Why isn't modeling an "art form"
Paolo Pizzi
Stewart Gordon wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"?
The problem is that nowadays not even artists know WHAT the heck
is "art"...
Well, if "art" is Krysto wrapping European monuments in plastic
bags or Piero Manzoni crapping in a container on permanent exhibit
at the Guggenheim in NYC under the title "artist sh**" or John Cage
performing his "masterpiece" 4:33 (which is 4 minutes and 33
seconds of NOTHING) then as far as I am concerned ANYTHING could
be art...
Paolo Pizzi
http://navismagazine.com
Stewart Gordon
Hello All,
I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"? By
that, I mean in the eye of the public. As for my two cents, I think
what we do is at least equal to painting fruit on a piece of canvas.
Please, let's not start talking about fruit and artists, I just meant
it as an example! Anyway, what does everyone else think?
Also, what would it take to make our hobby accepted as an art form?
Stewart Gordon
Morten Staale
My two cents worth:
My wife do paint, but I will not call what she does art. Not yet and the
reason
is that she is still practicing tecniques and the creativty is in the
background.
By all means, the results are pretty and decorate our walls.
But art?
She have been doing this for a year or so and to my mind a year or so in
the
future when the creativity takes the front seat, then I will start calling
it art.
I fail to see how putting together a kit from an instruction sheet can be
called art.
By all means the results when you put in your masses of creativity will be
interesting, provocative, mindboggeling or what ever.... but art?
Just to be name dropping: Jimmy Flintstones creations is (for me) a
borderline
to art, but I can not call my self an artist for doing the handiwork.
The statue of David is art, all the small copies you can buy is handicraft.
BTW- would the great hobby of ours really benefit from getting an art
label?
Morten Staale.
Burkhard Domke
>Hello All,
>
>I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"? By
>that, I mean in the eye of the public. As for my two cents, I think
>what we do is at least equal to painting fruit on a piece of canvas.
>Please, let's not start talking about fruit and artists, I just meant
>it as an example! Anyway, what does everyone else think?
Maybe building model kits is viewed as a prophanity by the culture
"scene" wackos because we usually don't put five-digit price tags to
our exhibits, not to mention that we probably don't to show
sufficiently crappy/weird stuff to get their admiration/attention.They
simply don't care about skilled craftsmanship.
>Also, what would it take to make our hobby accepted as an art form?
1. Proclamation that it _is_ an art.
2. Selfconsciousness while arguing that.
Who cares whether "they" consider modeling as an art, anyway? Do what
you like, how you like.
RLHDLW Burkhard
Hauptstadt Temple
Richard Marmo
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"?
>
>is "art"...
>
>Well, if "art" is Krysto wrapping European monuments in plastic
>bags or Piero Manzoni crapping in a container on permanent exhibit
>at the Guggenheim in NYC under the title "artist sh**" or John Cage
>performing his "masterpiece" 4:33 (which is 4 minutes and 33
>seconds of NOTHING) then as far as I am concerned ANYTHING could
>be art...
>
>
>Paolo Pizzi
>http://navismagazine.com
Within the context of what is generally accepted as art, modelbuilding
is, indeed, an art form. By extension, modelbuilders - especially those
of us who are described (self or otherwise) as serious modelers - are
artists. I've had a number of conversations along this line with a friend
of mine who is a superlative aviation artist in his own right. When I
try to tell him that, compared to him, I would hardly be considered an
artist, he's very quick to correct. He tells me that I am, indeed, an
artist...so shut up!
Consider that art is the creation of something thru the use of skills that
are not commonly available to most people. To wit: sculpture, acting, oil
and acrylic paintings, modelbuilding, et al certainly qualify as such. I
will not agree that 4 minutes and 33 seconds of nothing or the public
display a bodily function in conjunction with a permanent exhibit of the
appropriate receptacle is in any way, shape or form, art. Nor is 40 miles
of sheets trailing across the California landscape or the floor of a room
that has been mopped by a woman who dipped her waist-length hair in
buckets of paint!
Finally, to develop a set of creative skills, regardless of the specific
field, requires something that is God-given.....talent. No talent, no
skills. And there's two sides to that particular coin. On one hand, you
can have all the talent in the world, but if you make no effort to
develop it, that talent will eventually wither and die, regardless of how
great the potential talent may be. But, with dilligence and effort, a
modest amount of talent may enable you to reach a level of creativity
that might otherwise not be possible.
Comments? Opinions?
Richard Marmo, IPMS/USA #2
"The difference between ignorance and stupidity? Ignorance can be
corrected." - Richard Marmo
Bluey
I think it is an art form , its just that the critics and the yuppie's
havent discovered us yet.
Stewart Gordon <sgor...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<350f5fb6...@news.mindspring.com>...
Hello All,
I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"? By
that, I mean in the eye of the public. As for my two cents, I think
what we do is at least equal to painting fruit on a piece of canvas.
Please, let's not start talking about fruit and artists, I just meant
it as an example! Anyway, what does everyone else think?
Also, what would it take to make our hobby accepted as an art form?
Stewart Gordon
Dlmathe
Hi Gang,
Boy, what a question! I have to agree with other posters, that our hobby is
indeed an art. (if we make it one)
I disagree with the poster that said something about assembling per
instructions causes it to be just a craft. It would possibly be so if we
totally followed instructions, but the little things we do to separate us from
the casual modeller give us a different title. I pour my self into each
creation. I dont settle for the first time pigment touches the plastic (or
resin). I add the washes, per my experiences, the scratchbuilt parts, the
aftermarket parts, yes and part of my soul. Some of my models are nolonger in
my collection, due to being bought by art appreciators, however deeper still,
they will always be mine! My wife says I'm more than obsessive about the hobby,
and I believe if you study the great artists, you'll find they had a driving
passion about their work too! It causes me great pleasure to complete work that
I find good and that others admire.
Really though, I dont care what others call it. I know it is the expression of
what is inside of me, what I know and think and feel, manifest on a plastic
shape that I have transformed into a creation I can be proud of. When people
that know nothing about models, but enjoy my photos and study them to see the
details....
doug
Trevor C Thomas
Richard Marmo wrote:
> Within the context of what is generally accepted as art, modelbuilding
> is, indeed, an art form. By extension, modelbuilders - especially those
> of us who are described (self or otherwise) as serious modelers - are
> artists.
Richard, I agree completely. IMO modeling is certainly art, art in 3D
actually. Look at any Diorama for instance and then try to say it isnt
art.
Modelers are true artists in any sense of the word AFIAC.
Trev
Morten Staale
Hi beeing the poster in question I would like to reply
on this one.....
What you describe is the same total commitment you will
see from good craftsmen. But the difference between an artist
and a craftsman is not the details of the craft, but the "message"
you want to bring forward.
I fully sympathize with this, but then I have several hobbies...
When I put this level of dedication and detail into a slotcar is it
suddenly art?
every time I make an electronic device is the PCB a work of art?
It migth be that my definition of art (english not beeing my native
language)
is not the same as yours.
Art is when you put the "message" and creativity in front.....
There is a borderline area between the art of craftsmanship and the art of
artist, and I am in the blessed position that I do not have to define a
piece
of something and define it art or craft.
But I offer you this experiment of thought: you are at an exhibition of
knifes.
there is a level of difference in the finish of the knifes, dependent on
the
craftskills or devotion of the different knifemakers. Now single out the
artist
and craftsmen in that exhibition ;-)
Morten Staale
(non snipped on purpose)
Dlmathe <dlm...@aol.com> skrev i artikkelen
<199803181327...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
AHorv43767
*Sigh* all right, I'll get out the asbestos suit and bite on this one.
Building models, especially from packaged kits, is not and cannot be an art
form in the strict sense. It can be art in a much looser sense. Most of the
people who have said it is on art on this thread are using "art" in the loose
sense. Some of them have demonstrated that they don't know what art in the
strict sense is.
Definitions first. The loose sense of art is something very well done. A lot
of modellers seem to think modelling is transformed into art just by being done
technically well enough. Anything, of course, can be art in that sense.
Several years ago my parents had a fireplace put into their house by a guy who
was locally renowned for his excellent brick fireplaces. He was termed an
"artist." A lawyer friend of mine is pretty good at completing
Hart-Scott-Rodino forms, which are complicated filings required by the Federal
Trade Commission before companies complete certain types of mergers. Some of
those forms are, colloquially, "works of art." Well, you're getting the
picture. Using the term "art" in this sense is pretty meaningless, except as a
compliment for a well-done model.
Art in the strict sense -- I'll reveal my bias by calling it "real art" -- is
not just, or not even, technically competent representation of some object.
The purpose of art is to try to express something beyond the thing being
represented. It could be some deeper essence of the thing itself, like
Cezanne's apples or Monet's water lilies; more often, it is something
fundamental about the human condition. Love, joy, horror, grief, hate,
cynicism, religious devotion, or even a political viewpoint -- these are the
stuff of real art, whether it be painting or sculpture, literature or cinema or
performance. Art is art because it SAYS something about such things.
Sometimes what a piece of art is saying is hard to figure out. Often,
especially in modern art, what the art is saying is encoded in a language of
conventions that only an experienced member of the art community can decode.
Other times, what is being said is in the private language of the artist, and
speaks to only a few people who either know him/her or feel the same way he/she
does. And, there are times when artists are putting one over on us and really
saying nothing, just trying to milk their reputations for money's sake. Most
critics agree a lot of late Warhol was like this. Maybe Christo (the
cellophane wrapped building guy) is, although I think there's a little more to
him than that.
Once art is defined this way, the question of this thread becomes an easy one.
Members of the public and of the art community would find it laughable that a
simple representation of a car or plane, no matter how well executed, is saying
anything about the human condition. Especially if the thing is from a
mass-produced packaged kit. For all we know, the modeller has strong feelings
about the subject, how it was used, by whom, etc. But none of that is
communicated in a model sitting on a display stand. What is communicated is
airbrush technique. That's about it.
