[OT] Why so much hostility to 'pro' painters?
MJB
directed at 'pro' painters.
Is it the fact that some people with money (or without sense, as the case
might be) are willing to pay other people money to paint their toys what
offends some of the folks here?
Or is it the fact that some people with (or without, as the case might be)
the necessary talent are willing to take money to paint other people's toys
what offends?
What's the problem? So long as the buyer and the seller, operating under
consent and with full knowledge, negotiate an equitable price for services
rendered? And no one is being defrauded or mislead during the course of the
transaction, of course.
The hostility and contempt some people have demonstrated to artists selling
painted work and the people buying it on ebay just baffles me. I've never
personally bought or sold anything there myself - but over the years I've
seen some of my commissoned figures show up on ebay and I've watched the
prices they've gotten with some surprise. And just a little pride, truth be
told.
For example - last year some of the figures shown in my LOTR gallery were
auctioned off on ebay by the original purchaser. And the fellowship figures
went for 20$ each - at the buy it now price within a few minutes of being
listed. Was that too much? I don't have any rational way to judge. What I
do know is what the person who originally bought the work paid me and I know
what the bare metal figure cost. And in talking to the original owner after
the sale was completed, he told me that the ebay purchaser was very happy
after the fellowship figures arrived at their new home - even at 20$ each.
I wouldn't have paid twenty dollars for any of my work. But then again, I
don't have to. I have BOXES full of my work already.
<shrug>
I'd simply like to have some understanding why painting figures for money
and/or trying to sell said work on ebay pisses some of you off so badly.
It just baffles me.
--
MJB
Mr. Tin's Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Robert Singers
> I'd simply like to have some understanding why painting figures for money
> and/or trying to sell said work on ebay pisses some of you off so badly.
> It just baffles me.
I haven't seen anyone "pissed off". Just a few people amazed at how much
someone will pay.
Want to quote some message IDs?
--
Rob Singers
RGMW FAQ Maintainer. See it @ http://www.rgmw.org
Send submissions to submissions at rgmw dot org changing the obvious.
"I present to RGMW....the real life model for StrongBad." (c) Inc 2003
Erik Setzer
> I'm confused by 'ebay madness' posts. And by so much anger and hostility
> directed at 'pro' painters.
There is no hostility toward "pro" painters. It is more at the idiots
on eBay willing to pay way too much for a paint job. There is no
reason to spend over $150 constantly (much less almost $1000!) on
figures that are painted, yes, to a good level. Some may indeed be
great. But that doesn't justify how much these morons are paying for
them. When they pay that much for one figure - or multiple figures -
you have to wonder why. $20 ea. for a set of Fellowship figures is
sensible, if the person wants a really nice looking set of figures to
display. But the people paying hundreds of dollars make me wonder if
there is an ulterior motive. Not only do I wonder if these people
will pass off the painting skills as their own socially, I also wonder
if they will turn up in a painting competition, taking credit for
someone else's work.
A lot of people here could, I imagine, consistently put figures
painted as well as those on eBay and make hundreds of dollars a month.
There is no hostility to the idea of doing so - just that there are
people in this world with a wallet that far outweighs the mass of goo
that passes for their brain.
-Erik
stoomcwoo
> directed at 'pro' painters.
<Snippety-doo-da, snippety-ay>
To my knowledge, 'e-bay madness' posts tend not to have anything to do
with the concept of people selling their painting skills, but
highlight the stupidity of some people auctioning their wares (eg.
vastly overpriced minis, extremely poorly painted minis up for sale as
'professionally finished' and minis listed as something they're not).
I personally wouldn't let anyone paint my minis, just in the same way
that I wouldn't like someone to take my wife out to dinner cos I
didn't have the time, but there's never been any of the hostility that
you refer to on this here NG that I can remember. In fact, just
recently, a particularly well-painted titan was applauded after being
spotted for sale on e-bay.
slongstreet003
when they didn't do the job. I had one guy take a Morathi awhile back and
take 2nd place. This makes me proud but on the other hand also makes me a
little embarrassed for him that he didn't paint it himself.
LAter
"Erik Setzer" <er...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:64945d90.04011...@posting.google.com...
Digger
"MJB" <mrt...@OLDSguy.com> wrote in message
news:bu6hn...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> directed at 'pro' painters.
I think that its more directed at the buyers than the sellers. As far as im
concerned if the sellers can get those amounts for their items good luck to
them.
I personally HAVE bought painted mini's from ebay on a number of occasions,
but i have never paid more than what the boxed set/blister would cost in the
first place. As a matter of fact i am usually saving up to 50% on the retail
cost or the mini's. However if i did come across something i really liked i
would pay more, but only a small amount more, say AUD$10 - 15 or so.
Steve
Myrmidon
shouted out the following words of wit...
> I'm confused by 'ebay madness' posts. And by so much anger and hostility
> directed at 'pro' painters.
>
well set a 'minimum' price at which they're willing to part with a
miniature, but if folks find it unreasonable, they won't buy it. It's far
more a case of incredulity directed at the buyers who pay vase sums for
particular items (see discussion below)
> Is it the fact that some people with money (or without sense, as the case
> might be) are willing to pay other people money to paint their toys what
> offends some of the folks here?
No.
>
> Or is it the fact that some people with (or without, as the case might be)
> the necessary talent are willing to take money to paint other people's toys
> what offends?
>
No.
> What's the problem? So long as the buyer and the seller, operating under
> consent and with full knowledge, negotiate an equitable price for services
> rendered? And no one is being defrauded or mislead during the course of the
> transaction, of course.
>
> The hostility and contempt some people have demonstrated to artists selling
> painted work and the people buying it on ebay just baffles me. I've never
> personally bought or sold anything there myself - but over the years I've
> seen some of my commissoned figures show up on ebay and I've watched the
> prices they've gotten with some surprise. And just a little pride, truth be
> told.
>
> For example - last year some of the figures shown in my LOTR gallery were
> auctioned off on ebay by the original purchaser. And the fellowship figures
> went for 20$ each - at the buy it now price within a few minutes of being
> listed. Was that too much? I don't have any rational way to judge. What I
> do know is what the person who originally bought the work paid me and I know
> what the bare metal figure cost. And in talking to the original owner after
> the sale was completed, he told me that the ebay purchaser was very happy
> after the fellowship figures arrived at their new home - even at 20$ each.
>
> I wouldn't have paid twenty dollars for any of my work. But then again, I
> don't have to. I have BOXES full of my work already.
>
> <shrug>
>
> I'd simply like to have some understanding why painting figures for money
> and/or trying to sell said work on ebay pisses some of you off so badly.
> It just baffles me.
>
Ok, here's the deal. It's NOT the fact that people are buying or
selling painted figures (on Ebay or elsewhere). Let's look at what
constitutes 'fine art'. Fine art could be broadly defined as works of art
that are considered 'valuable' (whether it's due to materials,
workmanship, social content, for aesthetic reasons, or a combination of
these reasons) *and* that are in all likelihood going to appreciate or
increase in value over time due to the fact that they 'limited edition' or
unique works. Anyone can make 'art' per say - art is expression or
language at it's most individual level. It can speak to millions of
others who experience the art work, or it can speak only to it's creator.
What typically distinguishes works of 'fine art' from the overall body of
art work made - is that IT DOES stand out in it's particular class or
category. In a broad field of art forms - particular artist's unique
combination of perception and talents combine to create works that stand
out in that particular field. One can't define 'quality' per say without
comparing the particulars of one item to another, but groups, cultures,
and societies still find some things to be of 'higher value' or of
'greater quality' than others of a same or similar nature.
With that in mind, lets ask ourselves - can miniatures and particularly
painted miniatures be considered a form of fine art, and if so, in what
way or ways loosely outlined above do they fit that definition? In other
words, in what way are they valuable?
1. Materials - Are minis that are fetching the large sums of money made
out of materials that society places a great value on? No. The ones
being discussed here are made of common metals or plastics of no great
value in or of themselves.
