Jump to content

Modelling and art. Is art possible in modelling?


mpk

Recommended Posts

Hi guys.

The  very interesting coulor thread caused me to wonder about art, modelling, humour and whether such things belong in our hobby.

 

It seems to me that unless a modelling subject is built for real accuracy, perhaps it doesn't matter. After all the builder likely used his or her money to purchase the model. 

 

Is it not the buyer's choice how to depict the subject? 

 

Of course if someone entered a bright yellow Avro Lancaster and claimed it was accurate, that wouldn't fly. If the model was built for fun, throwing any history out the window, would it matter?

 

I guess I am wondering about what separates artistry and art. Imagination and historical accuracy?

 

I am unsure what to think. Is the modeller to be controlled by history? Controlled by the perception of others? What if no other person sees  the bright yellow lancaster bedecked in flower power camouflage?

 

What do you guys think of all this?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me modelling is a hobby, Bonsai is my passion.  So I will try to answer your question from a Bonsai perspective.

 

Bonsai is an artform that uses living plants to depict an image of an old and mature tree somewhere in nature (this is my definition).  It uses horticultural knowledge and understanding, and combined with various techniques and a healthy dose of patience (both short term and long term patience)  to tell the story of the tree - its life, the environment it lives in, even the season of the year.  Based on the knowledge I gather through the Nippon Sakka Kyookai Europe group of Bonsai practitioners The real art only emerges when you are able to expose the 'soul' of the tree - this can only be done after its branch structure has been developed to such an extent that the true beauty of the tree can be brought out through careful pruning - and wiring branches (one of the techniques used in the development) is no longer needed.

 

Moving back to modelling: the key for me is to tell a story with your model.  There are many very talented and capable people on this site - and I learn a lot from them with relation to techniques used in this hobby - who have reached a very high level of competence in techniques.  When I look at their models and I can instantly understand the story they are trying to tell (either through a fomr of diorama, or by the weathering of the model) then for me this is art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drummer, Bill Bruford, in his autobiography tried to explain his idea as to what separates art from artistry. For example; a session musician is employed to serve the client's vision with a performance to achieve that end.

 

On the other hand, there is the musician who works in the service of his or her own artistic vision.

 

The former is employed for artistry. The latter serves his/her own artistic vision.

 

 

Edited by mpk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mpk said:

What do you guys think of all this?

 

For what's its worth, in my professional capacity I think and write about these kinds of questions and have a bunch of relevant journal articles/books on related subjects. I've sometimes thought about writing specifically on models and modelmaking, but I have enough on the go already.

 

There are several issues in your post. Are models art? Saying something is art doesn't make it so, and a superficial resemblance to art isn't sufficient either, because practices such as crafts and hobbies can share features with the art (artefact making, a concern with aesthetics, criticism) while lacking others (emotional or meaningful expression, intellectual challenge, formal complexity). I suspect that models could rise the status of art in some rare cases, but my models certainly don't!

 

Another issue is whether the modeler is "controlled by the perception of others?" "Controlled" is too strong, but there are certainly implicit norms, and they are the subject some of the intractable debates on this forum (e.g., what "needs" to be done to a kit).

 

One other thing is the relationship between realism, objectivity, science and judgment in modeling (i.e. the issue prompted by George's recent thread). There is a fallacy in art that scientific objectivity is a means of producing realism, or what people perceive as realism. Even in the linear perspective of the high renaissance, artists such as Raphael ignored the apparent laws of geometry because they resulted in images that appeared unrealistic. I think it is likely to be similar with models, and that realism is much more about convention than science.

 

Finally, as for whether humour belongs in the hobby, I'm not so sure judging by some of the humourless and grumpy old buggers on here. :D

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm.  There is a world of difference between creating and assembling.  In most of our cases we assemble parts created by someone else and then we apply aftermarket parts and decals created by someone else in order to make it look like something someone else has created previously out of thin air.  In other words, we assemble parts and pieces made by someone else to resemble something created by someone else.   Just because we build things that look mighty like a thing only smaller, doesn’t mean we’re artists.  Hell, a copy machine can replicate a pretty exact copy of a sketch by Leonardo, but nobody would argue that the copy machine is on equal footing with him.  We are craftsmen.  By definition, artists create; craftsmen build.  Scratch building?  Well now, that might be a whole different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you forgot to take your medicines again? We had a Yellow submarine back in the sixties, so why not a Yellow Lancaster, Is it artistic, no. But if your happy it's good.

