Question for the day: do you consider yourself an artist?
I was helping my girlfriend do her makeup the other day (it's a bit of fun before the inevitable comes ) and she said, you'll do fine, you're an artist. It got me thinking, I've always considered myself a mini painter, but not an actual artist. So, to all miniature painters out there, do you consider yourselves artists when you paint?
But of course. We are making pieces of art aren't we? The hobby as a whole is very artistic as it exercises our creativity not only with painting, but constructing and writing as well.
That is a very good question. I tend to define an artist as someone who are masters off their trade, and as I do not paint to such a high level I do not define myself as an artist, no. But that is only my view on the word..
If being self critical of ones work and strive to better it define an artist, then I too am an artist.
Calling myself an artist is an insult to other artists. I put paint on models at a skill level I would barely put above paint by numbers. I try to get better and my paint by number like skills have dramatically improved but what I do is far from what could be considered art.
No, it's not an insult to other artists. You're just a very focused kind of artist, assuming you paint your miniatures well beyond base coats, wash, and drybrush.
Honestly, if you're taking any amount of extra effort beyond that factory grade painting prep, then yes, you're practicing a narrow form of art.
Funny thing is, painting miniatures to a high standard definitely helped when using glazing methods for acylic on canvas painting later on for me.
Nope. I'm not sure we need the definition 'artist' these days as the spectrum of cteative arts is so broad that it really needs some more explanation to be of value.
I used to work as an 'artist' and always felt like my toy soldiers were a nice creative side project but never my 'true art'.
I do less art these days and see my model making/painting as exactly that.
I would define myself as a 'Maker' these days.
I probably should consider myself an artist, even at my tabletop level.
But I don’t.
If I was going to hang that title on myself, it would be for some of the pastel/charcoal works I did back in HS/early college. Or some of the fun things I do in the kitchen.
But I classify the hobby as just that; a hobby. Not art. It’s mostly a perspective thing, which is very subjective.
Trondheim wrote: No I dont consider myself an artis, would never see a reason for doing such a thing either
But what if, for the sake of argument, you transferred the skills you learned mini painting to a canvas piece? I'm just curious really about peoples definition of art as a medium. Especially when it comes to miniature work.
Trondheim wrote: No I dont consider myself an artis, would never see a reason for doing such a thing either
But what if, for the sake of argument, you transferred the skills you learned mini painting to a canvas piece? I'm just curious really about peoples definition of art as a medium. Especially when it comes to miniature work.
I would not waste time painting a picture, I leave that for those whom see fit to spend their time doing so. I paint my armies because without paint they are worthless to me and would not justifiy their puchase or use on the table.
Nevelon wrote: I probably should consider myself an artist, even at my tabletop level.
But I don’t.
I am in the same boat. When I first went to answer the OP's question I immediately thought, "No way am I an artist or is anything I do with my miniatures art!" However, I do find others' miniatures-related work to merit the label "art" so it's just my perspective on my own work that makes the label of artist bothersome to me. Hm. Quite the predicament!
Art and artist are broad terms as others have said, but I think on even the most basic level what we do for our hobby can and should be considered artistic. Which I suppose makes us all artists, even if many of us aren't comfortable with that designation.
If someone wants to call what I do with a miniature "art" I'd be extremely flattered. If someone also called me an artist I'd feel uncomfortable and try to downplay the "art" behind the miniature because I don't identify my painting as an artistic endeavor.
Good question, OP. This has gotten me thinking about how I view my own work, which is definitely through a prism of pessimism.
The artists I know all suffer from paralysing self-doubt and perfectionism. Nothing is ever "good enough" and they are constantly starting and doing-over all of their projects. Their results never live up to their expectations (it's like they never take into account the learning curves?)
I just do. The build is the learning experience. It may not be what I was aiming for, but it may also turn out BETTER.
(Maybe it's because I keep my expectations low, so it's not hard to exceed them?).