2. Workmanship - Here's a two-fold question. Is the workmanship of the
figure itself 'fine art'? In this case no, the workmanship of the figures
(typically GW figures in our case) aren't outstanding or exceptional
compared to a lot of other mass produced miniatures. Reaper, Rackham,
etc, all make various figures of a comparable workmanship. Nor are these
miniatures for the most part 'limited edition'. Typically they're mass
produced to sell as many copies as possible.
The second part would be 'Is the workmanship of the paint job applied to
that figure outstanding or exceptional compared to a lot of other painted
miniatures of a similar type? In the case of the VM minis in question
that have been fetching prices in the hundreds of dollars, I'd have to say
unreservedly - Yes. Not only is the artist in question considered
skillful by those who have little or no skill at painting miniatures, but
also by peers who are acknowledged as having a great deal of skill in
their own right. In this case it would indeed qualify as a form of 'fine
art' - it's elevated above the ordinary.
3. Social Content - do these miniatures in question represent some
important aspect of a current or past culture? No. At best they might be
defined as part of 'popular culture' - but the one's we're seeing selling
for high dollar amounts don't represent some historical event. They're
simply elements in fictional settings such as WFB, 40K, Warzone,
Cornocopia, etc.
4. Aesthetics - are the miniatures in question considered exceptionally
visually pleasing? Again, this is a two part question. There's the
appeal of the original miniature in it's unpainted state, and that of the
finished piece. Are the miniatures in question of such aesthetic quality
that they stand out from similar products? In this case I'd say 'rarely'.
While GW does make some really nice minis, other companies have displayed
the ability to produce minis of the same level of quality. In addition if
one looks at the 'intent' or purpose for which the minis were created, it
was to fill the role of 'gaming piece' rather than as a work of art. The
minis weren't designed to be cast out of precious or semiprecious
materials and displayed as finished works in their own right. They were
mass produced with the direct intent that they would be later painted to a
'finished' state.
As for the paint jobs - yes I would again unreservedly say that indeed
some of the minis available for sale are in the 'fine arts' level of skill
when it comes to the paintwork done on them. I would say that Matt
Versani's work is up at the very top. (I'm partial to Tim Kohlmetz's
stuff myself.) His choice in colors, and his ability to use various
techniques to create a highly appealing whole is obvious to anyone with
eyes.
5. Now comes the hard part - will the works in question 'appreciate' or
increase in value? This is where I think most people have been truly
balking at the prices reaching hundreds of dollars. Among collectors of
fine art it is extremely common for them to view their purchases as
'investments' that will increase in value over time. Ironically for the
artist, the value of their works often increases dramatically after the
artist has died for the obvious reason that there won't be any more from
that particular person.
In the case of GW type miniatures, it's somewhat dubious that the value of
even a well painted mini will appreciate to any great amount in one
person's life time. Particularly not to the point where one could recoup
an investment of $500 to $1000 for a single mini. In most cases the
miniatures in themselves aren't unique or limited editions, aren't made of
precious or semiprecious materials, and aren't designed as 'finished' art
pieces in their own right to be displayed without paint jobs. I'd be
willing to say that this is the single largest factor behind people
commenting on the price painted miniatures are fetching at times. One
sees it in the 'traditional' world of fine arts at times as well. Bidding
frenzies over works of art (that in some cases aren't even the best works
produced) by a particular artist. I can recall a work by one of the
'masters' that sold for something like 80 - 90 million dollars for a
single painting. At that rate, the buyer might as well EAT the painting,
as in all likelihood, they'll never be able to sell it in their life time
and recover the amount of money they've invested in it. Does that mean
the painting in question is no longer fine art? No, but it does show
clearly that even in the long established world of 'traditional' fine arts
where high dollar items are routine, there's a limit to what is considered
'reasonable' in terms of money invested in a work of art.
I have yet to see an extremely finely painted miniature that was subject
to a rant about the artist setting the selling price to some unbelievable
level. I've seen a few mediocure artists set unreasonably high prices on
their works, and had no one bid on them. What people seem to be
commenting on in a negative manner most often here is the folks who seem
to be all to willing to *PAY* what many would consider to be an
unreasonable amount for a finely painted mini.
Myrmidon
--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.
- Eric Noland
# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army
- Roy Cox
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/
****
RGMW FAQ: http://www.b3p0.com/~rgmw/
Or...
http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
--
The Cheeseboy is one of these players with less sense than money.
Always has the newest army and plays each of them in the same way...
Badly!
-- Matt Thompson
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Or...
MJB
"Myrmidon" <Im...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a78931d6...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> In article <bu6hn...@enews4.newsguy.com>, mrt...@OLDSguy.com, MJB
> shouted out the following words of wit...
> > I'm confused by 'ebay madness' posts. And by so much anger and
hostility
> > directed at 'pro' painters.
Oh cool, the person who has the strongest opinion FINALLY responded. I've
been waiting for this to happen. Oh JOY!
<grin>
> >
> Oh, it's definitely NOT directed at the painters. The painters may
> well set a 'minimum' price at which they're willing to part with a
> miniature, but if folks find it unreasonable, they won't buy it. It's far
> more a case of incredulity directed at the buyers who pay vase sums for
> particular items (see discussion below)
Vast sums? Where? Myr, will you tells me if I ask nice... if not, I'll
begs! Tell me where 'vast sums' are being spent on painted miniatures and
I'll go there RIGHT NOW and flog my crappy paintjobs! Please, please,
PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE!
Seriously, IMHO the prices people are getting for good work on ebay is so
low it's hardly worth the effort. I simply can make more doing comission
work for regular customers who have been with me for years than the garage
sale environment of ebay. And I've been in the miniature painting business
for 10 years now.
>
>
> > Is it the fact that some people with money (or without sense, as the
case
> > might be) are willing to pay other people money to paint their toys what
> > offends some of the folks here?
>
> No.
Okay, if you say so. But I don't believe you. I think some people are
awful resentful of anyone who can afford to hire someone else to do work
they consider unpleasant or unproductive - be it lawnwork, wrenching or
painting minis. Call it unfair or immoral or undemocratic... but economic
inequites exist and those with more, get more. Especially when they're
willing to pay well for the privilge of it.
> >
> > Or is it the fact that some people with (or without, as the case might
be)
> > the necessary talent are willing to take money to paint other people's
toys
> > what offends?
> >
> No.
Okay, if you say so. But I don't believe you. I think some people believe
using a painting service is like doing your kid's science project or using a
big bertha driver or corking your bat or bringing in a ringer to play on
your company's softball team. Some people consider it to be 'cheating' when
a person uses their money or their position to allow them to participate in
a 'hobby' where their lack of talent would not allow them the same sort of
position if left to their own feeble devices. And by spending money they
are ursurping the position of someone with more talent who is thereby 'more'
deserving of the resulting recognition.
Or perhaps it's like the reason why acadameic fights are so bitter...
because the stakes are so small.
<grin>
But apparently, according to Myr, there is no problem.
<snip>
>
> > I'd simply like to have some understanding why painting figures for
money
> > and/or trying to sell said work on ebay pisses some of you off so
badly.
> > It just baffles me.
> >
> Ok, here's the deal. It's NOT the fact that people are buying or
> selling painted figures (on Ebay or elsewhere). Let's look at what
> constitutes 'fine art'.
Ahhhhhhh, now I remember. Aren't you in the 'business of art' in some
way?... you have a degree, you teach, you buy, you sell, whatever. You have
what is described as 'expert knowledge' in the subject of fine arts, do you
not?
<snip art appreciation 101 and the resulting rant>
A painted mini is NOT fine art... it's the result of craft. It's simply a
toy who's value is in the pleasure the play provides. Anyone who buys toy
soldiers expecting it to appreciate in value is a friggnin lunactic. I'm
45, so have seen three friends die over the last ten years and helped their
widows liquidate their husbands miniature collections. Nobody got back
anywhere near what was 'invested'... in many cases, it was a near dead loss.
I use the term 'artist' in the loosest possible way - I much prefer
craftsman but the actual meaning of that term has been obscurred by a line
of power tools. I think being a 'pro painter' is exactly the same thing as
being a skilled automechanic or furniture maker or personal chef. I provide
a service... I paint miniatures so someone else doesn't have too.
