspects. Here again, imagination and inventiveness in telling the story or setting the mood can lift a diorama out of the ordinary.

Additionally, it;s like the apocryphal question about art, I can't define itbut I know it when I see it.

A quick search on rules of compostion will be a great way to learn what works and what doesn't.

Some things I look at when judging a dio:

Is the story consistent, ie, if there's combat, no one should be standing around idle or playing bullseye.

If a figure is walking his next step should not be into a wall or tree or other object, nor should he be walking out of the side of a tank.

In general, figures should draw you to a focal point as should olther elements, eg, a gun barrel should not point away from the focal point. This draws the eye away from what the builder is trying to show you.

In general, most stock kits don't work very well in settings other than the box art and even then, many of Tamiya's older sets feature incionsistent uniform's. Dragon's are better, but all the figures may not work together in one cohessive scene.

Figures and vehicles should be matched in time and space, no early war uniforms with late war tanks, no Pacific camo or US Marines in Europe.

Wheile almost anything is possible, in the universe of all possibilities, not everything is probable, likely or liogical, As Gino pointed out, deploying a fire team under the barrel of a tank is not a llogical thing to do, though it would be physically possible to be in that position.  

 

Remember, if the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Valrico, FL
Posted by HeavyArty on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:19 PM

It depends on who or what you build for.  If you are building for contests, there are set rules or guidelines for judging for each organization, such as AMPS or IPMS.  AJ can site them better than I can.  If so, you should use those guidelines to build by.  If you are just building for yourself, do whatever you like.  There are some general rules that are accepted by most modelers though.  I'm not sure who started them, most likely modelers like Shep Paine or Francois Verlinden.  But they also have a background in art where it is more appealing to the eye if you follow them.  These are as you have posted; not leaving big open areas, not having your lines parallel to the base, etc.

As to why we are harsh on Model Maniac, it is partly due to how he has acted in the past, also partly due to him only showing off what someone else has built and him not being the builder, but only a collector.  His attitude has a lot to do with it too, but it is mostly due to the fact that these are "supposedly" professionally-built models and dioramas that he has paid for and they do not hold up to the accepted standard of what is considered professional quality in the hobby, even though he thinks and insists that they do.. 

Gino P. Quintiliani - Field Artillery - The KING of BATTLE!!!

Check out my Gallery: https://app.photobucket.com/u/HeavyArty

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
The elephant in the room
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:52 PM

The recent 'conversations' taking place within the framework of Model Maniac's commissioned dioramas has given me pause and raises an interesting question (at least IMHO).  It is one that has certainly been dissected before, but again, with these recent threads, I think it bears revisiting.

My question(s) is this: is there a difference between someone who models (and builds dioramas) for a past time versus someone who builds for passion (and, more importantly, for competition)?  Are there universal standards that all diorama builders should follow, or is there really no 'right' so long as the builder is satisfied?  For example, there are a group of very accomplished builders in this forum (Heavy Arty and Doog come to mind) who typically provide very good comments and suggestions.  But what are those based on - other than experience, obviously.  Who decides that 'the corner of your dio is a little empty, it needs a ______.'  I know that a lot of this comes from competition standards and from some of the masters like Shep Paine and Verlinden.  But if I like the corners of a diorama to be empty and build it that way, is there a problem with that?

I bring this up partially because I noticed that in many ways the dios that Model Maniac posted are relatively well done and with a few tweaks might be very good.  And yet, many of the comments seem overly harsh.  Obviously, a good deal of this is due to the history of MM in this forum, but is there also an underlying set of standards that a diorama must measure up to?

This will either be a lively discussion, or people will think - 'Oh, God, not this again' Burger [BG].  It'll be interesting to see which...

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.