I do now, after realising that the main reason I didn't when I was younger is I was self-conscious about models not being "proper grown-up stuff".
Then I saw some of the utter farce on display in modern art galleries and decided if someone who chucks a bunch of garbage on a bed in a plain white room can claim to be an artist, then you're bloody right people who choose to put the effort into their models can - what we do has more in common with what I always thought of as "art"(painting, sculpting etc) than most of that pish.
And I don't see that it being a hobby bars it from being considered art and us artists - someone who paints watercolours or sculpts busts purely for their own enjoyment is still considered an artist.
Completely. Some painters I know, my dad and some members of my game group among them, only consider themselves tp be painting pieces for games. The point is to have the models finished for the tabletop, and the quality they're going for is strictly "good enough" - not that this is bad or that the models don't look decent, but that's not where their focus lies.
On the other hand, I do consider myself an artist. I put hours and hours into painting and converting my minis, I research techniques on how to get better, and the fact that I get to put the models on the tabletop later is almost an afterthought. I'm also an artist for my dayjob though, so maybe giving myself that label for this stuff just comes easier to me.
Jimsolo wrote: When I paint, no. But when I model, yes. There's more room for creativity and expression in building my minis than in painting them.
This. It is one of the reasons I can't really seem to get into Privateer Press/warmachine. Just painting models that can't really be changed in any significant way feels like work, not art. There's some enjoyment in choosing the colors, but other than that, somebody in China could do it for me and I wouldn't care. On the other hand, making up a counts as army bringing together minis from many lines with characters and themes I created does feel like art.
Herzlos wrote: I view it more like 3d coloring in, but I'm very much at the bottom end of the talent scale. Decent enough for tabletop but nothing to marvel at.
Most of the time I would think that I am doing the above, but other times I think I am making art.
It depends on the model and how much thought I have put into the colour scheme.
For example, if I am choosing colours to evoke a feeling (and I actually do it) then I would call that art. If the model just looks cool, then I would call that 3D colouring in.
Some time ago I went to the local arts store to buy some paints. Some local 'artists' that were hanging around at that time asked me what I was about to paint. I said 'miniatures'. They were genuinely surprised But yeah, since white spirit became my friend, I guess I can myself an artist
There are some modellers/painters who are artists, but most of us are not. Comparing most of us to artists would be like comparing an oil painting to a child's paint by numbers book.
i consider the concept artists and sculptors to be artists, as well as the guys who have really pushed the boundaries of mini painting to new levels...
myself, i am simply a professional painter...
more just advanced paint by numbers than art, really...
i do put artist on all of my official documents, ironically, since there is no other title i could legally use
more often than not, when people ask me what i do, and i say that i am a painter, they think i paint houses...
maybe very tiny houses...with gun ports
Sure, I'm an artist. I paint. I go to an art supply store. Its a craft. I'm not a great artist, we're never going to see a Space Marine in the Louvre next to Mona Lisa, but its still an art form. I'm more of an artist than 90% of today's singers and "musicians"
As an aside, about the make-up thing... When I did paint judging for a local tournament ( for 3 years) I would often encounter armies painted to 2 different standards. Obviously painted by 2 different people. Invariably, the better painted minis were done by the wife/girlfriend, even though they, according to the husband/Boyfriend, were novices to painting miniatures. I figured that it was due to their experience 'painting' their own faces with cosmetics. And possibly nail polish application etc.
What is an artist? Someone who makes something from nothing like a drawing/painting/sculpting? To be an artists to you need to make something out of nothing? Does it have to be an original drawing? If so, does this make an inker in comics (or comics of old) artists as well since they are just copying someone else's work. Does it have to be an original sculpt done by their own hands? So a mini would be a cheat then?
What about paint by numbers? People can make beautiful paintings from paint by numbers. Are they artists?
The way I see it, Minis are paint by numbers. We assemble them, with instructions just like paint by numbers and then paint them. We are painting something already made.