I DO NOT CREATE ART. I AM A TOYMAKER!
There, I've completly undercut your arguement by agreeing with you. How do
you like them apples?
> I have yet to see an extremely finely painted miniature that was subject
> to a rant about the artist setting the selling price to some unbelievable
> level. I've seen a few mediocure artists set unreasonably high prices on
> their works, and had no one bid on them. What people seem to be
> commenting on in a negative manner most often here is the folks who seem
> to be all to willing to *PAY* what many would consider to be an
> unreasonable amount for a finely painted mini.
That's pretty weasly language, Myr. Using terms like "extremely finely
painted" and "unbelievable" and "mediocure" and "unreasonable" are all based
on your personal judgement and whatever axe you've got to grind. What you
consider unreasonable when you're a college student living on 9K a year
might be considerably different from what you consider unreasonable when
you've graduated with an MBA and are now an investment banker making 250K a
year.
People want what they want and people will pay what they will pay. If a
person buys a painted miniature thinking it will appreciate in value because
it is fine art, he is... sadly misinformed. And most probably equally
foolish. But fools and their money WILL soon be parted... and there is
little you can do about it.
IMHO, of course. And thanks for responding with your thoughts - you were
the person I was most interested in discussing the subject with anyway.
Rob Singers
> There, I've completly undercut your arguement by agreeing with you.
> How do you like them apples?
MJB I don't think you undercut any argument at all. Firstly what you've
called "fact" is merely your opinion and it's an opinion that's fairly
naive at best. Secondly the preposition of your entire thread is wrong, so
the opinions that you then express are rather extranious.
I now know why Myr keeps telling me not to lick my brushes. I suggest you
stop it now too please.
MJB
"Rob Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9478A70129E66rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> MJB startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of wisdom
>
> > There, I've completly undercut your arguement by agreeing with you.
> > How do you like them apples?
>
> MJB I don't think you undercut any argument at all. Firstly what you've
> called "fact" is merely your opinion and it's an opinion that's fairly
> naive at best.
Naive, how? Myr is right - painting miniatures is NOT fine art and I agree
with him. Rather difficult to have an argument when someone is in agreement
with you. But the only logical conclusion I can draw from Myr's entire
arguement is that it would only be justifiable to pay high prices for
painted miniatures IF they were considered fine art, thereby appreciating in
value once the creater is dead?
Seems to me that might be the core of Myr's fine art argument. But I find
it difficult to believe that what is essentially a hand-craft has to be
declared a fine art by some body of art experts in order for it to have
value in the market? And how does craftwork become artwork EXCEPT by the
action of the market? Doesn't It becomes art by becoming valuable and it
becomes valuable because somebody pays a high enough price for it?
But it would be naive to suggest that perhaps 'some' painted miniatures - if
truely they are fetching prices in the thousands - might, in point of fact,
be on their way to becoming art. Considering modern fine art can now be
considered crucifixes submerged in urine and soccerballs suspended in a tank
of water and an entire cow cut into six inch slices and pressed between
plexiglass.
Right? That is art... isn't it? Myr, help me out here. Please.
> Secondly the preposition of your entire thread is wrong, so
> the opinions that you then express are rather extranious.
proposition: the point to be discussed in an argument.
prepostion: a phrase containing a noun that forms an adverbal relationship
to another word.
extraneous: Without relevance.
extranious: Provided by nature with an extra anus?
Singers - stop it. You're killing me. If I ever had any respect for your
intellect before, your lame attempts at baiting me are laughable. Myr is at
least able make a valid, well-thought out and logical statement of his
position. You on the other hand maintain the FAQ.
> I now know why Myr keeps telling me not to lick my brushes. I suggest you
> stop it now too please.
Obviously, you should have listened to Myr sooner because apparently you
waited too long before heeding his advice.
--
Rob Singers
> Singers - stop it. You're killing me. If I ever had any respect for
> your intellect before, your lame attempts at baiting me are laughable.
> Myr is at least able make a valid, well-thought out and logical
> statement of his position. You on the other hand maintain the FAQ.
Don't be a fuckwit. So I made a couple of spelling mistakes. You
understood what I meant and demonstrated so.
Message-ID: <bu6hn...@enews4.newsguy.com>: You started this thread
with a rant about hostility towards pro painters which you could neither
demonstrate or get agreement for. You made statements such as
"Or is it the fact that some people with (or without, as the case might
be) the necessary talent are willing to take money to paint other
people's toys what offends?"
That's not a fact. It's your opinion and a question.
Message-ID: <bumn0...@enews4.newsguy.com>: You then start rambling
about price of painted miniatures being a function of whether it's
considered fine art or not. The price of a miniature is a function of
the demand. Nothing else.
Message-ID: <bunu0...@enews3.newsguy.com>: You go into a Setzerian
rant about me baiting you.
The only 'fact' you have actually managed to mention in all three posts
is that I maintain the FAQ and that's irrelevant to the subject of 'pro'
painters on Ebay.
Get a bloody gripe man.
Myrmidon
rsin...@finger.hotmail.com, Rob Singers shouted out the following words
of wit...
> MJB startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of wisdom
>
> > There, I've completly undercut your arguement by agreeing with you.
> > How do you like them apples?
>
> MJB I don't think you undercut any argument at all. Firstly what you've
> called "fact" is merely your opinion and it's an opinion that's fairly
> naive at best. Secondly the preposition of your entire thread is wrong, so
> the opinions that you then express are rather extranious.
Good, I guess I'm not the only one. When I first read Martyn's
post, I had the very distinct impression that he was not in fact looking
for a discussion or argument in the classic sense of the word, but rather
simply attempting to bait me because he was interested in ranting about
being under paid as far as he was concerned as a painter.
My first responce was to flame him up one side and down the other,
but I've yet to see Martyn start flaming someone since I've been here so I
simply gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured he was simply having
a 'bad posting' sort of day. (Everyone has a 'It's my day to be Ranter'
sort of day once in a while - and everyone knows Ranter's here to work off
all the 'good' karma that he generates in real life. ;)
Myr
Ancient Gamer
declares...
>
> "Rob Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9478A70129E66rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> > MJB startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of wisdom
> >
> > > There, I've completly undercut your arguement by agreeing with you.
> > > How do you like them apples?
> >
> > MJB I don't think you undercut any argument at all. Firstly what you've
> > called "fact" is merely your opinion and it's an opinion that's fairly
> > naive at best.
>
> Naive, how? Myr is right - painting miniatures is NOT fine art and I agree
> with him. Rather difficult to have an argument when someone is in agreement
> with you. But the only logical conclusion I can draw from Myr's entire
> arguement is that it would only be justifiable to pay high prices for
> painted miniatures IF they were considered fine art, thereby appreciating in
> value once the creater is dead?
>
AW CRAP! You are all full of it, can miniatures be art? Yes. Are they a
craft work? Yes. Can they be of fine art quality? Yes! Now I guess I need
to explain all of that.
Painted miniatures are generally considered in the craft work category,
however older miniatures made of tin and even some lead figures are
highly collectible and can fetch fairly good prices in the right market.
Remember that I have been buying and selling collectibles for over 30
years so I JUST MIGHT have a clue about that.
Miniatures that are painted exceedingly well and that are used for
display start moving into the realm of artwork, as they are displayed
more for their beauty then for their playability as a game piece.
Remember that artwork is by definition a work or an expression of
feeling.
So how do minitures become fine art, When a figure has been altered
slightly so as to become unique, and painted so that people look at it
and say WOH! (or some similar expression) and is based in such a manner
that it looses playability and is the object of study from painters of
lesser quality I would say it becomes fine art.
I don't believe that prices of miniatures sold should have anything to do
with it being labled as a craft, art or fine art. for really they are all
about the same thing. A wood carver by definition is a craftsman, does
that mean they can not turn out artwork?
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 3796th of September in the year 1993...
To reply by e-mail catch the ZZZZZZ's in my addy...
"I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as
they go flying by." -- Douglas Adams
"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
So you're out of excuses? Here try some of these!
http://www.funnypop.com/excuse/generator.html
Craig Little
> MJB startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of wisdom
>
>>
>
painters, he could do with getting a bloody grip though.