Maybe some model-based dioramas COULD be art. I've never seen or heard of one
that is. Mostly they are an interesting way to pose models, and are no more
about human expression than your average electric train layout.
Now here's my most radical statement. Oil paintings on canvas are not
necessarily art either. Aviation "art" is unfortunately a good example. There
is not one single aviation artist -- not Dietz, not Taylor, not anybody -- who
has much of a reputation in the broader art community. Appreciation of
aviation art is entirely confined to the aviation art and buff community --
aviation art galleries, aviation art dealers, displays in aviation museums.
Why? Because with very rare exceptions, aviation art is not SAYING anything.
The "best" aviation art paintings are technically excellent representations of
an aircraft in its environment -- in other words, just a model airplane diorama
in 2 dimensions.
By the standards of real art, hardly anything connected with aviation has
qualified. One can think of a few examples. John Gillespie McGee's "High
Flight" is art. Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" is art, as are the writings of
Saint-Exupery. A couple of the best aviation related films, like "Spirit of
St. Louis," are art. Please understand, I'm not holding myself out as an art
critic or anything of the kind, all I'm saying is that these are things anyone
can look at and say, "Gee, this is about a hell of a lot more than airplanes."
August
Ruediger Landmann
Stewart Gordon (sgor...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Hello All,
:
: I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"? By
: that, I mean in the eye of the public.
Because the public equates miniature cars, tanks, ships and planes with
toys. In their eyes we are, at best, toymakers, and at worst, little boys
who haven't grown up.
Also, whilst I obviously think there's more to it than that, I would
hesitate to call what we do "art" most of the time, as to me, "art" has
interpretive and expressive components that model-building usually
doesn't. Model building also usually has a mass-production element not
usually associated with art.
: As for my two cents, I think
: what we do is at least equal to painting fruit on a piece of canvas.
: Please, let's not start talking about fruit and artists, I just meant
: it as an example! Anyway, what does everyone else think?
At least equal in the level of technical competence, hand skill, and
craftspersonship - yes, but still fundamentally different in terms of what
I mentioned above. Not better, nor worse - just different. You could just
as well ask "why isn't model building an Olympic sport?"
: Also, what would it take to make our hobby accepted as an art form?
I don't think it can (or should) be.
KDur597268
>r John Cage
>performing his "masterpiece" 4:33 (which is 4 minutes and 33
>seconds of NOTHING)
Sorry, but I knew John Cage - and he would NOT have called 4'33" "art". More
of a commentary on art and the "artworld". Look at the BODY of his work. Most
people know this "piece" and nothing else and judge his entire output by it.
That it has attained such fame that people who know nothing of contemporary
music would site it as often as they do, almost does qualify it as a
"masterpiece" - a title he would laugh at. His point precisely. He was trying,
in 4'33", to throw the spotlight back out into the audience to get us to check
out what is happening in ourselves - the other half of the formula of
artist/audience. One can't exist without the other.
I know nothing of Krysto's or Manzoni's intentions, but I do know that I'm
grateful to John Cage for his openness and elfin sense of humor. Not to speak
of some truly beautiful music.
Ken Durling
James B
I want to be a skilled modeler. That's why I build models and hang around
r.m.s. If being an artist was my goal, I'd probably dodge r.m.s. and read
other newsgroups.
I'm sure glad this hobby isn't classified as art, it would probably drive
up kit prices!
Maybe artists are really scale modeler wannabes. ;<)
James B
Casey Armstrong
Four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence from John Cage may not be
an art form, but it sure is a blessing!
Peace †
Casey Armstrong
JMChladek
>I fail to see how putting together a kit from an instruction sheet can be
>called art.
>By all means the results when you put in your masses of creativity will be
>interesting, provocative, mindboggeling or what ever.... but art?
Well, assembly itself isn't necessarily art. But, the more work required by
the individual modeler to turn a few peices of plastic (albeit, the parts are
precut and go together in a certain way) into a completed model, then the more
his skills come into play and the more it becomes his work. We have all
assembled models that go together pretty easily, but the big challenge is in
building that crappy kit which no one else will touch, but you will because it
is the only thing available of the subject you want. Techniques on building
and sanding say a lot about a modeler. Everyones skill is different and we
don't all use the same tools to do similar jobs. The creativity comes in how
those skills are applied and sculpting the plastic to do what you want it to,
not the other way around.
The same goes for painting. Granted a good job can be done by anyone when
there is adequite color information provided in the kit and decals that always
work well. But, what if you want to do that most obscure paintscheme known to
man where pictures are almost impossible to get and each color has to be custom
made to get the proper shade. Then you use the skills of paint mixing and the
Mk 1 eyeball to tell you that it looks right. And then you apply the skillful
use of the brush (paintbrush or airbrush) and other materials to achieve the
proper effect. And when it comes to decals, it may be possible to find what is
needed, but if the subject is really obscure, then something will have to be
custom made or adapted. Again, skills come into play. And when is all said
and done, you will have that one of a kind model, it may have started out as a
kit, but if assembled and painted right out of the box, it will probably have
exposed seams, have some inaccuracy that the manufacturer put into it, and have
a paintscheme that most everyone else has used. In this case, it has been
meticulously and painstakingly assembled, filled, painted and finished using
techniques that you may have learned, but they are applied in a fashion thats
says, "I DID THIS!"
So granted, assembly of a kit and painting it may not necessarily be classified
as an artform in one sense. But, the art is in the building. We are the
artists for being able to do what we do with the various parts, materials and
tools. The plastic is our canvas and our materials are the glue, the putty
tube , the airbrush and the decal solvent. If somebody says "Thats not art"
then ask them to try doing what you did to this model. Let them slave away for
weeks at a time trying to get those X-acto etched panel lines straight, or
making sure that paint finish on the car model is mirror smooth with no orange
peel, or getting the proper color of paint on that model of the classic U.S.S.
Enterprise and getting the decals to lay down with no silvering. Then, subject
them to an IPMS judged contest and let the parts fall where they may.
So much for my two cents. This is not trying to be inflamitory or deragatory,
I am just expressing my opinion.
Jay Chladek
Bill Michaels
Woodworkers sometimes ask the same question. Many people consider that
Chippendale chairs are more than just another place to sit, for example.
I have occasionally seen (scratchbuilt) wooden ship models in art
galleries. A museum quality ship period ship model may carry a price tag
in the $10000-$20000 range.
Stewart Gordon <sgor...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<350f5fb6...@news.mindspring.com>...
> Hello All,
>
> I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"? <snip>
>
> Also, what would it take to make our hobby accepted as an art form?
>
> Stewart Gordon
>
E McCann
Bluey wrote:
>
> I think it is an art form , its just that the critics and the yuppie's
> havent discovered us yet.
Thank God... And you thought kit prices were high *NOW!*
"$10,000 for a half assembled Hasegawa BF-109?"
"It's art."
-Eric
emc...@iag.net
Albatrosdv
Okay, I'll bite.
Modelbuilding is more a "craft" than an "art," though when I see something like
Robert Karr's diorama of Eddie Rickenbacker's return to Toul Airdrome, I have
to say it is more than mere craft. I don't know that it speaks to the human
condition in any way, which is what I do try to do - and sometimes even succeed
at - in my other incarnation as a dramatic writer.
Personally, I hope it never gets officially classified as art, because I make
money off my modelling, and I can assure any of you that, if you make a living
as an artist, the tax rules regarding what is or is not deductible, how it is
calculated, when it can be applied, etc., would be enough to turn you off art
were you an artist.
Fortunately, since the IRS doesn't consider models "art," when I make a
donation of models to the Planes of Fame Museum, I can just take them as a
charitable contribution at their "market" value, which I can determine since I
have some collectors who buy other models I make.
So, as far as my personal little part of the world is concerned, I'd rather
identify us all as the oddballs the rest of society labels us, so we can go off
and be left alone by the "normies" and have a good time with this craft.
Cheers,
Tom Cleaver
Albat...@aol.com
Wesley Fok
Stewart Gordon wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> what we do is at least equal to painting fruit on a piece of canvas.
> Please, let's not start talking about fruit and artists, I just meant
> it as an example! Anyway, what does everyone else think?
I think people don't think it's an art form because of a couple of
things. First, model building = replica building. There really isn't
much interpretation or artistic license involved, in most cases (unless
you're doing stuff like 'what-if's and stuff). Second, since people only
see replicas, many will think 'wow, that's realistic', without too much
of an inkling of what goes into the work. Some people who just walked in
from the street into a model convention may not realize that all the
models are plastic or resin. Since there isn't too much of an
appreciation of the work involved, there's no appreciation of model
building as an art.
Finally, building models, for some, is something you did when you were a
kid. This equates, in their heads, models to fingerpainting, or sidewalk
chalk, or something like that. Now, with the exception of those weird
modern art curators in weird museums that I know I'll never go to (just
kidding :) we wouldn't really think of that kind of stuff as fine art.
Of course, an argument could be made that since the model isn't
abstract, it isn't art, but I digress :)
--
Wesley Fok - The Lone Andorran
/ mailto:wf...@netside-cafe.on.ca
/__ -----------------------
/ This space for rent. :)
/ -----------------------
\/ Descent and More at http://www.sentry-tech.com/arsentia/strobe/
Super Soakers - http://www.sentry-tech.com/arsentia/ss/index.html
Mark Schynert
Unfortunately fo rthis discussion, but perhaps fortunately for all of
us, the definition of art cannot be pinned to the paper like a moth in a
collection. Art is subjective, and therefore we have idiosyncratic definitions of it, though of course, many of these definitions overlap
with each other, and thus concensus arises in a broad center. Bach,
Michaelangelo, Shakespeare--artists by any reasonable definition. But
Christo or Warhol or John Cage? We may differ. And likewise, we may
differ regarding modeling as art (and I think I do differ with August,
at least in this regard.) Photorealistic painting can be art, not
merely a recordation of something not preserved on film. And it is a
very short step from photorealism to tromp l'oeil. Look at some of
Magritte's work in particular. So if I build a stock kit of a De Lorean,
in that brushed stainless steel finish, maybe that's merely craft. But
if I do that same De Lorean in red, with white swishes (a la a Coke
can), it is now unequivocally art (perhaps trivial art, but art), as I
am making an oblique comment about Mr. De Lorean himself.