While some people do this beautifully are they artists? Can they do this without a mini? Can they make original drawings/sculpts?
There will never be a hard line as to what is art, or what is an artist. Discussing so is a topic far far beyond the reach of these forums.
However, while miniatures, like certain painting methods, can be paint by numbers, you can see on these same forums examples of unequivocal artistry.
People like Jen Haley, aka Paintrix, who paint miniatures better than most artists could paint on canvas or digitally are another example.
I think a better discussion isn't to ask what is or isn't, but rather to just post your favorite miniature paint jobs and painters to show examples of high levels of artistic skill being applied to miniatures.
And let's not forget that the miniature itself can be a work of art on its own, to which a good painter can bring that out.
Vertrucio wrote: T
People like Jen Haley, aka Paintrix, who paint miniatures better than most artists could paint on canvas or digitally are another example.
But can Paintrix also paint on a canvas? How about the artists who paint on a canvas. What can they do with miniatures?
I guess at the end of the day, yes it's all artwork. I am an artists. But a very very poor artist. I don't consider it a trade but just a hobby I like to do.
Art is anything created by a person that elicits a reaction, positive or negative, from the viewer. Duchamp's 'Urinal' proved that, if it needed proving.
We may not consider ourselves artists, but I think what we do is an art form.
Certainly the things some people can do with model kits and miniature figures are mindblowing, and, were they to be shown in a gallery, not out of place.
I seem to remember a pair of brothers (whose names I have forgotten, but they bought and then painted on genuine Goya charcoal sketches, thus either ruining them forever or being typical artists, depending) making a diorama about the Holocaust using 1/35th Tamiya figures. I thought the paintjobs were rather sloppy and rushed, myself...
No, but that probably has more to do with how I define artist than my own views. I think mini painting can be a very valid form of expression, but I'm not expressing myself or creating a conceptual piece. I'm engaged in a craft, not art. I think there's a significant difference, because craft allows for technique and quality and even personal style, but art is something a bit... more, to me.
I'd say yes. That's the goal, anyway. I choose techniques, consider principles of art, color theory, etc. I try my best to create artistically pleasing pieces.
Do I get paid for it? Not at all. Am I good at it? Not very. But that's not the point.
I'm a decent painter with 16 years of experience at it. I have not been formally trained, nor do I sell my minis, so I would never call myself a "Professional Painter". However, I'm still an artist.
I am using this definition:
art·ist noun a person who produces paintings or drawings as a profession or hobby.
I have creative skills many other people do not.
I think anyone able to take a "vision" in their head and expressing it in a physical form is an artist.
There are many debates if the novelty of the vision or the proficiency of execution warrants the title more.
Gives a mixed feeling when the wife invites "the girls over" and then I am painting their nails for them with little patterns and making stencils.
Extra decals were a hit...
A tiny Legolas diorama I made stays on my wife's work desk and always gets positive comments and asked where she bought it.
I have been "hired" many times usually for trade on assembly or painting of models.
I consider myself still learning, many people are better than me but I have been building models steadily since I was 10 years old so have learned a few things.
I guess it is hard when it is not my primary job and is something I do for fun.
It is hard to be so serious of using a "title" when it is something you are "fooling around" with even if it has been for decades.
I think 'Artist' is such a subjective word, that it's hard to pin it down to a definition.
In my opinion, I am not an artist as I cannot draw/paint from nothing. Give me a pre-rendered image and I'll colour it in, but ask me to draw it from scratch and I'll struggle.
I would like to say I am creative and can model/build things to a reasonable standard, but in the traditional sense of the word (to me), I am not an artist.
P.S. Although it may sound like it, I am not saying that model paint is a 3d version of a colouring book.
Well I guess seeing some of the Age of Sigmar art and if they can be considered artists who made some of the questionable art, then I can be considered one as well.
D4V1D0 wrote: P.S. Although it may sound like it, I am not saying that model paint is a 3d version of a colouring book.