Myrmidon
>
> news:Xns9478A70129E66rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> > MJB startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of wisdom
> >
> > > There, I've completly undercut your arguement by agreeing with you.
> > > How do you like them apples?
> >
> > MJB I don't think you undercut any argument at all. Firstly what you've
> > called "fact" is merely your opinion and it's an opinion that's fairly
> > naive at best.
>
UNSUPPORTED opinion. And that opinion is that there's 'hostility' (and
apparently a lot of it by the subject of your original post) to 'pro'
painters.
" [OT] Why so much hostility to 'pro' painters?"
Which you then fail to substanciate in any way, shape, or form.
> Naive, how? Myr is right - painting miniatures is NOT fine art and I agree
> with him.
No, you simply attempt to change the terminology - by calling it a
'craft' in stead of an 'art form'. The implication of your statement's
remains the same - and that is that it's acceptable for 'craftsmen' to
charge large dollar amounts for what is in your own opinion nothing more
than a 'well crafted toy'. And it in no way backs up your original
proposition that there's hostility (much less a lot of it) directed
towards 'pro' painters because of the prices they charge for their work.
> Rather difficult to have an argument when someone is in agreement
> with you.
In this case, you still attempting to hold both ends of the same
argument. On one hand you're telling me that it's ok to view painted
minis as other than fine arts. While on the other hand you're still
clearly implying that it's wrong for people to view other people who spend
high dollar amounts on painted minis (which, are in your own opinion
nothing more than 'well crafted toys') as foolish or plain stupid - which
is what people here have been doing, and that it's particularly wrong to
direct hostility at 'pro painters' who charge high prices for their work a
well. Since you've made comments to the effect that you'd like to 'flog
your crappy painted minis' to someone who will pay out the nose so to
speak. And the rather dismissive manner in which you ignored some rather
important points, I'm left with the strong impression that your original
post was nothing more than a desire to rant, but not wanting to come off
as having started a rant or flame fest. The tone and manner of your first
reply came off as though you were someone who was bitter over the fact
that you attempt to make money selling painted minis and that you were
unhappy over the fact that in your experience you make more selling large
numbers of painted rank and file than you do by selling individual minis
which you've invested a large amount of time into painting them.
> But the only logical conclusion I can draw from Myr's entire
> arguement is that it would only be justifiable to pay high prices for
> painted miniatures IF they were considered fine art, thereby appreciating in
> value once the creater is dead?
Close, but no cigar. I pointed out several things - all of which
you failed to address, and several of which you dismissed with what I
initially felt were some rather rude comments.
1. I pointed out that it is far more common to see things that ARE
considered fine arts fetch prices that are to most people 'unreasonable'
or 'hard to fathom'.
2. I pointed out that it is HUGELY IRONIC for many artists that those
impressive prices for sale of their artwork often start happening AFTER
they've died. Look at the insane (and I do mean NUTS) amounts for which
Vincent Van Gogh's paintings sell for at auction these days. Now think
about the fact that in his life time - he basically sold all of 1 (one)
painting - which was to his brother-in-law for the princely sum of about
the modern equiovlent of $50. Meanwhile, he painted one to two pictures a
day *for the last ten years of his life*, and yet died in abject poverty.
3. I listed the characteristis or particulars that typically (but not
exclusively) describe things that are considered by those in the business
of dealing with 'art' and 'art history' as being 'fine art'. It was by no
means an exhaustive definition, and I thougth I made that perfectly clear
by pointing out that at least to some extent, that well painted minis did
fit 'some' of the common criteria of 'what is fine art'.
>
> Seems to me that might be the core of Myr's fine art argument. But I find
> it difficult to believe that what is essentially a hand-craft has to be
> declared a fine art by some body of art experts in order for it to have
> value in the market?
I didn't make an 'arguement' in any sense of the word. I have not
said "Painted Minis are (or are not) fine art." I've pointed out why
they would be more likely to be considered 'not' fine art by the people
who commonly purchase miniatures - particularly painted miniatures. And
to do so I had to give at least a basic explaination of what criteria do
define 'fine arts'. I also point out that there is no 'body of art
experts' that make art valuable. You speak of it as if there's some world
body like the olympics with a body of judges and score cards. Often the
so called 'art experts' of today are the same sort of dim-bulbs who in
ages past declaired that Vincent Van Gogh's works were 'garbage' because
they failed to meet the standards of that time period - and only later
came to recognize the merits of his work (after he was dead). (Can you
say 'Irony'? - I knew you could.)
Having thus established what I thought of as a reasonable base line
for a discussion (i.e. what is fine arts?) I then when on to discuss the
matter at hand - again the subject of your original post is...
"Why so much hostility to 'pro' painters?"
I pointed out that since by most definitions of 'what is fine arts' even
well painted minis (that are mass produced out of non-precious plastics or
metals) don't really fit the bill, and that it was NOT a surprise that
many people viewed them as being 'NOT' a long term investment or thing of
great value. I then used that point to make the following responce to
your original subject...
My argument is that 'Pro' painters are NOT the subject of a lot of
hostility, in fact I don't believe 'pro' painters are the subject of much,
if any, hostility. I then went on to support that argument by stating
that while I have seen many people make negative comments about the
amounts of money SPENT BY CERTAIN BUYERS of painted minis, I have yet to
see a single person here comment negatively about the *minimum price set
by someone considered to be a true 'pro' painter.
I would also argue that while there have indeed been negative comments
about the 'minimum' price reserves set by some folks selling what they
listed as "Pro Painted" or "A+" minis, the negative comments were directed
at the fact that the minis in question were in fact NOT painted to what is
commonly accepted by minis gamers and painters as being a 'high standard'
or of a quality to be considered 'pro painted'. Just because Joe Blow
sold some minis to a 12 year old down the street, it doesn't make him a
'pro' painter having sold some of his work.
> And how does craftwork become artwork EXCEPT by the
> action of the market? Doesn't It becomes art by becoming valuable and it
> becomes valuable because somebody pays a high enough price for it?
>
Wrong, Wrong! WRONG! GOOD GOD THAT'S AWFUL! Let me get this
straight, you honestly believe that?
Point of fact - a work stands on its own merits. From the moment it's
completed until the moment it's damaged or destroyed. The fact that it
took many decades for the merits of Van Gogh's work to be recognized did
not make his work 'not fine art' during the time period it was
unrecognized. His compositions, color, and painting content didn't
'magically improve' just because some art collecting weenie decided to pay
a boat load of money for it. Recognition does not add to a work's merits,
lack of recognition does not detract from a works merits. It's either got
qualities worthy of merit or it does not.
> But it would be naive to suggest that perhaps 'some' painted miniatures - if
> truely they are fetching prices in the thousands - might, in point of fact,
> be on their way to becoming art.
Uh, no. It's certainly possible for painted miniatures to be
elevated to an art form. Let's take a current example...
http://auction.sothebys.com/liveauctions/tfc/index.html
We are delighted to announce the sale of magnificent works from the world-
renowned Forbes Collection, including the largest private collection of
fabled Fabergé Imperial Easter Eggs in the world. The eggs will be offered
with more than 180 other dazzling Fabergé creations, together estimated at
more than $90 million.
We're talking about something that started out as dying egg shells
for the Easter Holiday tradition. But by utilizing other materials and a
great deal of skill, Fabergé elevated making Easter Eggs from a 'craft' to
an 'art form'.
Now then, if for example Matt Verzani were to have limited edition
or unique miniatures sculpted, and then paint them to the levels of skill
he's currently displaying - the pieces might well be considered an art
form. They'd be one of a kind minis, with a paint job that displays a
high degree of skill. They would be geared towards the aesthetics and
workmenship aspect of fine arts.
> Considering modern fine art can now be
> considered crucifixes submerged in urine and soccerballs suspended in a tank
> of water and an entire cow cut into six inch slices and pressed between
> plexiglass.
>
> Right? That is art... isn't it? Myr, help me out here. Please.