It's a hobby, you can do all you want, but don't call it art. If you want that, take a brush and a blank canvas or a stone and a chisel. My point is, create your own fantasy, and if you love it then who cares. I think there was a competition on here on building a sort of Mad Max airplane, some 5 years ago and I loved it. We don't always need to be accurate on every rivet or panel. It can be nice to do fantasy sometimes and why not. We create it, mm I think we need such a weird plane competition plane again, build from leftovers etc, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theo said:

Have you forgot to take your medicines again? We had a Yellow submarine back in the sixties, so why not a Yellow Lancaster, Is it artistic, no. But if your happy it's good.

It's a hobby, you can do all you want, but don't call it art. If you want that, take a brush and a blank canvas or a stone and a chisel. My point is, create your own fantasy, and if you love it then who cares. I think there was a competition on here on building a sort of Mad Max airplane, some 5 years ago and I loved it. We don't always need to be accurate on every rivet or panel. It can be nice to do fantasy sometimes and why not. We create it, mm I think we need such a weird plane competition plane again, build from leftovers etc, 

 

I've not called anything art. I am posing questions.

 

As for the yellow lancaster, please note I mention flower power design. This could be anything. It could certainly be art. Note the word, could.

Edited by mpk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the art often comes in with the various techniques that are used in the painting field, and cause many modellers to say "You won't see that on a real aeroplane."  Examples (some of which are now out of fashion) include drawing in panel lines with a draughting pen, pre-shading, post-shading, "drawing a grid", extreme weathering, and many others that we all know (whether we've ever used them or not).

 

In many - arguably most - cases a model is a representation rather than a 100% miniature replica.  This is for many reasons, including moulding limitations, scaling down compromising structural integrity, and so on.  Does this make it art rather than anything else?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often see people on scale model forums say things like: "I am an artist, I don't play with toys". I suspect that in their mind "art" is a serious and intellectual pursuit as opposed to "playing" which they may regards as a childish and trivial waste of time. THAT is where they are wrong. "Play" can be a lot more fun than "art". In fact, I would go as far as to say that one can easily live without "art", but not without play. Children learn through play. Every day we dedicate a lot of time to watching shows or plays written by playwrights, in which actors play roles. In fact we give playwrights and actors all kinds of prizes, we name streets, ships, planets after them. We fill stadiums and pay hefty fees to watch games played by players who are often paid huge fees for their skills. Some people are so skilled at what they play that they earn scholarships in prestigious colleges thus paving a great future for themselves. We fill venues and pay hefty fees to watch and listen to musicians play their music. We pay a lot of money for hardware and software to play games. There are a multitude of industries revolving around playthings. In all of these examples I described above, those who are good at what they play often earn a lot more than many "artists". 

Art? In the great scheme of things, a lot of stuff (sometimes monumentally stupid stuff) is labelled "art", very often with the proviso "if you don't understand this art, you are an idiot". Emperor's new clothes! Art can be faked. Play requires skill. You can't fake play

So, for that reason I will gladly confess that I "play" with models. :D

Radu 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Grant_T said:

Saying something is art doesn't make it so, and a superficial resemblance to art isn't sufficient either, because practices such as crafts and hobbies can share features with the art (artefact making, a concern with aesthetics, criticism) while lacking others (emotional or meaningful expression, intellectual challenge, formal complexity). I suspect that models could rise the status of art in some rare cases, but my models certainly don't!

Thank you for this post.  Certainly answered some of my questions regarding to when something becomes art.

Yet it still leaves this quesiont unaswered:  who decides when something is art or not?  Perhaps you can enlighten me/us in this?

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...