I think I found myself saying that models are a form of "paint by numbers" because edges or recesses give you clues on how light or dark a colour to use.
I would not be that critical of your skills, you can find worlds of creativity in the execution of the art as much as the coming up with the original "vision" out of nothing.
I too am somewhat in awe when people make something out of "nothing", my main skill is taking an idea and running with it or "improving" it.
This can be tricky because while I do consider myself and others in the hobby to be artists, sometimes people don't understand that it doesn't always translate to other mediums. You may have an understanding of painting with acrylics but when doing something like makeup, there are nuances that you simply cannot know until you do it enough times. I get this all the time when someone sees one of my models and says "Oh man that's cool, can you paint a cool mural on my wall at home?" With enough practice, yes, but I know your wall is going to look like crap when i'm done with it so i'd rather not.
With that - This hobby has helped me most notably in understanding colors and shading. I've been able to use this knowledge with basic things like color pencils or even putting together wicked sweet power points together at work.
I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
gorgon wrote: I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
Hm, the teacher sounds a little bit elitist too me. If I create a painting on a ready made canvas, then does it not count as my own work because I didn't create the canvas from scratch? A mini is just a blank canvas after all.
I've been making my living at painting and modelling minis for about 7 years now, so by default I just got in the habit of saying I'm an artist from lack of a better answer when people ask what I do.
As to whether I consider myself one... depends on my mood and how I feel about the last thing I painted, really. I find it hard to look at 50 identical space marines painted to a quick standard as a work of art, but some of the more complex and creative things I've done and/or seen others do... well i guess to my mind a work of art is something you can enjoy just be looking at it, and well done miniatures can certainly fit that bill.
gorgon wrote: I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
Hm, the teacher sounds a little bit elitist too me. If I create a painting on a ready made canvas, then does it not count as my own work because I didn't create the canvas from scratch? A mini is just a blank canvas after all.
What would your art teacher say about the more advanced techniques, such as freehand art on the side of the Land Raider (the Deathwing Land Raider with The Creation of Adam on the side springs to mind). Even conversions aren't that much of a grey area, no more than a sculptre made of many seperate statues is. Even down to individuals, you are simply given a load of parts, the pose and position of the mini is chosen by you to create an image and convey a moment in time, such as a Marine in the midst of running. For artists who build small, desktop statues from nuts and bolts and pipes, would you deny their artist status because the nuts and bolts come pre-made and they simply assemble?
gorgon wrote: I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
Hm, the teacher sounds a little bit elitist too me. If I create a painting on a ready made canvas, then does it not count as my own work because I didn't create the canvas from scratch? A mini is just a blank canvas after all.
No, that's not at all what I'm talking about and that should be completely obvious to anyone using their brain. An unpainted miniature is the original creative work of an artist while a plain canvas (edit: or nuts and bolts, or some other random object) is not.
gorgon wrote: I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
Hm, the teacher sounds a little bit elitist too me. If I create a painting on a ready made canvas, then does it not count as my own work because I didn't create the canvas from scratch? A mini is just a blank canvas after all.
No, that's not at all what I'm talking about and that should be completely obvious to anyone using their brain. An unpainted miniature is the original creative work of an artist while a plain canvas (edit: or nuts and bolts, or some other random object) is not.
Well then what about graffiti art? Its painted on the side of a building, an original creative work of an architect, is the graffiti therefore not art?
Its just an elitist attitude to say this is art and this is not because of the canvas used, canvas being a metaphorical one in this situation. Some of the freehand you see, you cannot for one moment deign to say the creators are not artists, surely?
Edit; this was the Land Raider I refer to. Tell me its not art. He recreated Michaelango's masterpiece to 1:6000 scale
gorgon wrote: I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
I disagree with you and your teacher 100% if you feel this wasn't painted by an artist.
gorgon wrote: I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
Hm, the teacher sounds a little bit elitist too me. If I create a painting on a ready made canvas, then does it not count as my own work because I didn't create the canvas from scratch? A mini is just a blank canvas after all.
