Jump to content

Is Modelling Art?


Paul821

Recommended Posts

On 11/29/2021 at 12:31 PM, Longbow said:

Roger Hurkmans Diorama.

 

juOnIpk.jpg

 

My response to this diorama, when I give it my full attention for a couple of minutes is quite complicated. It's definitely skilled craftsmanship. I don't know it it's realistic, because I've never been in battle, but I'd venture to suggest that it isn't far off. If it didn't look 'real' it wouldn't work for me. I'd dismiss it as 'just a model', so that skill in the build is an important part of the effect, helping me suspend my disbelief long enough to 'get into it'.

 

Are the figures individual sculptures or mass produced? Either way, they have been well painted and composed. The dead soldiers look at peace, even 'hugging' each other, the living ones are frantic in their fight. That contrast is rather chilling. When you paint a figure you often find that the brightest highlights are right next to the darkest shadows. I see that there's a strong Panther tank handy but it doesn't seem to be helping the infantry much. Nor does the crumbling wall behind which they shelter. I recall that buildings, in dreams, are often said to represent the self - in this case crumbling into madness and ruin. 

 

I put myself into the scene and I'm horrified. I feel scared, sad. I imagine my sons in that scene, and it's dreadful. Yet, when they were young men, I wanted them to follow me into the armed forces. What was I thinking!

 

Then I consider the context. These soldiers were part of an invading army, even though they are now defending their homeland. Should I be sympathetic to them? Does their human-ness override their intent, even assuming that they were hard-core nazis? That's a difficult question that I have no clear answer for. 

 

If a diorama had been made in February 1945 of this subject, how might it have been different? Would it have been more 'glorious'? More 'savage'? Perhaps that would depend on where and by whom it was made. Hurkmans seems to be telling me that fascinating as warfare seems from the comfort of my armchair, it is really appalling. This is a diorama of war that has me wondering why I/we make so many dioramas of war?

 

Yes, I think this one's art. It's communicated emotional and intellectually. It's original, despite its apparent banality. 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 11:54 AM, Longbow said:

cDxOuq6.jpg

 

It's a Rembrandt

 

This painting produces, in me, several strong emotional responses. At first sight, it's a beautifully crafted reproduction of a bowl of fruit, painted very skillfully with those new-fangled oil paints which were only coming into vogue in the medieval period. but then I notice that I wouldn't want to eat any of it. Everything is over-ripe, on the point of decaying.

 

Why did Rembrandt chose these particular fruits? I think because he was intending to remind us about our own imminent death and decay. I'm getting old now and I'm starting to show signs of decay already, death is surely coming to me. Come to think about it, the fruits may already be considered dead, and only their decay remains to happen. Death and decay may not be sequential but concurrent? That's a new thought for me.

 

Then I think of the seeds within them. New life within death? Death and resurrection? I think of Rembrandt's time period and the religious values that he and I don't share. I think of my children. None of them have children. Does this painting leave me feeling happy, or sad, maybe angry or scared even. Perhaps all of the above. Rembrandt sent me a message which took 500 years or so to get here and it's brought tears to my eyes. There's something in that which tells me that he and I aren't so different. Human nature is perhaps a constant. I wouldn't be able to understand medieval Dutch speech, but there are universals which I can tune into. But if that's true, why do people fight so much? 

 

Yes, I think this one's art. It's communicated emotional and intellectually across five centuries. It's original, despite its apparent banality. 

 

My conclusion is that some modelling is art, just as some painting etc is art.

 

And, of course some modelling is craft, as much painting etc is craft - skillful but not engaging the viewer intellectually or emotionally.

 

And most modelling, just the same as most painting etc, is neither art nor craft. It's a bit of fun, a way of passing the time.

 

 

 

 

Post Script:

 

Art, craft or fun; which is the most valuable, worthwhile, or important? I've no idea! I don't think the question even makes sense to me anymore. so I'll take @ckw's standpoint (for now). He said, "Some seem to think that 'Art' exists on a higher plane than 'Craft' ... never saw it that way myself - they are parallel, and each should be appreciated in its own right - i.e. how well the creator achieves his/her objective."

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bertie Psmith said:

It's a Rembrandt

See, this is why I think that a load of :poop:is spoken about art. Because it's by Rembrandt, it's got to be art. If the man himself had taken all of his tubes of paint (if such a thing existed then) and squeezed a dollop from each onto a canvas, let it dry then put a frame around it and signed it, there are those who would wax lyrical about it, and try and tell us plebs what the artist was trying to achieve. It always amuses me when I think of the story about a group of "art experts" who came out with all sorts of crap about a painting, but weren't too happy to find out that it had been painted by a chimp.

 

John.

