art for science

[horrid]

I'm new to the forums and this my first post so before I potentially alienate anyone I'd like to say hello and thank you for taking the time to check out this thread.

As a new member I've been navigating content on the site and have been very impressed with quantity and quality of information; the articles in particular. It's because of all this information that may not have been able to locate the criteria that posted art (models) are being evaluated on.

I'm of the opinion that "cool" as a descriptor is more of a feeling than an empirical quantifier. To an extent I'm able to understand the majority of the rating system. Typically models that fall into the 1-5 range are assembled stock and painted with very basic brush skills by enthusiastic beginners or set in their ways "wargamers". Conversely 9+ models usually demonstrate superb technical painting ability married with superb design elements (the evocative "feely" component). That brings me to the 6-8s range that I'm having difficulty understanding. Merit for merit method seems to generate far more approval than feel.

Evaluating art is absolutely subjective. If we had two very different artists working from blank canvases to a finished piece of art I'm certain anyone could chose which they preferred. When our canvas (a miniature) comes to us it's not a blank. Within a model are the ideas and feelings of the sculptor. Where the hobbyist takes these elements with their treatment of the figure gives them a voice in a collaborative creative process.

Blah Blah--I'm rambling hopefully someone read this far and could share some insights or offer their opinions.

 

[Rodnik]

I'm of the mind there are some things in art that can be judged somewhat objectively: those technical aspects of a piece that are simply "expected" in a good miniature. Smooth paint, color theory, etc.

Presumably, the upper echelon will already have a mastery of these elements. At this point, the judging becomes much more subjective. But I still believe the subjective nature of this is because of the use and combination of the technical aspects by the artist, and the more accomplished painters naturally use their techniques in extremely pleasing fashions--and some more-so than others--to reach that intangible "cool" quality. Think "the sum is greater than the parts."

As far as ratings...I rarely vote, if at all. I think anyone who picks up a brush and spends time doing something they enjoy is worthy of praise. The end-result of my painting effort is irrelevant to me, as I simply enjoy the process (work and re-work). By sheer luck alone, through this process I enjoy so much, I've managed to create a couple of decent pieces in my otherwise directionless brush-slinging activities.

Cheers,
K.

 

[Ritual]

Don't waste your time trying to "understand" the voting system here. As you've already stated: evaluating creative work is subjective. Thus, everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes a particular score. This site has never had the aim to provide a "serious" evaluation system. The idea is pretty much summed up in the title... Cool Mini Or Not. Reading more into the scores only leads to grief and frustration.

Just join the discussions and community here in the forum and don't bother about the scores. If you post something and it scores well... that's fun. If you post something and it doesn't score well... who cares?

 

[Tercha]

Of course you could:
1) Submit a figure based but unpainted or basecoated.
2) Then submit once again once complete.
The diference in scores would be a better indication of your painting as the "coolness" of the figure is established in the 1st submission.
Perhaps this will establish a standard by which "Greens" are rated, there seems to be constant frustration on the part of what I would consider excellent sculpting artists scoring low because they are not painted.