No, that's not at all what I'm talking about and that should be completely obvious to anyone using their brain. An unpainted miniature is the original creative work of an artist while a plain canvas (edit: or nuts and bolts, or some other random object) is not.
That's just a bit contradictory to what you wrote originally though. as well as somewhat rude. In your original post, (as says above) "it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work". and in your reply, "an unpainted miniature is the original creative work of the artist". So is it contradictory, or am i just reading it incorrectly?
gorgon wrote: I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
Hm, the teacher sounds a little bit elitist too me. If I create a painting on a ready made canvas, then does it not count as my own work because I didn't create the canvas from scratch? A mini is just a blank canvas after all.
No, that's not at all what I'm talking about and that should be completely obvious to anyone using their brain. An unpainted miniature is the original creative work of an artist while a plain canvas (edit: or nuts and bolts, or some other random object) is not.
That's just a bit contradictory to what you wrote originally though. as well as somewhat rude. In your original post, (as says above) "it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work". and in your reply, "an unpainted miniature is the original creative work of the artist". So is it contradictory, or am i just reading it incorrectly?
To further that, if what makes it unartistic is the fact it's painted on another artist's vision, is the Mona Lisa not art? Is any painting that is drawn from reality art? It's all an artist's representation of something that already exists. How is delicately shading and layering a miniature not the same? Does the act of painting it on a 3D object rather than a flat canvas turn something from art to hollow mimicry? Worth considering
gorgon wrote: I'll go with what my old art teachers would have said about this.
Painting miniatures may involve artistic processes and elements, but it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work. If you sculpted the mini (and it's not a copy of someone else's work), then it's art.
Now, if you heavily converted it...that's getting into a grey area, since you're creating something original but still appropriating the work of others. If it's heavily converted and the conversion includes some original sculpting, I'd say it's a definite maybe. Otherwise, no, painting miniatures isn't creating art and doesn't make you an artist.
I disagree with you and your teacher 100% if you feel this wasn't painted by an artist.
There's the pretentious meaning behind art (I invoke emotion and desire, therefore I art) and then there's the practical meaning (I made this). My figures fall into the latter category. It may not be high art, but I display my painted miniatures, get admiring comments, and take pride in my work - like I'm sure every miniature painter does. It takes skill and creativity, and works towards an pleasing aesthetic - what I make is art, so I guess that makes me an artist. Since I also hate unpainted figures on barren tables, it also makes me a pretentious artist.
I think, for me, it boils down to whether or not the "artist" has a purpose beyond the practical-in this case the practical application of paint to play a game or make some money. In other words, are they trying to express an idea, or convey an emotion, make a point, or make a statement? If so it is art. If the goal is just to slap some paint on a miniature, be it for gaming purposes or to sell, no matter how well applied, it isn't really "Art". To me, the goal of art is expression. As a result, even the most horribly painted miniature with craft store goop non diluted and with glue coming out of every seam can be art. On the other hand, the most technically talented, smoothly transitioned, subtly lit mini might not be, though I would think most people who take that much time with it will inevitably be doing so beyond practical purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: There's the pretentious meaning behind art (I invoke emotion and desire, therefore I art) and then there's the practical meaning (I made this). My figures fall into the latter category. It may not be high art, but I display my painted miniatures, get admiring comments, and take pride in my work - like I'm sure every miniature painter does. It takes skill and creativity, and works towards an pleasing aesthetic - what I make is art, so I guess that makes me an artist. Since I also hate unpainted figures on barren tables, it also makes me a pretentious artist.
See, to me, just going by that definition, you are a craftsman. Possibly an extremely talented one. And I don't see why emotion has to have a pretentious connotation. All humans have emotions. All humans create art in some way.