 

PS Not a dig at you Bertie. I agree with you, it is banal, but it is art.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that literally ANYTHING can be described as "art" these days. When you look at the ridiculous, enormously over-hyped "artworks" that Damien Hirst et al produced to sell at hugely-inflated prices and the fawning, hagiographic appreciation that most art-critics heap on their work, I really think that modern art is a lot more about grabbing headlines and enhancing your fame and true expression / creativity has long been forgotten. It is incredibly easy to saw a cow in half, suspend it in formaldehyde and claim it is an expression of "modern angst" or some similar twaddle. There's only a tiny proportion of society who could care less about such artistic frippery - most people take one look at these pieces and shake their heads in disbelief.  

 

Still, what do I know, eh?

 

Chris. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bullbasket said:

Bertie. I agree with you, it is banal, but it is art.

 

Hi John, I don't feel dug, so no worries there. 😆 But my obs/comp personality has to go on (and on and on...) to point out that I didn't  say that either of the examples were banal. I don't think that something lacking in originality, commonplace and boring could ever be considered art (not by me anyway).

 

I thought that the choice of subject in both cases might be considered banal on first sight, but the treatment of each, I think is individual and original enough to take them right out of that category and into my personal definition of art. (Communicating emotionally and intellectually, provoking thought and feelings, original, skilled, profound in the sense of displaying some insight into the human condition... I could go on and on and on and on.... lol)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spruecutter96 said:

It occurs to me that literally ANYTHING can be described as "art" these days. When you look at the ridiculous, enormously over-hyped "artworks" that Damien Hirst et al produced to sell at hugely-inflated prices and the fawning, hagiographic appreciation that most art-critics heap on their work, I really think that modern art is a lot more about grabbing headlines and enhancing your fame and true expression / creativity has long been forgotten. It is incredibly easy to saw a cow in half, suspend it in formaldehyde and claim it is an expression of "modern angst" or some similar twaddle. There's only a tiny proportion of society who could care less about such artistic frippery - most people take one look at these pieces and shake their heads in disbelief.  

 

Still, what do I know, eh?

 

Chris. 

 

There are loads of dissected animals in natural history museums, I've seen a few. They are incredibly skillfully done, and very interesting. I know there's a lot of skill involved because once worked in the science department of a secondary school and it was astonishing how different the teacher's 'exploded rat' looked from the student's. But not high art, surely? 'High craft', perhaps?

 

There are some dissected people in formaldehyde too. There used to be a museum with such things when I was a kid, somewhere at the seaside? They would be shut down instantly in our rigidly censorious society for being objectionable but I was taken there when on holiday. They made me think, and they scared me a bit at six years old, but they weren't original or profound, as I think real art must be. All the creators wanted to say was, "look at this fascinating piece of the natural world". 

 

I don't mean to put down the dissector's work though. They have achieved their aim perfectly. When I make a kit and am pleased with it, however crappy a job I made of it, I have achieved my aim perfectly too. I reckon Rembrandt would be chuffed to know that his painting had such an effect on me as it did this afternoon, even if I didn't pay him for it, so maybe he achieved his aim? (I'm not sure what his aim was; I'm just  guessing.) So, maybe I'm saying that my kit, Rembrandt's painting and the teacher's 'exploded rat' have the same value. Perhaps not in money though! 🤣

 

I'm not sure what my point is in this post. I'm just playing with some ideas which I hope someone else can make some use of.

 

I find this a very interesting thread, all the more so because this debate had been running for centuries and still, new nuances emerge. I never thought about valuing 'creations' in this way before. It makes y'think dunnit?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bertie Psmith said:

I didn't  say that either of the examples were banal.

Sorry about that faux par Bertie. I saw it somewhere and thought that it was in your post. Obviously the medication isn't working properly.:(

 

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think even Rembrandt would consider a bowl of fruit study 'Art', more like practice. Like many artisans he had to be constantly on top of his game in order to procure new work, plus just like furniture makers models and catalogues it was another way to display his wares 'see what I can do with a bowl of fruit! imagine what I could do with the Night Watch commission'....para phrasing of course. Art is fabricated by those that have the money to commission it. Just ask Van Gogh...who went hungry a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've asked the "But Is It Art?" question myself when I have displayed some of my builds. To be honest I don't really care, I just know I enjoy painting (in these cases usually just making a crude copy of the kit box art) and then building the kit and combining the two. It has the advantage that it saves on display space as well when you can just hang them on the wall (I have a very understanding wife!).

 

Here with the Airfix 1/72 F-51D I just used a standard cheapo photo frame, copied the box art background using tube acrylics and painted the wooden frame red, then mounted the kit with brass rod (and used rod for the rockets with cotton wool glued on).

 

51734863722_ef076757fe_c.jpg

 

Similar process with the Airfix 1/72 CAC Boomerang.
51735690261_eb4f6d216c_c.jpg

 

Revell/CEJI 1/100 Buccaneer this time with a nice IKEA box photo frame. The background was from a photo on the internet of a Buccaneer taking off. 1/100 is an odd scale so I had to use some N gauge seated railway passengers  and create flying helmets from filler for the crew figures.