Particularly in the area of scratch-building, the distinction between
art and craft becomes difficult, and probably not useful. Scratch work
and kit bashing is the modeller's way of imaginatively extending the
envelope of representable prototypes. What has this got to do with art,
as opposed to history? The best example I have seen recently to help
illustrate my point was a collection at the recent Kick-Off Classic in
Milpitas, CA. Eleven 1/72 Spitfires were grouped together; not only did
it show the historical variety of Spitfires effectively, but it also
enunciated the beauty of line that trascended individual mark variation
and color scheme differences. It was an expression of beauty, in other
words. (there was also a 1/72 scale pig parked in the middle of this
collection, which may have expressed an artisitic message I didn¼t
grasp!)
So, modeling can be art. Or maybe it isn¼t.
Mark Schynert
Weasel
ahorv...@aol.com (AHorv43767) wrote:
>*Sigh* all right, I'll get out the asbestos suit and bite on this one.
>Building models, especially from packaged kits, is not and cannot be an art
>form in the strict sense. It can be art in a much looser sense. Most of the
>people who have said it is on art on this thread are using "art" in the loose
>sense. Some of them have demonstrated that they don't know what art in the
>strict sense is.
>Art in the strict sense -- I'll reveal my bias by calling it "real art" -- is
>not just, or not even, technically competent representation of some object.
>The purpose of art is to try to express something beyond the thing being
>represented.
Especially if the thing is from a
>Maybe some model-based dioramas COULD be art. I've never seen or heard of one
>that is. Mostly they are an interesting way to pose models, and are no more
>about human expression than your average electric train layout.
>Now here's my most radical statement. Oil paintings on canvas are not
>necessarily art either. Aviation "art" is unfortunately a good example.
>August
Hi,
Well put, I agree completely.
I have always regarded modeling as a highly skilled form of
craftspersonship. We are recreating real-world objects in miniature.
I've always felt that to qualify as "art", something altogether "new"
has to be created, as in abstract art (which I don't really care for),
or a "new representation" of something has to be created, as in, for
example, a still life. Art is reinterpreting reality, not recreating
it in another medium.
This is hard to explain, so I'll just can it. BTW, the railroad guys
fight over this issue fairly regularly. Personally, I don't consider
model railroading to be art either.
Jus' my 2 cents.
Weasel
Rommel1234
>"$10,000 for a half assembled Hasegawa BF-109?"
>"It's art."
>
>-Eric
Hey, I have one of those! I'll let it go for a _substantial_ markdown from
the above quoted price, too. Guess I should take bids....;<)#)
James B
Don Stauffer
Gee, I missed the start of this thread, though it is one I am sure
interested in. Many art museum directors DO consider modeling an art.
I have been in several museums that feature a model ship or a whole
model ship collection. No, I don't mean maritime museums, I DO mean art
museums.
Now, for the most part these are art museums that emphasize historical
art more than modern art. Lets face it, model shipbuilding is the
oldest of the model genre. Maybe in a couple hundred years we WILL see
model airplanes, model cars, etc., in art museums.
--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/
home email- stau...@gte.net
work email- stau...@htc.honeywell.com
AAMRESIN
>
>Hello All,
>
>I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"? By
>that, I mean in the eye of the public. As for my two cents, I think
>what we do is at least equal to painting fruit on a piece of canvas.
>Please, let's not start talking about fruit and artists, I just meant
>it as an example! Anyway, what does everyone else think?
>
>
>Stewart Gordon
Stewart,
If success as a model-builder were to mean recognition as an "art-form" in
the manner that seems to be accepted in this modern world, then screw it! No
way in hell would I want to be considered in the same breath with "Krystall" or
God forbid--Robert Mapplethorpe!
Art Anderson
HB
Yes, but is yours are? Is it half assembled in a way that says
something profound about the human condition? :)
One art critic to another: "You see, it speaks to the futility of human
endeavors, to the loneliness and forlornness of projects half started
and then forgotten, to the awkward purgatory between existing in
completeness and not existing.... And the touch of dust over the top is
just masterful, and that delicate spiderweb left just so.... It's
really an amazing piece of work, vewry poignant and moving.... And a
bargain at twice the price, I'd say."
- Brooks
Gene K
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:49:21 -0800, HB <h...@writeme.com> wrote:
> "You see, it speaks to the futility of human
>endeavors, to the loneliness and forlornness of projects half started
>and then forgotten, to the awkward purgatory between existing in
>completeness and not existing.... And the touch of dust over the top is
>just masterful, and that delicate spiderweb left just so....
I love you, man!
Gene K
Paolo Pizzi
Wesley Fok wrote:
> I think people don't think it's an art form because of a couple of
> things. First, model building = replica building.
So what, Michelangelo built human replicas, isn't that art? ;-)
> There really isn't
> much interpretation or artistic license involved, in most cases (unless
> you're doing stuff like 'what-if's and stuff).
So what, it wasn't until Picasso or Braque that artists depicted
women with two noses or 6 eyes...that's what I'd call "what if"
stuff ;-)
OK joking apart, I believe that real artists are those who do
WELL what they do, no matter what they do. I think this is
a pretty simple definition everybody can agree on.
After surrealism, nihilism, abstractism, post-atomic cynicism
etc. IMHO asking what "art" is can only be a pointless waste
of brain resources :-)
Paolo Pizzi
http://navismagazine.com
Paolo Pizzi
E McCann wrote:
> "$10,000 for a half assembled Hasegawa BF-109?"
> "It's art."
Convincing someome and getting him/her to pay
$10,000 for a half-assembled BF109, now
*THAT* would be true art!!! :-)
And that's the very reason why I consider Jim Cameron
one of the greatest artists of our time ;-) (VBG)
Paolo Pizzi
http://navismagazine.com
Paolo Pizzi
Paolo Pizzi
James B wrote:
> Maybe artists are really scale modeler wannabes. ;<)
No, but they were probably scale modeler failures ;-)
Paolo Pizzi
http://navismagazine.com
Brooks Moses
Ruediger Landmann wrote:
>
> AAMRESIN (aamr...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : If success as a model-builder were to mean recognition as an "art-form" in
> : the manner that seems to be accepted in this modern world, then screw it! No
> : way in hell would I want to be considered in the same breath with "Krystall" or
> : God forbid--Robert Mapplethorpe!
>
> What about a figure-kit of Art?
>
> :)
Art is Art.
Or, a kindergarden reader on how an All American Models resin body is
made:
Art works. See Art work. Work, Art, work! Art works very well.
Art Art's works artworks? Or art Art's works not artworks?
- Brooks
Jeff Harrison
>I have always regarded modeling as a highly skilled form of
>craftspersonship. We are recreating real-world objects in miniature.
>I've always felt that to qualify as "art", something altogether "new"
>has to be created, as in abstract art (which I don't really care for),
>or a "new representation" of something has to be created, as in, for
>example, a still life. Art is reinterpreting reality, not recreating
>it in another medium.
>
that modelers, even when trying to be as true to life as possible,
"reinterpret reality" every day. Since almost nobody has perfect references
for any subject they build the best they can do is use what they have to for
an opinion of what the "reality" is. Then they set out to render their
vision of that "reality" in (usually) plastic. The fact that they start with
a commercially available kit doesn't matter anymore than an artist starting
with commercially available canvas and paint. Or are you saying that unless
they stretch their own canvas, make their own paint and make their own
brushes they are not producing art?
The real reasons that scale modeling is not considered to be "art" are, as
has been pointed out in this thread, that modeling is associated with
playing with toys and the prejudice of the art community. Plastic scale
models may be considered an art form if they last long enough, photography
is only just breaking into the art circle and it's been around for over 100
years. Since plastic isn't that old maybe it will qualify around the turn of
the next century.
For what it's worth my dictionary says this about art;
art n. 1. the quality, production, expression, or realm of what is beautiful
or of more than ordinary significance. 2. the class of objects subject to
aesthetic criteria, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings. 3. a field or
category of art: Dance is an art 5................
this is what it says about craft;
craft n. 1. an art, trade or occupation requiring special skill, esp. manual
skill. 2. skill; dexterity. 3. cunning; deceit. 4. the membership of a
guild. ...........9. to make or manufacture with great skill and care.
craftsman n. 1.a person who is skilled in a craft, artisan. 2. an artist.
As you can see, a craft by definition is art.
Jeff
IPMS something or other
Brooks Moses
Rommel1234 wrote:
> I wish I had time to hang out at the art newsgroups a little bit, that has to
> be a great place to pick up fuel for this thread!
Well, we could always crosspost the question to a few, to get some
interesting feedback, flame wars, and other enjoyable responses.
Note that if you actually try this, it's at your own risk and I will not
be held responsible for the consequences. :)
- Brooks
Ruediger Landmann
William Just
In a previous article, h...@writeme.com (HB) says:
>Rommel1234 wrote:
>>
>> >"$10,000 for a half assembled Hasegawa BF-109?"
>> >"It's art."
>> >
>> >-Eric
>>
>> Hey, I have one of those! I'll let it go for a _substantial_ markdown from
>> the above quoted price, too. Guess I should take bids....;<)#)
>
>Yes, but is yours are? Is it half assembled in a way that says
>something profound about the human condition? :)
>
>One art critic to another: "You see, it speaks to the futility of human
>endeavors, to the loneliness and forlornness of projects half started
>and then forgotten, to the awkward purgatory between existing in
>completeness and not existing.... And the touch of dust over the top is
>just masterful, and that delicate spiderweb left just so.... It's
>really an amazing piece of work, vewry poignant and moving.... And a
>bargain at twice the price, I'd say."