I think the words "art" and "artist" is thrown around too much in general when it comes to creative work - a term I much prefer to go by. Calling myself an "artist" sounds pretentious and is a disservice to people who have artistic merit far beyond mine, much like when YouTubers call their work "art". They aren't wrong really, but it's the connotations around the word itself that makes it sound like they're full of themselves compared to people who create canvas works from scratch.
I don't consider myself an artist, although technically I am one; I paint models and I do a fairly good job of it. I consider myself to have creative talent in that regard, as painting has combined with my photographic memory so much so that I have almost all the Citadel paint system memorised in terms of what colours they produce on models, and which are suited to a specific model and colour scheme. In the outside world this has translated into my ability to colour match and create colour schemes for various things very well (much to the confusion and inquisitive looks of my female friends ). Is that really worthy of a prestigious title such as "artist"? I don't think so myself. That, and I have no concept of scale in my head, so I can't really create art outside of painting models.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I think, for me, it boils down to whether or not the "artist" has a purpose beyond the practical-in this case the practical application of paint to play a game or make some money. In other words, are they trying to express an idea, or convey an emotion, make a point, or make a statement? If so it is art. If the goal is just to slap some paint on a miniature, be it for gaming purposes or to sell, no matter how well applied, it isn't really "Art". To me, the goal of art is expression. As a result, even the most horribly painted miniature with craft store goop non diluted and with glue coming out of every seam can be art. On the other hand, the most technically talented, smoothly transitioned, subtly lit mini might not be, though I would think most people who take that much time with it will inevitably be doing so beyond practical purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: There's the pretentious meaning behind art (I invoke emotion and desire, therefore I art) and then there's the practical meaning (I made this). My figures fall into the latter category. It may not be high art, but I display my painted miniatures, get admiring comments, and take pride in my work - like I'm sure every miniature painter does. It takes skill and creativity, and works towards an pleasing aesthetic - what I make is art, so I guess that makes me an artist. Since I also hate unpainted figures on barren tables, it also makes me a pretentious artist.
See, to me, just going by that definition, you are a craftsman. Possibly an extremely talented one. And I don't see why emotion has to have a pretentious connotation. All humans have emotions. All humans create art in some way.
What, then, would you call people who love painting the miniatures, and to whom the game and tabletop is simply a nice bonus that comes with that painting?
Gordon Shumway wrote: I think, for me, it boils down to whether or not the "artist" has a purpose beyond the practical-in this case the practical application of paint to play a game or make some money. In other words, are they trying to express an idea, or convey an emotion, make a point, or make a statement? If so it is art. If the goal is just to slap some paint on a miniature, be it for gaming purposes or to sell, no matter how well applied, it isn't really "Art". To me, the goal of art is expression. As a result, even the most horribly painted miniature with craft store goop non diluted and with glue coming out of every seam can be art. On the other hand, the most technically talented, smoothly transitioned, subtly lit mini might not be, though I would think most people who take that much time with it will inevitably be doing so beyond practical purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: There's the pretentious meaning behind art (I invoke emotion and desire, therefore I art) and then there's the practical meaning (I made this). My figures fall into the latter category. It may not be high art, but I display my painted miniatures, get admiring comments, and take pride in my work - like I'm sure every miniature painter does. It takes skill and creativity, and works towards an pleasing aesthetic - what I make is art, so I guess that makes me an artist. Since I also hate unpainted figures on barren tables, it also makes me a pretentious artist.
See, to me, just going by that definition, you are a craftsman. Possibly an extremely talented one. And I don't see why emotion has to have a pretentious connotation. All humans have emotions. All humans create art in some way.
What, then, would you call people who love painting the miniatures, and to whom the game and tabletop is simply a nice bonus that comes with that painting?
It depends. If the love is merely a love to pass the time and to escape, then I would call them hobbyists. If they are trying to tell a story, or express a mood (actually a pretty low bar and one I think most people in the hobby would fall under), I would call them artists. Even if nobody ever sees their work other than themselves.
