Why this obsession with smoothness

[DanseMacabre]

All good points,personally i like harsh highlights,expecially for tabletop minis, where the goal is to make them shine on the tabletop, but i understand that for people that see minis as an art form and that wants to win competitions the smooth blending is a must and not a possibility.

 

[EricJ]

I definately think there is a difference between someone who has mastered painting smoothly, who chooses to paint with visible brush strokes, and someone who never mastered smooth painting.

In 2d painting many of the masters have clearly visible brush strokes, yet, I would bet you that any one of them could probably paint as smooth as they wished. I imagine it\'s largely about how comfortable one is with the medium. Their paintings still look professional because even though they choose to show brush strokes, there is a reasoning behind it beyond simply that they couldn\'t paint smoother.

Translating to mini painting; I think the focus is so much on smoothness because 99% of people in the hobby are still trying to master this first step, then perhaps in time someone will take the next step and do a more surreal or impressionistic, or some other style which does not rely on a smooth realistic painting style. And once done in a way which turns heads and wows people, will lead us in all new directions...maybe

 

[green stuff]

But is miniature painting really art?

Boy would Arthur have a bunch to say about that .

 

[Avelorn]

Sorry for the long post

@vincegamer: Well I think there are many different styles. There are styles that strive for realism and styles that strive for expressionism.. and I\'d even say that some are inspired by impressionism. But.. I don\'t know about labeling.

Anyway we will have to use the concept of light in some way as we are doing small 3d miniatures. Maybe that is a boundary that is hard to break. I don\'t know.

@Seb: Yes of course. Those are all important facts as well. But what do you say to someone who use no contrast? Or the same texture everywhere. Is it becasue they are lazy or because they want it like that? You\'ll just end up on the same thing over and over: It\'s about personal preference. Sure smooth painting has been overemphasized. But that\'s because so few painters care about imitating different surfaces etc. We are on the way though...

But! We shouldn\'t fool ourselves.. there are no objective criterias for a 10 or a 1. These are just subjective ones that we have made up (through history of course). One important factor is how hard something is to do. It is harder to try to paint your mini than dip your minis in red paint. It is harder to do realism than only put paint where you like to. It is harder to produce realism that holds up to close view than realism that only works 2 feet away.

I don\'t see Kiril is being sniped, are you? IMO some models he has made would be even better with smoother transitions. Becasue nothing he does is impossible to do with smooth transitions. No effect he tries to simulate will fail. Sharp is as I\'ve said.. different from streaky. And something is IMO more well done if it holds up to close view than not. Do you disagree?

But then as Eric say.. it can all change. Look at other art. The preferences changes. But with pre-made miniatures.. toy soldiers as some would say we have to.. I think we have to be more even more inventive to make it fit with what we do. The most overlooked factor for judging in our little community IMO is ideas.

Lot\'s of IMO here.. This might just be one of my favourite topics to discuss.. hehe.

 

[dougaderly]

I expect no less smoothness out of my 2 inch tall ladies than I do out of my 5 foot 2 lady!

 

[Dedwrekka]

Originally posted by green stuff
But is miniature painting really art?

Boy would Arthur have a bunch to say about that .

Why would it not be? Artists paint on different mediums other than canvas, that they themselves didn\'t make, and yet it\'s still art.

 

[EricJ]

Originally posted by Avelorn
The most overlooked factor for judging in our little community IMO is ideas.

I don\'t know, I seem to think ideas are well appreaciated, look at Fiery Angel, Dark Maiden, The hasslefree mini with shadow on the wall, Hodgson\'s Stealth suit. None of them are perfected in technique but are very well recieved and those that are on cmon scored very well. They\'re all based on ideas.

I think a big part of it is again that while there are flaws in each, each of the artists had proven enough in the past, that we trust them enough to overlook the flaws as a factor of developing ideas, rather than a lack of tallent or ability (although with the dark maiden, I admit the blending issues were lack of skill, lol).

I guess what I\'m saying is that new ideas are greating appreciated, but in many ways it is vital the artist has proved that the idea/style is not due to lack of skill, but rather expression of their vision. A big part of accepting new ideas is due based on a trust of the person presenting the idea. Of course there are always exceptions.

 

[green stuff]

Message original : Dedwrekka

Originally posted by green stuff
But is miniature painting really art?

Boy would Arthur have a bunch to say about that .

Why would it not be? Artists paint on different mediums other than canvas, that they themselves didn\'t make, and yet it\'s still art.

Arthur has a few pages on the subject that he might have translated into english.

The subject has been heavily discussed already on Créafigs.

Basically the main argument against miniatures being art is that they \"seldom\" carry an idea, they just depict reality.

