Painting Contest
CChar11556
wargame figures, at a small historical convention. I have several personal
biases for painting: attention to detail, shading, basing, etc. Does anyone
have experience judging? If so, what do you look for? I was assuming I would
make up a 4-5 category list, including such things as detail, Shading, Facial
effects, Basing,and historical accuracy. I would then assign each catagory a
point value 0-3.)0= being non existant,1= Poor, 2=adequate, 3=excellent. I
would then total points, the figure with the most winning. Does this seem fair?
Any thoughts would be welcome.
Thanks,
Craig
David Howard
that something done poorly is worse than not being done at all. For
example, bug eyes are more distracting on a 15mm figures than the absence of
eyes, IMHO. On that basis, I would consider absent to have higher value
than poor. :)
Good luck.
CChar11556 wrote in message
<20000112155637...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
CChar11556
where so much detail is crammed onto a fig. that the effect is spoiled.
Craig
(Stan Olson)
Stan: hard feelings can be caused by painting competitions.
Many people feel that only pointless ornamentation and detail
should win them something.
Others feel proper realistic weathering of the figures
is the key to rewarded painted realism.
Still others think the frame (base flocking) is more important
than the painted picture (figure), and that all things being
equal, the Base should determine who gets the painting kudos ...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to use well painted troops-vehicles in a
miniature wargame event. But dont Combine the painting with
the Game aspect. Giving extra Game event standing to a person
that paints well, but plays-commands poorly is only going
to create resentment.
Separate the painting judging from the earned, Game results.
Also dont encourage (reward) people to (that) gussy up their troops ...
if its not historically called for ...
Stan: thats too much like, judging the winner of a debate
on the basis of who's hair doo, looks best ...
Anthony/Susan Holton
> Stan: hard feelings can be caused by painting competitions.
Some people win and some people lose. C'est la vie. However, it can
still be fun to enter a painting contest and have other people admire
your work.
> Many people feel that only pointless ornamentation and detail
> should win them something.
>
> Others feel proper realistic weathering of the figures
> is the key to rewarded painted realism.
>
> Still others think the frame (base flocking) is more important
> than the painted picture (figure), and that all things being
> equal, the Base should determine who gets the painting kudos ...
>
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Stan. Some of us enjoy the detail
and are disappointed by castings that do not allow us to include a lot
of detail.
> Its nice to use well painted troops-vehicles in a
> miniature wargame event. But dont Combine the painting with
> the Game aspect. Giving extra Game event standing to a person
> that paints well, but plays-commands poorly is only going
> to create resentment.
I've never seen the painting competition combined with a game at a
convention. Has this truly been made a criteria for judging in painting
competitions? I'd appreciate a specific case in point if that is
possible.
> Separate the painting judging from the earned, Game results.
> Also dont encourage (reward) people to (that) gussy up their troops
> ...
> if its not historically called for ...
Again, when, specifically has this criteria ever been used? As for
rewarding people for doing a good job in presenting their armies and/or
terrain. . . well, isn't that a good thing? A friendly attaboy never
hurt anyone. I'm appreciative of someone who has the talent or
initiative to make an extra effort.
> Stan: thats too much like, judging the winner of a debate
> on the basis of who's hair doo, looks best ...
Best Wishes,
Anthony Holton