>
>- Brooks
>
quite. and the fact that youre willing to sell it at a "substantial markdown"
marks it as definately NOT art!!! art is priceless so therefore it cannot be
marked down. only crass exploiters would condenscend to mark true art down,
therefore making the piece not art but junk. not arty junk either. so there.
now im going down to the espresso shop for a latte and to consider my next
model, er, piece. yeah thats it...piece.
anyway, isnt art short for arthur?
--
one love
rasta4I
jah bill
Rommel1234
>The real reasons that scale modeling is not considered to be "art" are, as
>has been pointed out in this thread, that modeling is associated with
>playing with toys and the prejudice of the art community. Plastic scale
>models may be considered an art form if they last long enough,
>Jeff
>IPMS something or other
From what I've heard, modeling is more highly regarded in Japan, having
originated as a hobby of wealthier people. This was given as the reason
_somewhere_ for the traditional quality of Japanese kits.... If this is true
(I don't know, myself), then is modeling considered art in Japan? How about
other countries?
Seems to me that a lot of art is the product of wealth, something that requires
wealthy patronage....
Is modeling at the same relative stage that painting was 20,000 years ago, when
it was done on the cave wall?
The term "art" isn't qualified in this thread very much. Are there different
ranks to art? Maybe modeling qualifies as low art.
I wish I had time to hang out at the art newsgroups a little bit, that has to
be a great place to pick up fuel for this thread!
James B
Morten Staale
Use of skill is not necessarily art....
Everybody with reading capabilty is able to read a text out loud.
To read that text (or perform a song) in a manner that you move the
audience is performing art.
Provocative statement follows:
Pavarotti is capable of doing "Annies song" "more correctly" than
John Denver ever did. But only John Denvers performance is art.....
The reason is that the skill of Pavarotti is out place in the message
of "Annies Song"....
Guitar playing is an art form, but being the fastest guitar player does
not mean anything else than just that...
Playing the Star Sprangeled Banner (sorry for any misprints) in 45 seconds
may not be art, but it takes a lot of skill...
Jimi Hendrix was a skilled guitarist that managed to provoce a whole
nation,
not by playing the anthem correctly...
(english is still not my native Language)
So back to modelling (the art of.....;-), being the best skilled modeler
does
not automatically make you an artist.
Morten Staale
Burkhard Domke
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:49:21 -0800, HB <h...@writeme.com> wrote:
>One art critic to another: "You see, it speaks to the futility of human
>endeavors, to the loneliness and forlornness of projects half started
>and then forgotten, to the awkward purgatory between existing in
>completeness and not existing.... And the touch of dust over the top is
>just masterful, and that delicate spiderweb left just so.... It's
>really an amazing piece of work, vewry poignant and moving.... And a
>bargain at twice the price, I'd say."
Excellent!
Ever had the fun of attending a vernisage? Search for a group
discussing an abstract picture the way you described so perfectly,
listen for a while and then calmly state "Actually, some ignorants got
this one upside-down"...
RLHDLW Burkhard
Hauptstadt Temple
Ruediger Landmann
Brooks Moses (bmo...@stanford.edu) wrote:
: Well, we could always crosspost the question to a few, to get some
: interesting feedback, flame wars, and other enjoyable responses.
OK here goes...
Welcome to the rec.arts.fine folks. The current topic for debate is
whether scale modelling should be considered an art form, given the amount
of skill involved in building and painting these models to accurately
depict their historical prototypes.
Is it only that the subject matter (miniature ships, cars, tanks,
aircraft) etc. is regarded as "unworthy" of being called art?
Is it that models are generally assembled from mass-produced kits?
Is it that a model somehow lacks something quintessentially artistic in
not being a reflection or comment on the human condition?
Is it important to distinguish arts from crafts? Why? How do we make such
a distinction?
Please join us in kicking these questions around!
Joe Hegedus
Rommel1234 wrote:
>
> >The real reasons that scale modeling is not considered to be "art" are, as
> >has been pointed out in this thread, that modeling is associated with
> >playing with toys and the prejudice of the art community. Plastic scale
> >models may be considered an art form if they last long enough,
>
> >Jeff
> >IPMS something or other
>
> From what I've heard, modeling is more highly regarded in Japan, having
> originated as a hobby of wealthier people. This was given as the reason
> _somewhere_ for the traditional quality of Japanese kits.... If this is true
> (I don't know, myself), then is modeling considered art in Japan? How about
> other countries?
>
> Seems to me that a lot of art is the product of wealth, something that requires
> wealthy patronage....
I don't know how modeling is perceived in Japan, having never been
there, but I just want to make the following comment:
I'd rather be know as a Craftsman than an Artist. In my view,
craftsmanship is timeless, and artistry is subject to the whims of the
times and the "cultural elite". Fine craftsmanship doesn't require
"interpretation".
Joe
Peter Trott
Jeff Harrison wrote:
> this is what it says about craft;
>
> craft n. 1. an art, trade or occupation requiring special skill, esp. manual
> skill. 2. skill; dexterity. 3. cunning; deceit. 4. the membership of a
> guild. ...........9. to make or manufacture with great skill and care.
>
> craftsman n. 1.a person who is skilled in a craft, artisan. 2. an artist.
>
> As you can see, a craft by definition is art.
>
> Jeff
> IPMS something or other
Aha! Modeling is definitely (by definition) a craft. See (3) above:
I always have to use mucho cunning and deceit to get new models into
the house. Case closed.
Sincerely,
Peter
I have PMS too.
Nick Kiriokos
Peter Trott wrote:
> Aha! Modeling is definitely (by definition) a craft. See (3) above:
> I always have to use mucho cunning and deceit to get new models into
> the house. Case closed.
Which is as much an "art" form as anything else!
Nick
TRrmin8r
Joe,
You know, I think you've got a point there. Besides, 'craftsman' sounds more
manly than 'artist' anyway (said while doing my best Tool Time 'grunt'.)
Steve Filak,Sr.=RLWDH
Temple Northeast (of the Umpteenth Order)
Member-Hudson Valley Historical Miniatures Guild
DBatt56523
Well, who'd have thought this topic would have created such a response?
FWIW, as soon as I see or hear terms such as "exploring the human condition"
being bandied about, I *know* that the topic is 'crap art' and experts are
making excuses for another's lack of ability while at the same time presuming
to place themselves on a higher level because of their ability to see a 'human'
meaning that is beyond our loutish sensibilities.
However, where modelling is concerned I'd make the following comparisons;
Painting a picture on a canvas is certainly an attempt to be art, but how would
you define 'painting by numbers'?
Producing a sculpture may be art, but what about pouring a resin compound into
a rubber mould?
Carpentry using just a square, pencil and saw may be a form of art, but what
about the 'carpenter' who uses a high-tech joint making machine?
I'd suggest that assembling a model from a kit is similar to the second option
in each case, and though it may be described as a 'craft' it is certainly not
an art-form.
The only modellers that I'd regard as even approaching the skills of an artist
are those military modellers who make figure conversions, and can properly
animate figures just by making a few nicks in various joints so that the pose
may be altered 'just so'. Now they really are something else!
David Batt
Gene K
On 19 Mar 1998 09:17:19 GMT, s30...@student.uq.edu.au (Ruediger
Landmann) wrote:
>Brooks Moses (bmo...@stanford.edu) wrote:
>
>: Well, we could always crosspost the question to a few, to get some
>: interesting feedback, flame wars, and other enjoyable responses.
Let's just split the group .... how about rec.models.scale.philosophy?
That group would be appropriate for discussions and flames concerning
art versus craft, swastikas, Japanese/American/German/(insert country
here) atrocities, evil Nazi machinery, lawyers and law, modelers
versus assemblers, and Princess Diana (but should not include for-sale
lists or binaries).
Other appropriate topics could include judges and judging (including
panel line discussions), the Monkee, and Jenning's colorful
language,.... as well as "Who would win in a fight....?), and use of
the name "Anonymous". Of course discussing anything negative about AM
would not be allowed in this newsgroup (or any other).
And finally (finally), this group would give full stage to those who
take great pride in chiding/chastising others (at the slightest
excuse) to "Hey, lighten up, this is a hobby"... and those (usually
the same aforementioned) who can't appreciate tongue in cheek as this
post.
Gene K
Kevin Carroll
Sheesh, lighten up Gene. You'll bust your epiglottis or pancreas.. or
sumpthing.
By the way, do you know when the AM McLarens are coming out?
Kevin
Christopher Lee Frame
Gene K wrote:
> Let's just split the group .... how about rec.models.scale.philosophy?
> That group would be appropriate for discussions and flames concerning
> art versus craft, swastikas, Japanese/American/German/(insert country
> here) atrocities, evil Nazi machinery, lawyers and law, modelers
> versus assemblers, and Princess Diana (but should not include for-sale
> lists or binaries).
That's right for sale stuff should be posted to
rec.models.scale.marketplace.
Vote YES for rec.models.scale.marketplace
Either find the CFV [call for votes] which was posted twice on this
newsgroup or email the votetaker.
PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote
Closes
rec.models.scale.marketplace 2 Mar 13 Mar 23 Mar
Votetaker: Jim Davis <j...@primenet.com>
CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.sf.scale-models
rec.arts.anime.models
rec.games.miniatures.misc
rec.models.railroad
rec.models.scale
CFrame
Ken And Deb Roenneburg
Stewart Gordon wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"? By
> that, I mean in the eye of the public. As for my two cents, I think
> what we do is at least equal to painting fruit on a piece of canvas.
> Please, let's not start talking about fruit and artists, I just meant
> it as an example! Anyway, what does everyone else think?
>
> Also, what would it take to make our hobby accepted as an art form?