Damn, that's not just naive, Martyn, that's an attempt to use
'invincible ignorance' - I don't know, and I don't care' as form of
defense. Which of the words from my original post were lost on you? Was
it 'social' or 'content'? I point out that Pablo Picasso is considered a
'Master' - yet he did a painting of civilians and animals being butchered
and horribly maimed and mutilated in an air raid in Spain. Do you think
he did it because he wanted it to be aestheticly pleasing and thought it
would look nice hanging over some art collectors couch? It wasn't
crafted out of gold and precious stones. Could it POSSIBLY BE that it's
valued due to its <Gasp!> social content?
The fact that the works you mention don't appeal to you doesn't make
them not art. For example the "Pissed Christ" work that you mention above
was undoubtedly NOT made for aesthetic reasons. It was made to provoke a
strong reaction in the viewer - in other words social commentary. I
personally wasn't terribly impressed with R. Maplethorpe's work because it
has little depth beyond saying "Look! I can shock you! I can make fun of
all your sensibilities." I'd be more inclined to say it's not 'Fine art'
for the fact that it lacked the qualities of fine art - in other words as
a social commentary piece it FAILS to provoke the social change the artist
intended. It didn't get people discussing traditional values and
homosexuality's place in modern society (which is what the artist intended
with a piece that suggests 'pissing on the church' for their anti-
homosexuality views) and isn't particularly noteworthy beyond it's shock
value and the fact that people thought of Maplethorpe as a clod who
couldn't get past the 'shock radio' level of art expression. Maplethorpe
could have expressed the same ideas, generated the same shock value, and
still had better social commentary by for example creating a painting of
well known homosexuals being crucified by the current Pope and various
arch-bishops if he'd have put much thought into it. It isn't art because
it isn't traditional - it isn't art because it lacks depth and fails at
it's intended purpose.
>
> > Secondly the preposition of your entire thread is wrong, so
> > the opinions that you then express are rather extranious.
>
> proposition: the point to be discussed in an argument.
> prepostion: a phrase containing a noun that forms an adverbal relationship
> to another word.
>
> extraneous: Without relevance.
> extranious: Provided by nature with an extra anus?
>
> Singers - stop it. You're killing me. If I ever had any respect for your
> intellect before, your lame attempts at baiting me are laughable. Myr is at
> least able make a valid, well-thought out and logical statement of his
> position. You on the other hand maintain the FAQ.
>
And spelling errors aside - Rob is still dead on. You've opined
that 'pro' painters are the subject of much hostility. But no where have
you provided any proof that 'pro painters' are the subject of 'much
hostility'. You've also made comments that imply that people are wrong to
make negative comments about folk who spend high dollar amounts on single
painted minis and no where have you provided any form of reasoning as to
why people should NOT negatively comment on others who spend what is
viewed as 'excessive amounts of money' on painted miniatures. While I'm
pleased to see that painters such as Jen Haley, Tim Kohlmetz, and Matt
Verzani are earning sizable payments for their miniatures painting
abilities. I would NOT be inclined to say that spending tons of money on
a single well painted miniature soley for the purpose of owning what you
describe as 'a well crafted toy' is wise in any way shape or form. If
you're all to willing to classify painted minis as 'not fine art' and 'not
a long term investment' then where exactly is the wisdom in SPENDING that
much money on a mini no matter how nice the paint job? And why would you
expect people to NOT comment on what is commonly percieved as someone
being 'foolish' with their money?
Myrmidon
Craig Little shouted out the following words of wit...
That does it - I am immediately reinstating the GNL. THERE WILL BE
IMMEDIATE BEATINGS FOR *EVERYONE*!
"sounds to be like *hes* got a bloody gripe..."
Myr ;)
Craig Little
> In article <1dqdnRXDY5P...@comcast.com>, hindu...@hayoo.com,
> Craig Little shouted out the following words of wit...
> > "Rob Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9478D83A8ECACrsingers@IP-Hidden...
> > > MJB startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom
> > >
> > >>
> > > Get a bloody gripe man.
> > >
> > sounds to me like his got a bloody gripe, to do with hostility towards
pro
> > painters, he could do with getting a bloody grip though.
> >
>
> That does it - I am immediately reinstating the GNL. THERE WILL BE
> IMMEDIATE BEATINGS FOR *EVERYONE*!
>
> "sounds to be like *hes* got a bloody gripe..."
>
>
placing upon the word "he's." But by all means, re-establish the GNL, I
could do with the reminders now and again.
--
Craig
"Craig's from the UK - NOTE the 'from' part,
as in this case it implies he's no longer *in* the UK. He won't have to
'fly the friendly skies' to smack you up side the head for that clueless
comment, it'll be more like 'Hello Avis? I'd like to rent a car -
something with a V8 big block, and a solid steel frame... Ummm, yeah, in
case I hit a deer or... something.'" - Myrmidon
MJB
> In article <bunu0...@enews3.newsguy.com>, mrt...@OLDSguy.com, MJB
> shouted out the following words of wit...
> >
> I don't know that it's naive per say, but it is to date an
> UNSUPPORTED opinion. And that opinion is that there's 'hostility' (and
> apparently a lot of it by the subject of your original post) to 'pro'
> painters.
>
> " [OT] Why so much hostility to 'pro' painters?"
>
> Which you then fail to substanciate in any way, shape, or form.
Okay - what sort of 'facts' would be adequate to the task? It can't be
substantiated because any ill-will can simply be denied. I don't want to
poke my finger in any one's eyes specifically - that would be starting a
pointless flame war and you know it. But so-what? You've already said there
isn't any hostility towards professionals, that it's all directed at idiot
consumers. That's your opinion. I'll have to accept that my question has
been answered.
Nothing to see here people, move along, move along...
>
> > Naive, how? Myr is right - painting miniatures is NOT fine art and I
agree
> > with him.
>
> No, you simply attempt to change the terminology - by calling it a
> 'craft' in stead of an 'art form'. The implication of your statement's
> remains the same - and that is that it's acceptable for 'craftsmen' to
> charge large dollar amounts for what is in your own opinion nothing more
> than a 'well crafted toy'. And it in no way backs up your original
> proposition that there's hostility (much less a lot of it) directed
> towards 'pro' painters because of the prices they charge for their work.
Ummm, okay... craftsmen get paid by the hour or by piece-rate? Artists get
paid as the result of price competition among willing and knowlegable
buyers? I guess what confuses me is that sometimes the language most
appropriate to describe the process of slapping paint on little metal guys
is the same as is used to describe the process of creating fine art. My
bad - but what would you call the process under discussion except as
'painting'.
>
> > Rather difficult to have an argument when someone is in agreement
> > with you.
>
> In this case, you still attempting to hold both ends of the same
> argument.
How? I agreed it's not art. You're right, I surrender.
> On one hand you're telling me that it's ok to view painted
> minis as other than fine arts.
Which is your view, if I'm not overwhelmed by your 'expert knowledge' on the
subject.
> While on the other hand you're still
> clearly implying that it's wrong for people to view other people who spend
> high dollar amounts on painted minis (which, are in your own opinion
> nothing more than 'well crafted toys') as foolish or plain stupid - which
> is what people here have been doing, and that it's particularly wrong to
> direct hostility at 'pro painters' who charge high prices for their work a
> well.
Okay - what's the problem here? I know some of these people on a personal
basis- they are neither foolish or plain stupid. They buy because they want
something, can afford it and are happy when they own it. And I am as
baffled by the behavior as is anyone. But I can create the object, they
cannot... so I do not value it like they do.
<shrug>
Do you actually know anyone who makes a high six figure income? I do - they
are exceedingly weird to deal with. I've had customers come to visit and
it's odd to get-up in the morning and see a quarter-of-a-million dollars
sleeping on my couch. How they throw money around and what they do with
makes my parsimonious soul cringe - so it doesn't surprise me one whit to
see them spending what to our eyes look like absurd amounts of money for
what I call 'craft'.