51734904582_00a9628df8_c.jpg

 

51735730286_a4f4daf19e_c.jpg

 

51734904417_94c8a78d39_c.jpg

 

51736335734_863d032db1_c.jpg

 

They are in frames and they hang on a wall so that's "art" in my book!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 4:05 PM, spruecutter96 said:

It occurs to me that literally ANYTHING can be described as "art" these days. When you look at the ridiculous, enormously over-hyped "artworks" that Damien Hirst et al produced to sell at hugely-inflated prices and the fawning, hagiographic appreciation that most art-critics heap on their work, I really think that modern art is a lot more about grabbing headlines and enhancing your fame and true expression / creativity has long been forgotten. It is incredibly easy to saw a cow in half, suspend it in formaldehyde and claim it is an expression of "modern angst" or some similar twaddle. There's only a tiny proportion of society who could care less about such artistic frippery - most people take one look at these pieces and shake their heads in disbelief.  

 

Still, what do I know, eh?

 

Chris. 

 

There's nothing new in the way today art dealers and critics celebrate certain artists for reasons that are more commercial than artistic, it's always worked like this in the "art market". One of the reasons why I believe that an artist should be appraised a few decades after her/his passing, when the hype generated by the artist and his dealers will have abated. This is IMHO particularly true of the British art scene of the last 20-25 years, that has been dominated by logics that owe more to the world of marketing than to that of art.. not surprisingly considering that among the forces behind this movement are men coming from the world of advertising and finance. But again, not that it is anything completely new, even in ancient times artists had to know how to sell their works and there are many stories from the Renaissance about the various ways even masters tried to win the most lucrative bids.

A few centuries later we can fortunately tell what was good and what was less so and the same will likely happen in 100 years for the artists of today, some will survive the scrutiny of time, some will not.

 

Said that however there is an objection I have to make whenever I read the very common "It is incredibly easy to..." comment applied to work from any artist: if it is so easy, why didn't anyone do it before ? Everything is easy after someone else did it first, it is coming with the idea that is not that easy. And it is even more difficult to be the first to do something and make this something have an impact on the emotions of the observers.

 

Last but not least... is our hobby really any different when it comes to the over-hyping of things ? To me it seems pretty much the same. I've seen people rave over kits that were average at best only because they came from a certain brand, stuff hailed as the "product of the year" even with serious flaws of various kind, obsolete kits warmly welcomed as if they were the saviours of ailing modellers.. we arent' much better than art critics when it comes to our hobby, we similarly tend to rave about stuff that we like for one reason or the other, even when these reasons are totally illogical. Ok, in this modelling is like art, but like the commercial side of art.

Edited by Giorgio N
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

Last but not least... is our hobby really any different when it comes to the over-hyping of things ? To me it seems pretty much the same. I've seen people rave over kits that were average at best only because they came from a certain brand, stuff hailed as the "product of the year" even with serious flaws of various kind, obsolete kits warmly welcomed as if they were the saviours of ailing modellers.. we arent' much better than art critics when it comes to our hobby, we similarly tend to rave about stuff that we like for one reason or the other, even when these reasons are totally

If anything, Giorgio, I think the exact opposite could be true, here. Surely, a couple of very critical magazine-reviews (or, today, maybe more likely on-line reviews) of a new kit could seriously reduce the numbers of that kit which sell in a given market. People are not going to put their hard-earned cash towards a kit that's been "torn to ribbons" by the popular critics - life's just too short. The critical bashing Revell received for their recent 1/32nd F/A-18 Hornet must have had an adverse effect on its sales, I would have thought. I had the big F/A-18 for sale at a model-show and had a punter said to me that he wouldn't even pay £10 for it... (did he expect it to be free? I did wonder).

 

Having said all of that, model-makers can be a pretty contrarian bunch - I have little doubt that a percentage of modellers would buy a kit simply because it has a reputation for being very difficult to build - they will then "beat it into submission" and announce the fact to their fellow model-makers.

 

Look at the Trumpeter 1/32nd A-10.... completely riddled with inaccuracies, but I read several years ago that the Chinese firm has produced more than 25,000 copies since its introduction. For a fairly "niche" product in one of the "less-popular" scales, that sounds like quite an achievement to me (yep, I know that there are thousands of dedicated 1/32nd builders out there, but I'm pretty sure their numbers are not huge when compared to modellers in the smaller scales ). 

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris. 

Edited by spruecutter96
Correcting a typo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 9:53 PM, spruecutter96 said:

but I'm pretty sure their numbers are not huge when compared to modellers in the smaller scales

That might also be a regional thing.  Quarter scale & up is standard fare across the ocean, for instance - I don't see mr. Douglas building much 1/72 :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...