>
> Stewart Gordon
Anyone who has ever seen a Shep Paine diorama or a Gerald Wingrove
classic car or any number of other talented artists work know it for
what it is; Art. There will always be some apes out there who feel that
with a tube of glue or two and a bottle of paint, they can build a model
too, and that anyone can do it. Apes can splotch paint on a canvas but
it ain't Art. Art is when the object takes on meaning greater than the
materials used. Whether the material is clay or resin, oil or lacquer
means squat. It's what you take away from the experience of building
that makes it art.
Any number of people will call modeling a "craft". What differentiates
an art form from a craft in my book is that a craft has a limited skill
set, a limited range of expression. I do not see these limitations in
any of the subjects mentioned in RMS: Assembling a model is not Art.
Building a model can be.
As for public perception, I think the tide is turning in some senses:
There are a lot more magazines on the shelves that show the state of the
"Art" in modeling. Anyone thumbing through a FSM or Scale Auto
Enthusiast knows that what they are looking at is not on the same level
as someone with a glue gun and a mitfull of glitter and a coffee can.
Crafts are a distraction. Art is an obsession.
'Nuff said...
Ken R.
Christopher Lee Frame
Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I am just wondering why modeling isn't considered an "art form"?
I do consider it an art form. I bet the Japanese do also. It's just not
as collectible.
> By
> that, I mean in the eye of the public. As for my two cents, I think
> what we do is at least equal to painting fruit on a piece of canvas.
> Please, let's not start talking about fruit and artists, I just meant
> it as an example! Anyway, what does everyone else think?
Again, I believe modeling is definitely art. No doubt about it. I feel
that a really good modeler's work should command a nice price. Two
aspects. Those that make the models for people to build (i.e. the kits
or resin stuff) are art in themselves. Second those that transform the
kits into an assembled, painted, finished model - again art.
I always considered all my mechanical drawings art, and have seen very
complex ones that in color are quite a sight.
> Also, what would it take to make our hobby accepted as an art form?
Well, you'd have to convince the people that "see" something in a
"painting" made by strapping a paintbrush to a monkey's butt and tossing
him onto canvas, that models are something DEEP to be THOUGHT about. The
dumb ones that don't "see" anything will buy into it because they don't
want to be left out and considered uncultured. So all you have to do is
find (or highly pay) someone in the art "elite" to "say the word", then
they will give us all the money and those monkeys will be out of work
(hey we'll bring 'em into the modeling industry we don't hold grudges).
CFrame
Vote YES for rec.models.scale.marketplace
>
>
> Stewart Gordon
Richard Marmo
So that we're all starting from the same place, let's consider the
folowing statement: Modelbuilding, in and of itself, is NOT an art. And
neither is painting, sculpture, writing or any of the generally accepted
art fields.
Art is NOT the end product. Art is the process of artistic ability and
talent that resides within the individual. If a person has no talent or
artistic ability for a particular skill, there will also be no art evident
in the finished product.
When a person applies this God-given talent and artistic ability to the
construction of a model, the end result will be a model that is so
realistic that it will look like you took the real thing and shrank it.
If that person has no artistic talent, the result will be a beautiful
model that exhibits excellent craftsmanship. There's certainly nothing
wrong with that, BUT it will still look like a model as opposed to
something real.
Bottom line: Art is the process that flows from the individual to the
end product. When that occurs, the finished model becomes art....or more
correctly, an art form. Without the art process, you wind up with varying
degrees of craftsmanship and nothing more.
Richard Marmo, IPMS/USA #2
"The difference between ignorance and stupidity? Ignorance can be
corrected." -Richard Marmo
David O.
Hello,
Scale Modeling is an Art Form. Art Historians classify this genre as
one of the Minor Arts.
David O.
Gary Zuercher
In article <199803192249...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
trrm...@aol.com (TRrmin8r) wrote:
> Joe,
>
> You know, I think you've got a point there. Besides, 'craftsman' sounds more
> manly than 'artist' anyway (said while doing my best Tool Time 'grunt'.)
>
> Steve Filak,Sr.
As described in the Clint Eastwood movie "Line of Fire",
"Who are these model people, anyway?"
" A bunch of wacko sub-culturists".
...and damn pround of it I might add!
--
Regards,
Gary Z
Jim S.
Hi David,
I saw your post. I think this is a very interesting question and I tossed in a
couple of thoughts below.
BTW, I've seen your work in SAMI and I think it's pretty impressive - especially
the Defiant.
DBatt56523 wrote:
> Well, who'd have thought this topic would have created such a response?
>
> FWIW, as soon as I see or hear terms such as "exploring the human condition"
> being bandied about, I *know* that the topic is 'crap art' and experts are
> making excuses for another's lack of ability while at the same time presuming
> to place themselves on a higher level because of their ability to see a 'human'
> meaning that is beyond our loutish sensibilities.
>
[Everyone please indulge me for a moment while I digress into a rant on a
non-modelling-related peeve]
Beautifully put. I agree absolutely. When you see the work of DaVinci or
Michalangelo, it takes your breath away. But, I'm sorry, three red triangles, a
blue paint blob and a black line is not art (unless the artist is five years old),
nor is a pile of car bumpers welded together into some unintelligible shape - and
they say nothing about the human condition. The look in Mary's eyes in Botticelli's
'Madonna with Child', Michalangelo's David as he gazes up to God, the rush of
emotion, joy and precision in the last movement of Mozart's Jupiter symphony - all
these clearly say something about the human condition - and this is the reason why
we still know these artist's names centuries after they lived. The kind of nonsense
embodied in what you so eloquently refer to as 'crap art' is why most 'regular'
people don't want to spend alot of time around the arts - which is a real shame.
The wonders of the universe are captured in the arts, once you get past the
nonsense. I'm reminded of something I once heard the great author Tom Wolfe say in
response to the question 'Why don't many authors try to write the great American
novel anymore?" His reply: 'Because it's hard'.
[Thanks for bearing with me everyone, I feel better now :-) ]
> However, where modelling is concerned I'd make the following comparisons;
>
> Painting a picture on a canvas is certainly an attempt to be art, but how would
> you define 'painting by numbers'?
probably a craft, with minimal requirements or potential for skill development
> Producing a sculpture may be art, but what about pouring a resin compound into
> a rubber mould?
>
a technical skill, assuming that you're copying something made by someone else.I
don't pour resin, but it sounds like it may not be all that easy.
> Carpentry using just a square, pencil and saw may be a form of art, but what
> about the 'carpenter' who uses a high-tech joint making machine?
>
Again, a technical skill. Although I assume that you're using extreme examples to
makea point, there is a whole lot of room in the term 'craft'.
> I'd suggest that assembling a model from a kit is similar to the second option
> in each case, and though it may be described as a 'craft' it is certainly not
> an art-form.
>
> The only modellers that I'd regard as even approaching the skills of an artist
> are those military modellers who make figure conversions, and can properly
> animate figures just by making a few nicks in various joints so that the pose
> may be altered 'just so'. Now they really are something else!
>
> David Batt
I take your point, as far as getting the basic shapes of the model are concerned.
But once the pieces are glued together (and there is a wide variation in quality of
work possible even with this), we're on our own as far as blending those shapes and
providing color and finishing is concerned. Color selection/alteration, application
of the color schemes, weathering, base/vignette/diorama creation, etc. all need to
be done without aid (with the possible exception of using colors straight from a
bottle without altering them). I think that what connects your examples below is
the concept of 'how much guiding/foolproofing is inherent in the materials and
equipment vs. how much vision and skill are being provided by the artist/craftsman
as evidenced by the product produced with materials and equipment that don't know
too much about the particular task you're trying to accomplish'. (I think that was
the longest sentence ever created by western man ;) This would be the difference
between a hand plane and a joiner, or an airbrush and a 'WWII Allied single-engined
fighter camoflage machine' (if such a thing existed).
I think that the best test of this type of question is how well could a person off
the street perform a task if we gave them the tools and equipment. I think that
they could do a paint-by-number pretty quickly. I think that they could use a power
joiner pretty quickly. Although they might be able to glue the pieces of a kit
together pretty quickly, I don't think that they could build a nice model very
quickly. This is because there are a tremendous number of steps and individual
skills involved in getting to the end point of a nice model. Some of the steps are
technical. Some involve craft. Others involve art. Some of the steps are pretty
straightforward, some of them take many years to master - if ever in my case. It's
the number, richness and variety of these skills that make this a pursuit that can
fascinate smart people for a lifetime. Anyways, here's how the continnuum goes in
my brain:
1) Any smart person can be trained to be a technician. (Although not all of them
can become troubleshooters - there is art in that.)
2) Some people can become craftsmen/women. Craft is a combination of skill and art.
3) Very few people can become full-blown artists - there is stuff here that comes
from deep inside and an ability to see things and create things in ways that no one
has before - originality. I don't think anyone has ever been able to explain where
it comes from. (As a side note, it's always been my opinion that there are alot of
so-called artists who are in fact craftsmen/women because their work is essentially
derivative).
Just my $0.02 worth. Fascinating discussion - let's hear from more people!
-Jim Spraner
AHorv43767
This has been a good thread, with some mature and sophisticated posts on both
sides. I think we have made some real progress in positioning scale modelling
vis a vis art. I've saved a lot of the better responses and wonder if a
summary of where we are might be useful at this point.
There seems to be consensus that the question is mostly a matter of
distinguishing art from non-art and then asking whether scale modelling has, or
can have, those distinguishing qualities. The distinctions that have been
offered fall into the following categories.
1. ART AS SKILL. Several posters have made some variation of the assertion
that something becomes art if it is done well enough, including Trevor Thomas,
Jay Chladek, Paolo Pizzi, Richard Marmo, and Jeff Harrison. It follows that
not all scale models are art, but that they certainly can be, if executed well
enough. The two shortcomings of this definition are: (1) without some further
qualification, anything from writing a symphony to cleaning my apartment could
be an art; and, (2) it is hard to imagine how to define where "craft" becomes
good enough to become "art;" and, as some posters have suggested, there is also
a need for a second, lower threshhold where modelling becomes a "craft," rather
than something less than a craft ("toy"?).