> Since you've made comments to the effect that you'd like to 'flog
> your crappy painted minis' to someone who will pay out the nose so to
> speak. And the rather dismissive manner in which you ignored some rather
> important points, I'm left with the strong impression that your original
> post was nothing more than a desire to rant, but not wanting to come off
> as having started a rant or flame fest. The tone and manner of your first
> reply came off as though you were someone who was bitter over the fact
> that you attempt to make money selling painted minis and that you were
> unhappy over the fact that in your experience you make more selling large
> numbers of painted rank and file than you do by selling individual minis
> which you've invested a large amount of time into painting them.
Actually, not at all. I've been posting to this NG for years now. I once
ran a little contest in the last century where the NG picked who was the
most helpful - the lady D was the winner hands down and got a waveserpent,
a vyper and a bunch of jetbikes painted for free. And Tommy Beliech got a
mess of Imperial guard done for coming in second. Perhaps you remember -
you were here too.
And I was being sarcastic in my commentary. Ebay - in my opinion - sucks.
It's a garage sale where people expect (fuck - DEMAND!) to generally pay
less than the price of the miniatures for painted work. I do strictly
comission work - never had to auction my work - ever.
Yet you seem to believe the prices on ebay are absurdly high while I think
the prices are absurdly low. You think that people who are selling their
work on ebay are trying to rip people off - why else would you be so
interested in issuing 'ebay warnings' unless you wanted to warn the unwary
or the ignorant. Pure humanitarism, not doubt.
>
>
> > But the only logical conclusion I can draw from Myr's entire
> > arguement is that it would only be justifiable to pay high prices for
> > painted miniatures IF they were considered fine art, thereby
appreciating in
> > value once the creater is dead?
>
> Close, but no cigar. I pointed out several things - all of which
> you failed to address, and several of which you dismissed with what I
> initially felt were some rather rude comments.
I did not address them because I agreed with you. Did you want to see
little "okay, Myr, you're right" statements after each of your bullet
points? On the issue of fine arts I bow to your expert knowledge - thanks
for the illuminating lecture, I now understand how ignorant I am on the
subject, please stop the beating I've had enough. You know more about what
constitutes fine art than me. You win, I surrender the field of battle to
you.
You happy now, Myr?
<snip bullet point 1>
You're right, Myr.
<snip bullet point 2>
You're right, Myr. How ignorant of me.
<snip bullet point 3>
You're right, Myr. Whatever was I thinking.
>
> I didn't make an 'arguement' in any sense of the word. I have not
> said "Painted Minis are (or are not) fine art." I've pointed out why
> they would be more likely to be considered 'not' fine art by the people
> who commonly purchase miniatures - particularly painted miniatures.
Agreed - then perhaps they are more like baseball cards. Collectables,
perhaps? Hand-made, one-of-a-kind items that cannot be exactly or easily
duplicated. Perhaps thats a possible element in what you see as absurb
price competition for certain peoples work?
> And
> to do so I had to give at least a basic explaination of what criteria do
> define 'fine arts'. I also point out that there is no 'body of art
> experts' that make art valuable. You speak of it as if there's some world
> body like the olympics with a body of judges and score cards.
Actually, the buyers determine an items monetary value - critics and
academics determine artistic meaning and relevance. And sometimes critics
and experts say "buy this - it's important' and buyers say 'its crap' and
sometimes critics and experts say 'my word, look at the price so-and-so's
piece just fetched at Christie's. I know we dismissed it as shlock, but
perhaps we should take another look at it."
> Often the
> so called 'art experts' of today are the same sort of dim-bulbs who in
> ages past declaired that Vincent Van Gogh's works were 'garbage' because
> they failed to meet the standards of that time period - and only later
> came to recognize the merits of his work (after he was dead). (Can you
> say 'Irony'? - I knew you could.)
So what's your point - that critics are idiots? Critics are the defacto
protectors of the status-quo. They almost never recognize the
revolutionary. And only appreciate it's merits long after the revolution
has passed.
> Having thus established what I thought of as a reasonable base line
> for a discussion (i.e. what is fine arts?) I then when on to discuss the
> matter at hand - again the subject of your original post is...
>
> "Why so much hostility to 'pro' painters?"
>
> I pointed out that since by most definitions of 'what is fine arts' even
> well painted minis (that are mass produced out of non-precious plastics or
> metals) don't really fit the bill, and that it was NOT a surprise that
> many people viewed them as being 'NOT' a long term investment or thing of
> great value. I then used that point to make the following responce to
> your original subject...
And your conclusion is what... that in order for it to justify a high
price, painted minatures have to be considered 'fine art' otherwise it's a
rip-off? While I suggest perhaps it has other value to the purchaser that
justifys it's price? One of my customers, we think half in jest, has said
that when he dies he wants a 'viking funeral' - he wants to be buried with
his entire collection of toy soldiers around him. Tell me what the fuck is
with that? It might not be art, but its worth something to somebody.
>
> My argument is that 'Pro' painters are NOT the subject of a lot of
> hostility, in fact I don't believe 'pro' painters are the subject of much,
> if any, hostility.
Okay, fine, once more, you're right and I'm wrong. You win.
> I then went on to support that argument by stating
> that while I have seen many people make negative comments about the
> amounts of money SPENT BY CERTAIN BUYERS of painted minis, I have yet to
> see a single person here comment negatively about the *minimum price set
> by someone considered to be a true 'pro' painter.
What the hell is a true 'pro' painter? I've had no other means of
generating income for the last ten years. And our own Saint Jason, who's
gamed at my place, can confirm I don't live with my parents or live in a van
down by the river. I live alone in a nice apartment with a dedicated game
room and it's all paid for off the end of a paint-brush. I'd like to
believe that makes me a true 'pro' painter by your definition.
> l'd also argue that while there have indeed been negative comments
> about the 'minimum' price reserves set by some folks selling what they
> listed as "Pro Painted" or "A+" minis, the negative comments were directed
> at the fact that the minis in question were in fact NOT painted to what is
> commonly accepted by minis gamers and painters as being a 'high standard'
> or of a quality to be considered 'pro painted'.
But, Myr, there is NO recognized standard of quality. So people who are
trying to sell engage in what in the advertising industry is considered
'puffery'. Why does this irritate you - advertisers enflate, smart
consumers deflate. And 'high standard' is a weasly phrase without any
meaning and 'pro painted' is a term of art that indicates "I paid someone
else to do it".
> Just because Joe Blow
> sold some minis to a 12 year old down the street, it doesn't make him a
> 'pro' painter having sold some of his work.
Goddamn, I'll have to talk to my Uncle Edward about that cousin of mine.
Never should have showed little Joey how to paint figs, he's giving this
family a bad name.
<grin>
Guess my given name and win a cookie. It's Martin J. B**w - which is what
the MJB stands for. Not Martyn - whoever the hell that is.
>
>
> > And how does craftwork become artwork EXCEPT by the
> > action of the market? Doesn't It becomes art by becoming valuable and
it
> > becomes valuable because somebody pays a high enough price for it?
> >
>
> Wrong, Wrong! WRONG! GOOD GOD THAT'S AWFUL! Let me get this
> straight, you honestly believe that?
It's not wrong and it's not awful. It's naive on your part to believe the
art world works any differently. Much good art (I love super-realistic art
but it's hardly valued now days) can be had for a song and a pat-on the head
to the artist, while much bad art is lauded and applauded in order to
explain its value in the market. High auction price indicates consumers
acceptance and that acceptance leads to critical and acadamic apprasil (sic)
or re-apprasil (sic) if dismissed previously. Which leads to
rationalization and justification. The "it's worth millions so it can't be
bad art" school, I suppose.
>
> Point of fact - a work stands on its own merits. From the moment it's
> completed until the moment it's damaged or destroyed. The fact that it
> took many decades for the merits of Van Gogh's work to be recognized did
> not make his work 'not fine art' during the time period it was
> unrecognized. His compositions, color, and painting content didn't
> 'magically improve' just because some art collecting weenie decided to pay
> a boat load of money for it. Recognition does not add to a work's merits,
> lack of recognition does not detract from a works merits. It's either got
> qualities worthy of merit or it does not.