Well... I'm certainly more on the craftsman end of the scale as opposed to an artist. I've never gone far off piste with schemes or conversions and generally I'm just recreating a look with at most a touch of personal flair but nothing truly creative. I could recognise other hobbyists as artists though, or maybe more specifically certain models they've painted as being works of art. That fire prism on the previous page definitely has artistic merit
I consider myself an artist. Not a professional one though - no, that I save for the people that are really good, really into it, or who get paid for creating.
Still, art is just that to me - the act of creating something for some purpose, whether it be to entertain, to express, to show, to practice, or just to create. The things that we make are all inherently expressions of ourselves, even if we make them for something or someone else. Your effort and time went into that thing you created. Maybe your blood, sweat, and tears. And that means something.
Sure, there can be different levels of art, but who am I to tell someone else how to feel about something? Just because someone who tried hard is not necessarily world class does not make their contributions less.
Trondheim wrote: No I dont consider myself an artis, would never see a reason for doing such a thing either
But what if, for the sake of argument, you transferred the skills you learned mini painting to a canvas piece? I'm just curious really about peoples definition of art as a medium. Especially when it comes to miniature work.
Having done some traditional paintings on canvas... no, the skills don't transfer at all well between the two levels.
The brush skills are far different - mini painting puts an extreme emphasis on point control, while on the larger scale of a canvas that's far less critical. Instead, canvas painting deals with dozens of techniques and many different brush types (round, liner, point, filbert, fan, etc.)... none of which really translate all that well to minis outside freehanding large banners.
In addition, canvas painting makes use of other tools for applying paint, like paint knives.
Then there's the hefty difference in the paints themselves. The body of an oil or acrylic paint used most often in canvas paintings is sufficient to turn a miniature into a featureless blob unless HEAVILY thinned.
It's apples and oranges, really. The only skill that transfers is the discipline to sit down and work at it. In my opinion, anyway.
Nope, my skills have one purpose - to get models to the table and look reasonably well.
Plenty of folks/machines do that in China/overseas selling us prepainted toys that do that as a job, not as an artist - and they often do a much better job than I.
Having done some traditional paintings on canvas... no, the skills don't transfer at all well between the two levels.
Believe it or not, a lot of miniature painting skill is directly transferable to doing pixel art. There's a lot of overlap there, not physically, but in the use of color to suggest detail that is otherwise invisible.
Nope, I wouldn't call it art, except in exceptional circumstances.
I'd define what we do as very skilled craft, and you could certainly call the most skilled model painters and builders great artisans. They know how to use their tools incredibly well and spend years perfecting the craft.
However, I'd probably use the more contemporary idea of 'art' as something you make that is MORE than just very good - something that transcends skill to make you think about the world, or an unrelated issue, or conveys emotion. When we call a painting 'art' we're not just saying that it is very cool or very skilful to make, we're saying that it makes us think or feel differently for having experienced it.
I design theatre productions for a living. When I work as part of team to create a new play, and people are crying at the end, or feel differently about the subject matter, then I feel a bit like we've made something you could call 'art'. All the people working on the play are still very good at their craft (the actors, the scene painters, etc), and would be even if they play itself were bad, but there's definitely something 'more' going on when it all comes together.
As an example, does anyone remember the Chapman Brothers' 'Hell' (it can easily be googled if not)? I was lucky enough to see it for real at the Royal Academy about 15 years ago. It was an installation piece involving toy soldiers, thousands of them painted and converted in some sort of hellish undead representation of the holocaust. It was very skilfully made, but the reason it was accepted 'art' wasn't because the models were well-painted or well-converted, it was because the arrangement, scale and setting had a really powerful impact and made you consider great big aspects of life and history that were nothing to do with toy soldiers.