I felt a momentary hesitation about aligning Richard Marmo with this camp
because he appears to define art as competence-plus, with the plus factor being
an inborn talent or ability. However, his claimed result of this talent, "a
model that is so realistic that it will look like you took the real thing and
shrank it," rather than like a model, is presumably what most modellers are
trying to achieve and therefore seems to be a form of super-competence rather
than anything different in kind. Moreover, Richard's definition has the same
shortcomings as others in this group, namely that it potentially encompasses
all human activity and challenges us to define a threshhold between a model,
built with acquired skills, that looks like a great model, versus a model built
with innate talent that looks like the real thing shrunken. This distinction
seems unworkable to me even in principle, let alone in practice. So I'll lump
Richard in with the art-as-skill camp, only with the footnote that some people
are born with abilities the rest of us don't have. Call them the Michael
Jordans of modelling.
2. ART AS EXPRESSION. Morten Staale, Stewart Gordon, and myself have expressed
the view that art is about expressing some human feeling and that scale
modelling as usually practiced can almost never qualify. Others have objected
that this sounds elitist and even equated it with "crap art" favored by the
cultural elite, but I think the examples we, especially Morten, have cited show
that we don't intend this category to depend on any particular medium or art
establishment viewpoint and agree that popular arts such as pop music, film,
and yes, even television are probably where the best artistic expression is
being done today.
The only problem that I see with this definition is that it may not conform
with either popular or elite usage, e.g., Scott Adams' "Dilbert" cartoons
clearly say something about the human condition and are easily art by this
definition, but perhaps not to most people or to the art elite. On the other
hand, there are things that might be termed "decorative arts," such as quilting
or jewelry making, that are relatively devoid of human expression (although
perhaps this could be disputed) but that are regarded as arts by most of the
public and have gained a certain amount of respectability in the art world.
3. ART AS CREATIVITY. It has been suggested by "doug" and David Batt that
assembly according to instructions may not be art, but that modelling becomes
art when the modeller deviates from the instruction sheet and makes the model
"his own," which most of us would agree is necessary at some point to make a
decent replica out of almost any available kit. I like several things about
this definition. First, it implies that any modeller, of any age, who makes a
calculated departure from the instructions is doing art. Personally, I find it
comfortable to say that almost all modellers are doing art, and that some are
merely doing it better than others, rather than the Definition #1 approach
which implies that the best modellers are doing something not only better, but
qualitatively different than the rest of us. Second, although this definition
is somewhat overinclusive in that creativity can be a part of almost any human
activity, it does have much less of a problem in this regard than Definition
#1, as it rules out at least the most prosaic of activities. And, third, this
definition is probably more consistent with common usage than either #1 or #2,
i.e., it would exclude cleaning my apartment but include quilting and jewelry.
I don't know about Dilbert.
Although the people who have argued for Definition #3 have stated that they
view modelling as art, there would be room for debate on this even among people
who accept the definition. Many artists and much of the general public would
believe that scale modelling, especially from kits, lacks ENOUGH creativity to
be art under this definition, or would characterize it as second-class art at
best owing to the inherent constraints on creativity. Going to Stewart
Gordon's second question in the post that opened this thread, if we are
concerned about having the public see us as doing art, this might be where a
little public education on the degree of creativity involved would be helpful.
(Personal note: I still remember when I was a kid and an uncle got me
Monogram's 1/48 B-25 for Christmas (at that time the biggest and most expensive
kit I had received). He was shocked when I told him all the things I planned
to do in order to build it; he thought all that it took was to glue the parts
together and "stick" the decals on. He must have been impressed with my talk
of paint and filler and research, because the next year he got me the B-24!)
4. ART AS WHAT (SOME) PEOPLE SAY ART IS. Burkhard Domke and Joe Hegedus, and a
few others, cynically equate art with what the art establishment of fat-cat
yuppie snobs designates as art. Obviously models are not art under this
definition, although the real sympathies of the people making this point seem
to lie within the Definition #1 camp, i.e., models are not (seen as) art but
they should be, and would be if the social definition of art were not
controlled by those yuppie snobs.
A less cynical variant is offered by Don Stauffer and David O., who observe
that scale models do receive a certain amount of respect from art historians
and some museums. The examples they cite probably don't go very far toward
refuting the premise with which Stewart started this thread, that modelling is
not seen an art form, especially considering that what respect models do get
from these sources is highly qualified ("Minor" art?). However, it's a notable
point that modelling as an art form is taken more seriously by at least some of
those with some education in the area than by the masses.
All of these Definition #4 guys remind us that the definition of art is
socially constructed and that therefore its definition will not necessarily be
logically consistent or philosophically sound. And, the social definition of
"art" can potentially expand to include scale modelling.
5. ART IS SUBJECTIVE, THEREFORE UNDEFINABLE. Mark Schynart takes a further
step from constructivism to relativism, arguing that individuals will have
idiosyncratic definitions of art and therefore that a general answer to the
question of this thread may be impossible. I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint
but in some ways it sidesteps the initial question of this thread, which asks
whether modelling can be art in the general public's view and assumes (I think
correctly) that among the public there is consensus enough to identify one or a
few definitions of art that can usefully be discussed.
It seems likely to me that we will continue seeing reiterations of these five
basic positions:
1. Modelling can be art because it can exhibit great skill.
2. Modelling cannot be art because it is not expressive.
3. Modelling can be art because it can exhibit creativity.
4. Modelling is not art because people don't define it as such, but maybe it
could or should be.
5. It all depends on what you call art.
Four out of five views offer at least the possibility that modelling can be
seen as art, and two of them (#1 and #3) hold that much modelling IS art
according to reasonable definitions, if only people understood the skill and
creativity that modelling entails. Definitions #4 and #5 do not present such
an optimistic case for convincing the general public that modelling is art,
because they require changing people's minds about what constitutes art as well
as educating them about modelling, which seems a formidable challenge.
This perhaps leaves at least the #1 and #3 people ready to take on Stewart's
second question, which was, "What would it take to make our hobby accepted as
an art form?" But, there are a couple of preliminary questions to be tackled
first.
First, do we care whether our hobby is accepted as an art form? Several people
have already said they don't. Given that modelling is basically a private
pursuit that is shared, if at all, within an insular buff community, it is
certainly reasonable not to care. On the other hand, we all have an interest
in public acceptance of the hobby as at least a craft, inasmuch as this would
encourage the growth of the hobby, which would tend to increase the variety and
decrease the prices of the kits and products that sustain it.
Second, would there be a downside to such acceptance? Consider that, at
present, modelling is viewed as a hobby or craft, like electric trains,
quilting, home electronics, photography, perhaps carpentry or needlepoint. At
the level of craftsmanship, the better scale models can stand proudly with the
best handiwork in any of these fields. Elevate scale modelling to an art and
suddenly you're holding it up next to Picasso, Pink Floyd, and Pavarotti. I'm
afraid even the best scale models that I've seen or can imagine would look like
kiddie stuff in that kind of company. Maybe being a first-rate craft hobby is
better than being a third-rate art?
Hope this is useful in moving the discussion to the next stage.
August
Joe Reid
AHorv43767 (ahorv...@aol.com) wrote:
: Second, would there be a downside to such acceptance? Consider that, at
: present, modelling is viewed as a hobby or craft, like electric trains,
: quilting, home electronics, photography, perhaps carpentry or needlepoint. At
: the level of craftsmanship, the better scale models can stand proudly with the
: best handiwork in any of these fields. Elevate scale modelling to an art and
: suddenly you're holding it up next to Picasso, Pink Floyd, and Pavarotti. I'm
: afraid even the best scale models that I've seen or can imagine would look like
: kiddie stuff in that kind of company. Maybe being a first-rate craft hobby is
: better than being a third-rate art?
:
: Hope this is useful in moving the discussion to the next stage.
First let me say that I think this was a wonderful article, I hope you
save a copy for yourself.
This last paragraph really seems to hold the point I want to make.
Lots of things are or can be considered art. The question should be is
scale modeling a fine art? Commerical airbrush painters who create most
of the print advertising are artists, but would you consider their works
fine are? Do you want to be considered a fine artist? Do you really
want your works compared with Bach, Beethoven, Picaso, Michalengo?
I would have to say no. Most fine art is the creation of something that
is emotionally evocative. Most of the prints that are bought in the mall
frame store are considered art, but does much of it evoke real emotion?
No, it is a pretty picture that you buy to hang on the wall to brighten
up a room.
Most of my weirdo friends who are artists and artist wanna-bes believe
that real art "comes from the soul". Most of my models come from my
imagination.
I'd rather be considered a first class craftsperson than a third rate
artist.
--
Joe Reid
jr...@vnet.net
Tactical Solaris Systems Engineering and Administration
Ruediger Landmann
David O. (dog...@facstaff.wm.edu) wrote:
: Hello,
:
: Scale Modeling is an Art Form. Art Historians classify this genre as
: one of the Minor Arts.
So what criteria separate a "Minor Art" from what I presume must be called
the "Major Arts"? Why is such a distinction useful? and what other things
fall under the "Minor Arts" umbrella?
Weasel
Joe Hegedus <heg...@mail.us.hsanet.net> wrote:
snip
>I'd rather be know as a Craftsman than an Artist. In my view,
>craftsmanship is timeless, and artistry is subject to the whims of the
>times and the "cultural elite". Fine craftsmanship doesn't require
>"interpretation".
>Joe
Well put, Joe. I think that that is a real and important distinction.
Weasel
Weasel
"Jeff Harrison" <jsh...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
snips
The fact that they start with
>a commercially available kit doesn't matter anymore than an artist starting
>with commercially available canvas and paint.