That's not true at all. You're making the statment that art exists solely
as an artistic enterprise. It doesn't. Art is also a commerical enterprise
for the artist and without monetary recognition the creater lives in abject
poverty, is ridiculed by his peers for his vision, suffers terrible
rejection, eventually goes mad and hangs himself in a garret. The piece of
art itself might exist solely on its own merits - but the artist lives and
dies by its commerical acceptance. The cliche about being a 'starving
artist' is not a cliche - I know too many people living in voluentary
poverty in order to pursue their muse to take your cold-hearted statement
seriously. And I'm sure, upon reflection, so do you.
It's not selling-out your artistic vision in order for an artist to make a
living off his talent.
>
> > But it would be naive to suggest that perhaps 'some' painted
miniatures - if
> > truely they are fetching prices in the thousands - might, in point of
fact,
> > be on their way to becoming art.
>
> Uh, no. It's certainly possible for painted miniatures to be
> elevated to an art form. Let's take a current example...
Right, Vaberge eggs are jewel encrusted and made of precious metals . The
materials used in the compostion alone have high value. You could break 'em
up with a hammer and sell the baubles and melt the metal and get something
back. Especially if you stole 'em in the first place, I suppose.
> Now then, if for example Matt Verzani were to have limited edition
> or unique miniatures sculpted, and then paint them to the levels of skill
> he's currently displaying - the pieces might well be considered an art
> form. They'd be one of a kind minis, with a paint job that displays a
> high degree of skill. They would be geared towards the aesthetics and
> workmenship aspect of fine arts.
Matt's work is phenomenal, no doubt. But who decides it's art - I consider
myself a toymaker, but call myself a painter because it's terminolgy laymen
understand. Verzani might be an 'artist' in the truest sense of the word -
but how and when it that decided? I suggest it starts by recognition and
acceptance in the marketplace. High prices for painted toy soldiers leads
to apprasial for the work on its artistic merits by critics and academics.
Who can then hold it in their hand, turn it this way and that, nod sagely
and say that yes, this is in fact art... or is in fact not art.
How do you suggest the process works if I am incorrect?
>
> > Considering modern fine art can now be
> > considered crucifixes submerged in urine and soccerballs suspended in a
tank
> > of water and an entire cow cut into six inch slices and pressed between
> > plexiglass.
> >
> > Right? That is art... isn't it? Myr, help me out here. Please.
>
>
> Damn, that's not just naive, Martyn,
Damn you, Myr, it's Martin. You've confused me with some other ass-wipe.
I'm having enough problems following your circuitious reasoning without
dealing with your confusing me with some other person who shares the same
phoenic pattern as myself.
> that's an attempt to use
> 'invincible ignorance' - I don't know, and I don't care' as form of
> defense.
Bullshit. You state 'painted miniatures are not (fine) art' and I state
perhaps certain phenominal examples are in process of gaining acceptance as
art. And then question in a field of endeveror so varied and so nebulous as
'art' what constiutes art in the first place. Then give some extreme
examples of modern art to make the point about how the hell do we know what
is art nowdays EXCEPT by the validation high auction prices gives our
judgement in the first place.
> Which of the words from my original post were lost on you? Was
> it 'social' or 'content'? I point out that Pablo Picasso is considered a
> 'Master' - yet he did a painting of civilians and animals being butchered
> and horribly maimed and mutilated in an air raid in Spain. Do you think
> he did it because he wanted it to be aestheticly pleasing and thought it
> would look nice hanging over some art collectors couch? It wasn't
> crafted out of gold and precious stones. Could it POSSIBLY BE that it's
> valued due to its <Gasp!> social content?
Please, Myr - if the bullshit gets any deeper in here, I'm going to have get
out my chest waders. First Van Gough and now Picasso? Art work is not
valued SOLELY for it's social content and you bloody well know it.
Gurenica was painted to express the utter horror of war and does it
magnificetly... but if it was NOT painted by Pablo Picasso, the genius, but
by Juan Picasso, the Catalonian bricklayer, would we be having this
discussion? Would any of us have either heard of Juan Picasso's 'Gurenica'
in the first place then?
If memory serves - Pablo Picasso would pay for his bar bill by doing little
sketches on napkins and on the back of reciepts. And the holders of his
debts would cheerfully, even eagerly, accept them - because his work had
COMMERCIAL value to the holder. Tell me again how art has only social
content!
>
> The fact that the works you mention don't appeal to you doesn't make
> them not art.
More bullshit. Only academics and critics determine artistic merit, I
suppose then. How kind of you to make my astetic decisions for me. Once
more I'll bow to your superior knowledge and approve of only what you think
is appropriate.
I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like. My interest in
modern art ended with Dadaism, although I rather like Dali and his
surealistic vision. I like much American art of the early thirty and
forties - "Nighthawks" springs to mind and I even appreciate Warhol (he was
a fine illustrator who worked in a commerical enterprise - advertising)
before doing his soupcans and silkscreens. As well as the guy who did the
blow-up pointilst comic books - Wittgenstein, perhaps? But I disgress...
looks like your getting ready for another lecture.
<snip 'pissed christ' explanation and Robert Maplethorpe who I didn't even
bring-up because he was a photographer. And is photography even real art?>
I'm surprised the "Black Madonna" made of dung didn't come-up. I love
scatlogical art. Take about high cost materials. It's poop!
> And spelling errors aside - Rob is still dead on. You've opined
> that 'pro' painters are the subject of much hostility. But no where have
> you provided any proof that 'pro painters' are the subject of 'much
> hostility'.
Oh please, I took a poke at Singers because he poked at me. I don't respect
him and have crossed swords with him in the past. It's personal, so stay
out of it.
I asked a question about why you and others continually drag some unspected
sellers ebay auction into this NG under the headings of 'ebay maddness or
ebay stupidy or more ebay stupidy' in order to heap ridicule upon the
painter's work of craft. And I called such behavior 'hostile'. You
obviously consider it differently - we disagree. What you consider 'raising
consumer awareness' I consider mockery meant to drive down the price of
painted work. And wonder why you go to the trouble of doing it.
I at first though that keeping the percieved price of painted miniatures low
was meant to keep them affoardable. And the craftsmen (since artist is not
appropriate) starving.
But I now understand - high prices shock your astetic values. That's not
an answer I was ever expecting to get. Thanks for enlightening me.
> You've also made comments that imply that people are wrong to
> make negative comments about folk who spend high dollar amounts on single
> painted minis and no where have you provided any form of reasoning as to
> why people should NOT negatively comment on others who spend what is
> viewed as 'excessive amounts of money' on painted miniatures.
It's solely in the eye-of-the- beholder. I'm just trying to understand why
high prices bothers some people so much.
> While I'm
> pleased to see that painters such as Jen Haley, Tim Kohlmetz, and Matt
> Verzani are earning sizable payments for their miniatures painting
> abilities. I would NOT be inclined to say that spending tons of money on
> a single well painted miniature soley for the purpose of owning what you
> describe as 'a well crafted toy' is wise in any way shape or form.
Me either. But same goes for sports memorability, first editions of books,
collectables of any sort, I suppose. None of them are art, none of them are
valuable in terms of materials - but all can have extreme value in the right
collector's market. Go figure it out, because I can't.
> If you're all to willing to classify painted minis as 'not fine art' and
'not
> a long term investment' then where exactly is the wisdom in SPENDING that
> much money on a mini no matter how nice the paint job?
None what so ever. But how about because collecting it MAKES SOMEONE HAPPY?
> And why would you expect people to NOT comment on what is commonly
percieved as someone
> being 'foolish' with their money?
Except you don't single out the buyer for ridicule as an idiot - you single
out the seller. It's his business and his product that gets scorned, not
the buyer. And the seller is the innocent party in the transaction. Unless
what he is selling is NOT as it is described or shown (which is fraud) who
the hell are you to complain about it? And why should you care so much in
the first place?
Oh, yeah - it's not about commerce at all. It's just about the astetics.
<grin>
Robert Singers
[big snip]
> And spelling errors aside - Rob is still dead on. You've opined
> that 'pro' painters are the subject of much hostility. But no where
> have you provided any proof that 'pro painters' are the subject of
> 'much hostility'.
