Modelling and art. Is art possible in modelling?

[Pup7309]

Great question, 

so it depends on your definition of art- which could be anything. Building stage I’d say no, painting maybe. Overall no because it’s a mass product, not original. But t then again if you get lost in it for hours and the effort gives a sense of pride, despite the critics then yes call it art, 

[RLWP]

The current trend is that Art is made by Artists. So, if you are recognised as an artist, what you call art is art

 

Rchard

[vince14]

13 hours ago, Oldbaldguy said:

We are craftsmen.  By definition, artists create; craftsmen build.  Scratch building?  Well now, that might be a whole different story.

This pretty much sums it up for me. The majority of us fall into the craftsmen category - only a rare few who scratchbuild their models can be called artists. Dioramas can also be classed as art - and by that I mean a diorama that tell a story, rather than a model aircraft on a base with a pilot figure.

 

So, to my mind, this is a diorama (and therefore I class as art)

 

Whereas this - whilst a spectacularly well done model - isn't art

Edited January 4, 2021 by vince14

[DeanKB]

This is a "what's the best colour" type question. There is no definitive answer. Some will consider a well-built kit art, worthy of being shown to all and sundry. Others will consider kits anything but art. Look at Jackson Pollock, Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst & David Hockney. All have made small fortunes from their efforts, widely regarded as the height of their art forms. Yet I consider it the emperor's new clothes, and am deeply unimpressed by their art.

 

I'm not right, nor am I wrong. It's all subjective.

 

By the way, the answer is blue.

[DeanKB]

1 hour ago, vince14 said:

This pretty much sums it up for me. The majority of us fall into the craftsmen category - only a rare few who scratchbuild their models can be called artists. Dioramas can also be classed as art - and by that I mean a diorama that tell a story, rather than a model aircraft on a base with a pilot figure.

 

So, to my mind, this is a diorama (and therefore I class as art)

 

Whereas this - whilst a spectacularly well done model - isn't art

I see what you mean, that sinking HB W.29 is just an absolute show stopper. Brilliant skills, allied to a great imagination.

 

Although someone will be along soon to point out the engine is the 150HP Benz Bz.III, instead of the 185HP Benz Bz.IIIa, or something.

[Grant_T]

11 hours ago, Landrotten Highlander said:

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

 

Ha, that is a great question and I can't pretend to have the answer. The philosopher George Dickie argued that art is an institutional fact, and the "artworld" (i.e., artists, critics, experts, insiders etc.) settled the question of what is and is not art. Another approach is that art is an historical/intentional category. Artists work against a tradition of accepted art, and what they produce is intended to add to or to be understood in terms of that tradition (and might even repudiate it, as with DADA and a bunch of 20th century art). In both cases, experts (or at least competent speakers) settle what art means, but that answer might seem elitist to some. Run of the mill modelling wouldn't count as art under either of these theories because it lacks the institutional and historical/intentional setting that art has. 

[Tnarg]

I had one teacher who told us "Art is what makes you feel". Another only counted the accepted disciplines considered "fine arts" as "True Art". As an electrical engineer, I view my printed circuit board designs as art, because I call any creative effort "art". My definition may be too large for many people, but I think there is nothing wrong with a yellow Lancaster, especially if it is a "What IF?" model. Imagine a world where no one could sense yellow... then it is the ultimate in camouflage. That creative effort is art to me... maybe you feel different, but to quote a rather crude gentleman who spoke the truth, "That's just your opinion, man".

 

I remember the frustration of trying to capture the amazing sunrise I had seen that morning with the eight colors of plastic beads (two of them black and white), Elmer's glue and card stock paper in second grade. I was trying for "Great Art", but all that happens was it made me feel... feel very frustrated. The Greeks and Romans did a lot better with only a few more colors in their mosaics.

 

Tnarg

[Tnarg]

More comments to inflame the discussion would quote Feynman... "Why do you care what other people think?"

 

He didn't dismiss them as having no value, he only meant that his own self esteem and choices had nothing to do with their opinion, nor should his opinion influence their self worth.

 

Tnarg

[LSP_K2]

I certainly believe that modeling can be art, but I don't believe that it necessarily always is art.