>Jeff
>IPMS something or other
Your observation noted above makes me think that a commercial model
kit (with instructions, of course) is the equivalent of a
paint-by-number canvas. With the former, you create a model according
to the instructions. With the latter, you create a painting according
to the instructions. And kitbashing = painting outside the lines.
Neither is art, IMHO. Nothing "new" has been created. It's craft.
Weasel
mikodo
Ken And Deb Roenneburg <kroe...@inwave.com> writes:
> Anyone who has ever seen a Shep Paine diorama or a Gerald Wingrove
> classic car or any number of other talented artists work know it for
> what it is; Art. There will always be some apes out there who feel that
> with a tube of glue or two and a bottle of paint, they can build a model
> too, and that anyone can do it. Apes can splotch paint on a canvas but
> it ain't Art. Art is when the object takes on meaning greater than the
> materials used. Whether the material is clay or resin, oil or lacquer
> means squat. It's what you take away from the experience of building
> that makes it art.
Anyone thumbing through a FSM or Scale Auto
> Enthusiast knows that what they are looking at is not on the same level
> as someone with a glue gun and a mitfull of glitter and a coffee can.
> Crafts are a distraction. Art is an obsession.
> 'Nuff said...
> Ken R.
Bravo. I wish I said this! How many of us out there have had the
wonderful experience of obsessing for months over a kit, doing the
research, installing more accurate parts, getting the paint job just
so.
Then one of your friends comes over, and as you proudly display
the fruit of your labors, he just glances, says 'cool', then heads for
your fridge? I think only other modelers truly 'get it'. But really,
that's alright by me. EVERYBODY doesn't have to be fascinated with
what we do.
I just realized that I take it for granted that I'll continuously be in
the process of building one kit or another. There's always something
in progress, and always something waiting in the wings. And I like it
that way! 'Normal' or not, it's most satisfying! I just picked up
Lunar Models' Discovery from '2001: A Space Odyssey', and suspect it's
headed for the top of the queue.
Mike (Odo's my dog!)
Garnet Brace
In article <35111B...@mail.us.hsanet.net>, heg...@mail.us.hsanet.net
says...
In my view,
>craftsmanship is timeless, and artistry is subject to the whims of the
>times and the "cultural elite".
Don't make the mistake of granting these "cultural elite" what they want.
They want you to grant them recognition that they are somehow superior
to you in discriminating art. If you refuse them that recognition
then they have no power.
Only you can decide what is to you great art. Don't let anyone usurp that.
Pretty well everthing that I've seen that is called art today is
just plain junk.
--
.... Garnet
return address is fake to try to reduce junk mail
if you wish to send e-mail to me please send to cgbi*ionsys.com
only replace the * with @
WendiKroy
Art or craft? A fascinating topic.
Here are a couple of quick impressions on this subject:
1. "Art" as "Fine Art" for elite souls is a more modern, sentimentalized view
of art. It creates jobs, putting more money in artists' pockets by exalting
art. And it makes people feel part of -- or excluded from -- an imagined
elite. (This reminds me of a joke: What do you call an artist without a
girlfriend? Answer: Homeless.)
2. "Craft" is a subset of "Art". Like crafters, "fine" artist I have known are
concerned with the nuts and bolts of their craft: solving problems of light and
shadow, or color, or materials, or whatever. While some art tries to be
clearly representational -- Air Force art -- other art becomes a medium for
communicating some other message, including subjective, less obvious "truths."
What's more, "great" art often has enough ambiguity for the perceiver to draw
conclusions that the artist never thought of: the corners of Mona Lisa's eyes
and mouth were left deliberately vague. Could this artist's trick be applied
to model kits? Sure.
3. The modeling "Craft," seeks to describe something more concrete -- as
accurately as possible. You *could* paint a picture of Christ, or your
grandmother on the turret of an Abrams tank, but somehow it just doesn't work.
Part of what I like about model kits -- military ones -- is their connection to
something in the outside world. It's satisfying to make something that seems
more like the original. But the craft challenge feels good, and military shapes
have an aesthetically pleasing appeal. And I mostly don't care much for
modeling civilian modes of transport.
4. The line between "art" and "craft" blurs as you become more skilled. The
better you get, the more power you have to choose what you want to represent.
Why not make a B-1 with Jesus' face in camouflage? Is there a message in that?
It could happen. And it would qualify as Art in someone's book.
5. I have met people who have business cards that say "artist," which seems
very pretentious, and cheapens the "fine art" they claim to be offering on
demand. (Got a leak? Call a plumber -- fast! Got a wall? Got money? Call an
artist.)
6. Art and craft are both mental (brain chemical) addictions for some of us.
Food for thought...
Erich Stein
MIKE AND LAURIE WEST
If you don't like for sale adds DON'T READ THEM!!!!
MIKE AND LAURIE WEST
>as someone with a glue gun and a mitfull of glitter and a coffee can.
> Crafts are a distraction. Art is an obsession.
>'Nuff said...
>Ken R.
Ken ,
I agree, I build models on occasion for the Engineering companies
here in the Houston area. This type of model is a craft(limited in
creativity like a paint by numbers set) But My hobby/business at home
is an obsession (just ask my wife)!
Mike West/Lone Star Models
Wayne Leonard Collins
Hello all, this is my first posting. I hope it works.
I live in a country town in New Zealand and work in a theatre/cinema.
Every year we hold an nationwide art exhibition ( even get entries
from as far away as the states). While waiting for "Titanic" to
finish last night I was looking over the entries with the lady that
works with me and we discussed this exact topic - art vs. craft.
The exhibition has a section for wool and fibre and the organisers
were saying that a lot of the entries were just craftwork as opposed
to art. Obviously to the entrant their work is art and so it should
be.
One of the entries chosen in the painting section is a piece of
cardboard painted black. Another is a watercolour of a building. Which
is art?
Peter Greenaway's movies are considered art (probably because not many
people understand them) but Ed Wood's generally aren't. If one movie
is art surely all movies are art.
I believe art is creation. Art is in everything. To categorise one
thing as art and another thing as not art is not fair to the creator.
Something tends to be categorised either way purely as a form of
elitism.
I consider my models as my artistic outlet. I generally make figures
these days ( they may not be good, but hey). I view the model I build
as my canvas. If I wanted I could paint my model totally black or I
could paint it to look realistic. Both are valid and one method does
not make it more artistic than the other.
The modern trend in art is to judge works by the raw emotion put in to
the work even it has no evidence of talent e.g throwing paint at
something. This however does not take into account the subtle
emotions involved in something like a model or a painting of an
aeroplane as previously mentioned. These emotions are a true love of
a subject. Both I guess are therapy.
Sorry to have rambled on. I realise that as my first post this may be
a sensitive topic to reply to and I hope I do not offend anybody.
Wish I could think of something witty!
KDur597268
> I just picked up
>Lunar Models' Discovery from '2001: A Space Odyssey', and suspect it's
>headed for the top of the queue.
>
>
That is one awesome kit! This brings up a class of modelers that in my humble
opinion are most consistently the "artists" among us: the guys and gals who
make the MASTERS for all these kits that we build. The "Discovery" is a case
in point. Amazing work. I'd like to know more about that aspect of modeling.
And how about those that do the masters for figures?? I remove my hat.
Ken Durling (IAV8)
FDameronUT
>>craftsmanship is timeless, and artistry is subject to the whims of the
>>"interpretation".
>
>>Joe
>
>
>Well put, Joe. I think that that is a real and important distinction.
>
>Weasel
>
I'd have to disagree. I've seen lesser things called "art." Being a self
proclaimed artist and somewhat proclaimed by my friends, I'd say model building
at times is both an art and a craft.
Later...
PINK FLOYD
THE WALL
FDameronUT
>Only you can decide what is to you great art. Don't let anyone usurp that.
Well put.
FDameronUT
>5. I have met people who have business cards that say "artist," which seems
>very pretentious, and cheapens the "fine art" they claim to be offering on
>demand. (Got a leak? Call a plumber -- fast! Got a wall? Got money? Call an
>artist.)
I know exactly what you are saying. There was a time when I was ray tracing
flags for a screen saver. I don't remember how many I was trying to create, but
after a while it felt like my talents were being "packaged" for flag a, b, c...
True art takes inspiration.
Charles Goin
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 05:42:57 GMT, way...@voyager.co.nz (Wayne Leonard
Collins) wrote:
> I consider my models as my artistic outlet. I generally make figures
>these days ( they may not be good, but hey). I view the model I build
>as my canvas. If I wanted I could paint my model totally black or I
>could paint it to look realistic. Both are valid and one method does
>not make it more artistic than the other.
>
>The modern trend in art is to judge works by the raw emotion put in to
>the work even it has no evidence of talent e.g throwing paint at
>something. This however does not take into account the subtle
>emotions involved in something like a model or a painting of an
>aeroplane as previously mentioned. These emotions are a true love of
>a subject. Both I guess are therapy.
>
>Sorry to have rambled on. I realise that as my first post this may be
>a sensitive topic to reply to and I hope I do not offend anybody.
>
>Wish I could think of something witty!
Well let me get my 2 cents in.
I think the best way to put it all is this:
It takes great craftsmanship to produce really great art in the
modeling field.
The building of the model and raw painting of it is craftsmanship.
Adding seat belts, spark plug wires, chopping the model down and
adding custom rims and custom paint. All these things be it done well
or bad are expressions of what you want it to be. And are where the
hobby changes fro craft to art.
It is like a painting of a bowl of fruit. Paint it so it looks just
like a bowl of fruit or paint it to look like a fuzzy bowl of fruit or
paint it so the fruit in the bowl are melting all are bowls of fruit.
It is the amount of thought and enrgy that makes it great art from
crap. Same is true of modeling, great models require the craftsmanship
needed to build the model correctly (or customize it correctly), it
takes an artist to turn it from a AMT kit into a lower 57 Chevy or
into something even franklin mint would be proud of.