Personally I would have like to go further into a discussion about
miniatures as art. I think "fine" art is a red herring. I'd like to
mention a Campbell’s soup can by way of reference. Perhaps however fine
art means a different thing to me. But as you said MJB seems to trying
to hold both ends of the argument making it fairly pointless.
> You've also made comments that imply that people
> are wrong to make negative comments about folk who spend high dollar
> amounts on single painted minis and no where have you provided any
> form of reasoning as to why people should NOT negatively comment on
> others who spend what is viewed as 'excessive amounts of money' on
> painted miniatures.
IMHO if people want to spend ridiculous amounts of money then it's
their own look out, except for if they enter them in a tourney or
competition as their own work. Sure that money could do a lot of good
if donated to a local charity but that would be a stupid argument for us
to have.
> While I'm pleased to see that painters such as
> Jen Haley, Tim Kohlmetz, and Matt Verzani are earning sizable payments
> for their miniatures painting abilities. I would NOT be inclined to
> say that spending tons of money on a single well painted miniature
> solely for the purpose of owning what you describe as 'a well crafted
> toy' is wise in any way shape or form. If you're all to willing to
> classify painted minis as 'not fine art' and 'not a long term
> investment' then where exactly is the wisdom in SPENDING that much
> money on a mini no matter how nice the paint job?
If I had the money I'd commission pieces from all of those painters.
I'd keep them in a display case and use them as inspiration. Hell if I
had that amount of money I'd have the minis especially sculpted by Jason
Weibe and Andy Foster. Off the top of my head they’d be Dwarf Thanes
and Runesmiths and I’d get extra cast so I can paint and use them in my
army.
> And why would you expect people to NOT comment on what is commonly
> perceived as someone being 'foolish' with their money?
Yeah what would newspapers do if it was common topic of conversation?
--
Rob Singers RGMW FAQ Maintainer. See it @ http://www.rgmw.org
Send submissions to submissions at rgmw dot org changing the obvious.
"I present to RGMW....the real life model for StrongBad." (c) Inc 2003
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Robert Singers
[snipped and order changed]
> Except you don't single out the buyer for ridicule as an idiot - you
> single out the seller. It's his business and his product that gets
> scorned, not the buyer. And the seller is the innocent party in the
> transaction. Unless what he is selling is NOT as it is described or
> shown (which is fraud) who the hell are you to complain about it? And
> why should you care so much in the first place?
OK MJB who the hell has done that? Can you paste some message IDs
please. Once again you seem to be constructed an argument on something
unsubstantiated. As you have admitted this, you are now entering the
realms of dishonesty.
> Oh, yeah - it's not about commerce at all. It's just about the
> astetics.
I realise that that is meant to be sarcasm but it would really help if
you stuck to arguing sensibly, because you just come across as
contradicting yourself and rambling.
> Oh please, I took a poke at Singers because he poked at me. I don't
> respect him and have crossed swords with him in the past. It's
> personal, so stay out of it.
Look I don't remember about any arguement we have had in the past and
have no idea of why it gives you such a hard on, and I really don't care.
If you want to make yourself look like a dickhead with spelling flames go
ahead.
What I'd prefer is that you took a deep breath and restated your position
without contradiciting yourself. I'd like you to do it without claiming
for facts what are merely your unsubstantiated opinions. You raise a
fairly interesting topic.
--
Rob Singers RGMW FAQ Maintainer. See it @ http://www.rgmw.org
Send submissions to submissions at rgmw dot org changing the obvious.
"I present to RGMW....the real life model for StrongBad." (c) Inc 2003
MJB
"Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns947965F773AACrsingers@IP-Hidden...
> Out from under a rock popped MJB and said
>
> [snipped and order changed]
>
> > Except you don't single out the buyer for ridicule as an idiot - you
> > single out the seller. It's his business and his product that gets
> > scorned, not the buyer. And the seller is the innocent party in the
> > transaction. Unless what he is selling is NOT as it is described or
> > shown (which is fraud) who the hell are you to complain about it? And
> > why should you care so much in the first place?
>
> OK MJB who the hell has done that? Can you paste some message IDs
> please. Once again you seem to be constructed an argument on something
> unsubstantiated. As you have admitted this, you are now entering the
> realms of dishonesty.
Sorry - but I just spent over two hours trying to work my way through Myr's
15 kb posting on fine art and give some sort of coherent reply to his demand
for explainations both varied and obscure. I can't waste any more time on
the this subject to satisfy your demands - I've got 120 Prussian Musketeers
I've got to finished and mailed-out by tomorrow afternoon.
>
> > Oh, yeah - it's not about commerce at all. It's just about the
> > astetics.
>
> I realise that that is meant to be sarcasm but it would really help if
> you stuck to arguing sensibly, because you just come across as
> contradicting yourself and rambling.
After two hours of art education at Myr's hand - a subject I haven't given a
thought about since college - please forgive me if I'm rambling. A good
beating well applied will do that to a person.
>
> > Oh please, I took a poke at Singers because he poked at me. I don't
> > respect him and have crossed swords with him in the past. It's
> > personal, so stay out of it.
>
> Look I don't remember about any arguement we have had in the past and
> have no idea of why it gives you such a hard on, and I really don't care.
> If you want to make yourself look like a dickhead with spelling flames go
> ahead.
Oh pleaseeeeeee.... you make a statement implying that I'm an mental
defective who must be suffering brain damage because I clean my paintbrush
in my mouth and then whine when I point out your own inability to be
coherent in reply? No wonder you don't remember any argument - you
obviously offend so many people it must be impossible to keep track of
everybody you piss off.
>
> What I'd prefer is that you took a deep breath and restated your position
> without contradiciting yourself. I'd like you to do it without claiming
> for facts what are merely your unsubstantiated opinions. You raise a
> fairly interesting topic.
Like I got time to waste on demands made on usenet. I'm not going to
restate anything for your benefit. Two hours I'll spend crossing swords
with Myr because he at least makes valid points I can address directly.
But it's been stated "there is no hostility on this NG" and I must be wrong
for suggesting there is or ever was. So be it. But right now I've got a
business to run and no more time for this. You're right, I'm wrong. You
win, I surrender. Pro painters are loved and respected on this NG and to
suggest otherwise indicates brain damage.
Enjoy your victory - Singers, you kicked my butt. Like to stay around and
give you the opportunity to gloat over my carcass, but I gotta get back to
work otherwise I'll be considered to be dwelling in the actual realms of
economic dishonesty (as opposed to the usenet realm of internet dishonesty)
because I won't be able to get my painting projects finished according to
deadline.
<lurk mode ON>
Robert Singers
> Oh pleaseeeeeee.... you make a statement implying that I'm an mental
> defective who must be suffering brain damage because I clean my
> paintbrush in my mouth and then whine when I point out your own
> inability to be coherent in reply? No wonder you don't remember any
> argument - you obviously offend so many people it must be impossible
> to keep track of everybody you piss off.
I really must ask, are you 12 or something? Are you really that juvenile
that you can't take a less than harsh joke by RGMW’s standards? Do you
really approach all discussion as a battle and have to see it as win or
lose? Is this the reason for your less than honest behaviour in this
thread?
If there's a reason that I don't remember arguing with you in the past
it's obviously because I don't bother to pay much attention to people who
act so immaturely. I was mistaken as describing your behaviour as
Setzerian it's patently proto Mike Hunt[ian]. Why don’t you own your own
behaviour and opinion and stop trying to blame it on others.
If you feel like behaving like an adult then “Miniatures as Art” is a
discussion I’m interested in.
twitch
>IMMEDIATE BEATINGS FOR *EVERYONE*!
Crud. Does this mean I have to be killed and/or thrown in that trunk yet again?
--
*twitch*
(Formerly known as Saint wasisname)
I have a weird type of dyslexia. I read palindromes backwards...
Just FAQ it: http://www.rgmw.org
Kill .Thorpe to reply
Ancient Gamer
declares...
> >That does it - I am immediately reinstating the GNL. THERE WILL BE
> >IMMEDIATE BEATINGS FOR *EVERYONE*!
>
> Crud. Does this mean I have to be killed and/or thrown in that trunk yet again?
>
>
*twitch* around anywhere?
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 3797th of September in the year 1993...