If you look at Jérémie\'s minis, you\'ll see that since a few years, he\'s been working a lot on the scenes, the emotion, ...

If Arthur can, I rather let him post his full text on the subject (he defends the fact that minis are an art form).

 

[Avelorn]

Originally posted by EricJ

Originally posted by Avelorn
The most overlooked factor for judging in our little community IMO is ideas.

...I guess what I\'m saying is that new ideas are greating appreciated, but in many ways it is vital the artist has proved that the idea/style is not due to lack of skill, but rather expression of their vision. A big part of accepting new ideas is due based on a trust of the person presenting the idea. Of course there are always exceptions.

Hm.. yes I agree. But all these ideas are \"technical\" ideas still made by good or even awesome painters. Maybe I\'m wrong... I was thinking on a piece like Jeremies psycho duel here has the same score as his lotr force here. The first is a great idea and tells a story while the other one is just a display of skills. Is it just a coincidence?

@GS: Of course it\'s art if you want it to be. Do you have a definition of art?

 

[EricJ]

2d painting for 100/1000\'s of years was largely about perfecting the depiction of reality. (Of course the interest of many of the masterworks came out in the details). 2d art obviously have evolved past that where the idea/concept has often taken priority over reality, but 2d painting has 1000\'s of years more history than our medium. However I don\'t see this as any less valid an art form, it is just less developed.

Even today, how many people paint boats on an ocean, or fruit on a table. Sure their work might be overdone, boring, a simple depiction of reality, but since they do it on cavnas no one is arguing they\'re not making art or that they are not artists. Each individual must also develop their own ability and artistic sense, and just like in 2d painting, most of us will likely never paint anything \"important\" for the development of the artform. However, we\'re all still part of the process of the art form evolving.

 

[Avelorn]

@EricJ: Well said.

 

[Legacy Account]

Miniature painting isn\'t art until people bring a large amount of bullshit and wishy-washy theory into it.

Bloody hell, I think you lot just created an artform......

:bouncy:

 

[DrEvilmonki]

@EricJ. That\'s a very concise arguement. Well done.

 

[krom1415]

I think some of the painters on here have achieved an art form with their mini painting. For sure........

I cannot comment on fully, the smoothness obsession, as I am not that good, however I am drawn towards it in my style of painting because it pleases my eye, as does sharp contrasts. Colour though is what turns me on the most....No pun intended

 

[Legacy Account]

Half-a-cow...... Art
Dirty knickers..... Art
Urinal..... Art
Elephant-shit-on-a-canvas..... Art

Mini painting..... Not Art

 

[krom1415]

I love you spacemunkie, but why is some mini painting not art?

Just curious as I have seen your mini painting going that way... Is it accidental or something you just can\'t help doing?

I may live to regret this!!!!!!

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by EricJ

Originally posted by Avelorn
The most overlooked factor for judging in our little community IMO is ideas.

I don\'t know, I seem to think ideas are well appreaciated,
I think a big part of it is again that while there are flaws in each, each of the artists had proven enough in the past, that we trust them enough to overlook the flaws as a factor of developing ideas, rather than a lack of tallent or ability

I think you miss the point because what you say reinforces what he said. People have to reach a certain level of technical skill before they are given credit for their originality.

At least, that\'s why I think I\'m not ranked higher. I lack the technical skill, but my minis are unlike any other minis out there.

 

[EricJ]

Vince, I think you\'re probably right.

 

[Legacy Account]

Now this whole discussion is utterly pointless really because it is all personal opinion, but I\'ll wager that it\'s a certainty that you won\'t be seeing minis in the Tate Modern in the near (and not so near) future.

I have yet to see a miniature or anything miniature related I would call \'art\'. The closest thing was a diorama from French GD a while back that looked like a Pre-Raphaelite painting. Brilliantly done, but just a pastiche.

There\'s no higher meaning, no metaphor for something greater and certainly very little to stir the emotions of your average bloke or blokette. Miniature painting is locked within the stiffling confines of hackneyed populist fantasy and sci-fi, or is being manhandled by the scrote by history. It\'s scope is so utterly limited that it is of interest to a miniscule percentage of the population.

It will never spark debate on the scale or in the same way that \'traditional\' art will. Now if you used the figures as some sort of conceptual representation of something else in a big installation, THAT would be art.........

Personally I\'d like to see the word art kept well away from mini painting. It\'s fine as it is and doesn\'t need all the bullshit.

 

[LouW]

Hi Scott, minis as High Art has been done:

Chapman bros \"Hell\"
Ron Mueck\'s sculptures
Anthony Gormley\'s room of little clay ppl

Quite good stuff I thought.