This is all of course just my 2 cents and doesnt really mean squat ;-)
Charles Goin
President, Mid-Atlantic Opel Association
An Chapter of the North American Opel Asso.
http://www.opel-na.com
opel...@opel-na.com
..
Mark Cable
Well, since I'm an artist in the real world (Oxymoron, I know.) and a
modeler in my spare time, let me weigh in with a professional opinion:
Who cares?
Why is it so important that modeling be an art instead of a craft? Is that
really better? Do we feel that there is something in the label "ART" that
justifies what we do and without it we're wasting time? Aren't we just
playing word games with ourselves? Aren't I typing a lot of rhetorical
questions for someone with a BFA?
I have a sneaking suspicion the reason we want to call this an art form
has less to do with what we get out of this hobby, and more to do with
what we want others think about us. I am a modeler because it's fun, and
because I enjoy the company of other modelers here in my home town, on the
net, and at shows. Trust me, as someone who has shown his art in
galleries, that's a good return on your investment in time and effort.
OK, Is modeling an art form? Well, I don't know. We seem judge it as a
craft at our shows, don't we? We aren't concerned if the model comunicates
something fundamental, but we do care if the wheels are on straight. Most
modelers consider it a bad thing to get overly creative with the paint
scheme on a Tiger I or a P-51. Seems like the modeling community as a
group is saying it's a craft. So what's wrong with that?
-Mark
--
-Mark
Dan Winfield
And your point is?
Dan¹
AHorv43767
>And your point is?
>
>Dan=B9
Ouch, that was rather unkind. Let me help you out, Dan. Mark's point, quite
clearly expressed I thought, was:
1. He doesn't know and doesn't care whether modeling is art. Implicit in this
is that nobody in this thread has put forth a convincing explanation of why we
should care.
2. To the extent he implies a definition of art, it is with what I defined last
week as the #2 camp ("communicates something fundamental").
3. (And this is a new point, I think:) the formal rules and informal norms of
judging at our own contests seem to argue for "craft," rather than "art."
Although some have argued that creativity is what distinguishes scale modelling
as an art rather than craft, Mark observes that creativity, other than that
strictly confined to technique, makes your model a sure contest loser except in
special categories. Thus, to the (questionable) extent that contest judging
reflects the standards of the modelling community as to the quality of models,
these standards are those of a non-art craft. (Of course, this point does not
apply for those who define art as equivalent to craft or as craft carried to a
high level of skill.)
August
WendiKroy
Art or craft? A couple of thoughts:
Depending on how you look at it, you could argue that it's all craft, since
"art" contains the same elements as "craft," namely: communication of ideas,
skill and mastery of materials, an end product, etc. Likewise you could argue
that it's all "art" as well -- for the same reason.
My wife says that the difference between art and craft is simple: art is what
moves you emotionally. Under this rule, the definition of art is absolutely,
highly subjective: one viewer's art is another viewer's craft.
For a minute, let's imagine that it's all craft -- from well done model kits to
the most elite New York art scene.
Big parts of our culture exalt "art that moves the viewer," creating an
inevitable market for it, with it's accompanying dynamics: art business, hype,
aspiring artists, artist cults, investment opportunities, public art, public
artists, laws that encourage the arts, artistic self-identity, etc.
Is there something wrong with the fact that there's a complex and dynamic
market for "fine art"? Not in my book.
But I can also see a culture that exalts different kinds of art differently at
different times. A culture that places more value on "craft" and "accuracy"
will create a larger market for well crafted, accurate objects -- like model
kits.
In a slightly different culture, the market for the works of great modelers
would be larger than it is today. And they would call it art.
But that isn't to say a market for modelers' work doesn't exist today. It's
just very small. But when I was kid, I saw painted Tamiya German WW2 army
figures for sale "as art" in a jewelry store in a mall in Norfolk, VA. They
looked incredible, and were priced at $25 each, as I recall. That was 1970.
Has the culture changed since then? Obviously. Is "craft" exalted as much
today by consumerswith disposable income? I don't think so, especially with so
much business-driven emphasis on marketing and celebrity and image and hype
these days.
But imagine the day when an original Shep Paine diorama sells for $30,000 at
Christies.
It could happen.
Erich
Mark Schynert
There is a lot of art which is at the same time "slice of life" and also
communicates something more. For example, look at the body of work by
the Dutch painter Breugel. Certainly historical non-hypothetical models
are representations of a "slice of life", and certainly such models can
also be decorative, but do they communicate something more? Again, at
the risk of raising the idiosyncracy standard, yes they do, to me at
least. For example, focusing just on WWII aircraft, which is what I am
most interested in, the very best models allow me to suspend my
disbelief, and stop thinking of the artifact in front of me as a chunk
of plastic with miscellaneous adulterants. Instead, for a few moments,
I can visualize it as the real thing, a visitor from another era. In a
broad sense, this does speak to the human condition, which to me is a
key to anything that has artistic (as opposed to merely decorative)
merit. I'd say the same is true in non-decorative fields of endeavor
too, whether it be writing or music or dance. Entertainment does not
equal art, but art can be entertaining.
Incidentally, I feel a need to comment about "crucifix in bucket of
piss" works. These never qualify as art to me, because, while the
purveyor might be attempting to comment on the human condition, what is
really happening is that said purveyor is simply making noise to get
attention. Put another way, if you look at the Mona Lisa, you can
(I hope) see it as a work of art, whether or not you know who painted
it, but the work made of bodily fluids says nothing unless the
purveyor's identity is attached to it. I think
most "performance" art falls in the same category, such as concerts
that involve the destruction of musical instruments rather than the
music made by the instruments. So if you pick up your otherwise
mediocre airplane model at a contest and toss it up in the air, letting
it fall to the floor and smash, that doesn't suddenly create art where
there was none before.
Mark Schynert
Burkhard Domke
Having read most of the responses I'd say ALL of you are right, but
it's two different things being argued here:
A quick glance into the dictionary reveals to me that there is a
marked difference between the terms ART and FINE ARTS. Modelling
appears to fall into the former category.
HTH
RLHDLW Burkhard
Hauptstadt Temple
Morten Staale
may I try to sum up as well:
(and brigde it as well, as there are a lot of different views;-)
Art is when you try to make a difference...
The result percieved by others define if it is art or not.
(and this has nothing to do wether you like the result or not;-)
Morten Staale
BTW- some definitions I found in my English- Norwegian translater:
Artisan - Craftsman (we could all call us that and be covered by a word
with art in it;-)
Artless - natural
Artwork - Illustrations
Arts degree - degree in Philosophical Science (last word did not translate
that well)
Arty - affectedly artistic
Mark Cable
> And your point is?
>
> Dan=B9
...On the top of my freakin' head.
-Mark
--
-Mark
chandlm
Nick Kiriokos wrote:
>
> Peter Trott wrote:
>
> > Aha! Modeling is definitely (by definition) a craft. See (3) above:
> > I always have to use mucho cunning and deceit to get new models into
> > the house. Case closed.
>
> Which is as much an "art" form as anything else!
>
> Nick
The same reason that photographers are considered technicians....
ch
Steve Kennedy
It a miniature is entirely scratch-built, I would assume it could be
considered an art-form. But then you would have to compete with nude
sculptures instead of plastic kit models.
____________________________
The First Rule of Real Art:
Good Nudes win most contests.
____________________________
Building from a kit is little different than "painting by the numbers"
as fars as snobby "artistes" go.
Art isn't supposed to be fun, it is an expression of pain (like
marriage and childbirth). (Watch me cringe in agony as I weather that
gear-well!)
___________________________
The Second Rule of Real Art:
Without Pain, there IS no Art.
___________________________
Have fun building models and don't worry about art. If your primary
motivation for building models is getting public accolades from snobby
yuppies whose main talent in life is writing checks and driving BMWs
(you know, "patrons"), then you ought to be doing something else.
___________________________
The Third Rule of Real Art:
Nudes in Pain win ALL contests..
___________________________
This is a hobby.... not an "art". It takes talent, commitment and
attention to detail in order to model well. Art is merely an
expression of inspiration... no real talent required.
IMHO (Tongue-partially-in-cheek)
Steve
Joe Hegedus
> ___________________________
>
> The Second Rule of Real Art:
> Without Pain, there IS no Art.
> ___________________________
Well, I put a nice slice in my finger cutting out the nosewheel well on
my Golden Wings Cougar, and it hurt! Is it art now? Or should I go
back to the "Modeling injuries" thread?
:-)
Joe
Peter Berghs
I think models can be considered as craft, art, or fine art depending upon
the amount of skill and creativity used in the fabrication and display of
the finished product. That is:
1: Craft= a model built out of the box, kitbashed, or scratchbuilt that is
well built but does not generate a strong appreciative response from a
viewer regarding the technique used. If it doesn't generate a "WOW- look
at that" its a craft piece in my opinion.
2: Art= a model (kit, kitbash, or scratch) that generates a strong
appreciative response regarding technique and/or an emotional response
regarding the composition and/or subject matter.
3: Fine Art= a unique model or collection of model(s) that is built to the
highest technical standards of the day, and which shows a mastery of
composition, lighting, and aesthetics. I think it would be very difficult
for a stand-alone model to be considered for this category as there is very
little composition involved with only one object of fixed proportions.
Dioramas of any subject tend to require more composition (viewing angles,
relative positions between objects, rule of thirds etc.).
The winning and runner up models at shows fall into my art category.
I have seen only a few models that I would consider as fine art. One was a
diorama of a Napoleonic cannon crew at full speed crossing a creek. All
of the elements appeared to be perfect and the colors and finishes and
groundwork all tended to give the impression of a cold wet day. The layout
of the elements gave a marvelous impression of speed and instability.
One other model that I consider a piece of fine art was a diorama of an
abandoned dustbowl farm complete right down to the swirl marks in the dust
that had piled up behind the fence posts. It really invoked a feeling of
loneliness and despair.
Burkhard Domke <domk...@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de> wrote in article
<3517642...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>...