[Out2gtcha]

Art in and of itself, is subjective. Just look at the art exhibits in some of the worlds largest galleries; "art" that was just made recently by some well known artist, considered the new Rembrandt goes for millions of dollars, and if you count the actual time and materials put into some, it's nearly NIL. The value comes from the people who put that value on that object.

Accepting something like that as a "great work of the modern world" is really no more farfetched than calling a really well done model art.

 

Again,

Modeling and art do have that in common, they are both highly subjective by the observers eye. What is a great work to one person may be a dirty piece paper floating in the wind to another.

[LSP_Ron]

I've just pruned a few posts.  Jennings please.....no need for jabs

[LSP_Ray]

I would just like to say: You guys are giving me a headache.

[LSP_Matt]

5 hours ago, Tnarg said:

More comments to inflame the discussion would quote Feynman... "Why do you care what other people think?"

 

He didn't dismiss them as having no value, he only meant that his own self esteem and choices had nothing to do with their opinion, nor should his opinion influence their self worth.

 

Tnarg

Feynman...such a genius and deep thinker. So much wisdom in that man

 

Matty

[Dpgsbody55]

This is a very subjective question as art, by nature, is almost impossible to define.  If it could be defined, then I think it follows that said art has just been reduced to the mechanical copying of methods and techniques.  I do have some knowledge here as my mother was an artist and we used to talk about this stuff.

 

My own feeling about model building is that the degree of artistry involved varies.  At one end, you have those who simply build and paint OOB.  There is some degree of artistry here in replicating paint schemes an correct colours, but has the modeller put much of him or her self into it?  Perspective and proportions come into any project so has the modeller captured the essence and appearance of the subject?  I've seen some very poor representations of RAF disruptive camouflages, so clearly the modeller has misjudged the proportions and perspective of the pattern, but at least it's an attempt, and we all have to learn this part of artistic endeavour.  This sums up much of my early model building and I still can't draw for nuts unless I have a defined shape (such as a model) on which to draw said RAF disruptive camouflage, but is still not an easy thing to capture.

 

A much higher degree of artistry is required once we start getting into addon detail and scratch building.  Extra engine and cockpit detailing, for example, requires research of the subject, which is what any good painter would do, to bring some life to the subject.  Weathering adds another dimension to what we do, as does building a diorama for your subject.  Developing your favourite technique to successfully achieve a more life like appearance is a big part of artistry as you're really beginning to inject something of yourself into the model.  I think I'm somewhere in this category right now, especially as I try to get better with each build.

 

The modellers I really take my hat off to are those who build their model from scratch, whatever the medium.  This takes a huge amount of skill, as well as some engineering ability when we talk about mechanical subjects.  Using specialised equipment tethered with imagination is a real art form, and presently way above my skill levels.

 

Any artistic endeavour is about the person trying to capture something's form, function and/or personality and the biggest critic of that endeavour is always the artist (or modeller) themself.  If you're challenging yourself to build a better model, then you will understand one of the most important concepts of art.  However, it's great to get feedback, especially if it's positive, but any feedback must always be constructive and helpful to the further improvement of a person's artistic ability and it isn't the most important part of what we do. 

 

So my own feeling is that modelling is an art, but to varying degrees.  I think art should progress, even if you plateau at a point for a while.

 

 

Just my $0.02 worth,

Cheers,

Michael

Edited January 6, 2021 by Dpgsbody55

[MikeMaben]

9 hours ago, Grant_T said:

 

Ha, that is a great question and I can't pretend to have the answer. The philosopher George Dickie argued that art is an institutional fact, and the "artworld" (i.e., artists, critics, experts, insiders etc.) settled the question of what is and is not art. Another approach is that art is an historical/intentional category. Artists work against a tradition of accepted art, and what they produce is intended to add to or to be understood in terms of that tradition (and might even repudiate it, as with DADA and a bunch of 20th century art). In both cases, experts (or at least competent speakers) settle what art means, but that answer might seem elitist to some. Run of the mill modelling wouldn't count as art under either of these theories because it lacks the institutional and historical/intentional setting that art has.