Trondheim wrote: No I dont consider myself an artis, would never see a reason for doing such a thing either
But what if, for the sake of argument, you transferred the skills you learned mini painting to a canvas piece? I'm just curious really about peoples definition of art as a medium. Especially when it comes to miniature work.
Having done some traditional paintings on canvas... no, the skills don't transfer at all well between the two levels.
The brush skills are far different - mini painting puts an extreme emphasis on point control, while on the larger scale of a canvas that's far less critical. Instead, canvas painting deals with dozens of techniques and many different brush types (round, liner, point, filbert, fan, etc.)... none of which really translate all that well to minis outside freehanding large banners.
In addition, canvas painting makes use of other tools for applying paint, like paint knives.
Then there's the hefty difference in the paints themselves. The body of an oil or acrylic paint used most often in canvas paintings is sufficient to turn a miniature into a featureless blob unless HEAVILY thinned.
It's apples and oranges, really. The only skill that transfers is the discipline to sit down and work at it. In my opinion, anyway.
Yeah, the differences are many, and I think some folks here don't know what they don't know.
There's plenty that goes into representing a 3D world in 2D, and miniature painting isn't going to give you the drawing skills and understanding of perspective that you need.
Then you also have a little something called composition, which in miniature painting is determined for you and/or isn't much of a consideration unless you're creating a diorama or more elaborately based miniature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: That's just a bit contradictory to what you wrote originally though. as well as somewhat rude. In your original post, (as says above) "it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work". and in your reply, "an unpainted miniature is the original creative work of the artist". So is it contradictory, or am i just reading it incorrectly?
I don't know what you don't understand here. Imagine that you're holding a miniature in your hand. That miniature is the original creative work of a sculptor (i.e. not you). The sculptor has a basis for calling it art, and calling himself/herself an artist. You aren't making art or being an artist just by applying paint on top of HIS or HER work. It may be *artistic*. But art? No, probably not unless you start altering it, preferably in new ways conceived of and created by you.
There are grey areas here, and times in history in which these boundaries were pushed.
kronk wrote: I disagree with you and your teacher 100% if you feel this wasn't painted by an artist.
It may or may not have been painted by an artist, but painting this didn't make him or her an artist, or make the miniature his or her own artwork.
If you, kronk, sculpted something new out of greenstuff, and then painted it 1% as nicely as the tank in that pic, then YES, you'd have a much better case for your work being ART. It'd be your original creative work.
It's about the creative process...not the level of technique applied.
I also consider myself a craftsman when I paint miniatures.
That's mostly because I don't approach painting of miniatures as an art form. I deliberately paint for tabletop-quality and any acquisition of skills I do is primarily aimed at getting things done faster, with improved quality being a distant second.
Some of my terrain building might border on art as I tend to engage more with my imagination and really try to push beyond the borders of the toys and bits that I combine into terrain. Still, I don't really look at it as an artistic endeavor as much as a craft.
When I want an artistic outlet I break out the bass guitar and play music.
Yes, but not solely because I paint miniatures, well honestly I don't call myself one but my boss and wife do so I kinda lose. My new job is designing, building, and painting, props and sets for a haunted house, in time it'll also include characters and costumes. My boss gives me a concept, I put it on paper, build a story around it, revise it with the story now behind it, then turn it into a physical object. I think that would qualify at least for the bare minimum of what a artist is.
I taken alot of what I've learned from scratch building, kitbashing, and painting however and applied it to my work, just scaled up. I think 40k (or whatever game you might play) has a inherently artistic skillset that's attached to prepping the models for play but its how you use those skills that make you a "artist"
BTW I hate being called a artist, no idea why but I find it... almost condescending. Might help understand my point of view, I'll take being called creative over a artist any day of the week.
Being a actual artist in ceramics/painting as well as a professor who taught art in a recognized university, I can say that none of the miniature painters are 'artists', they are very highly advanced craftsmen of the trade.
An artist is someone who is usually ahead of their cultural time, thus they usually don't get recognized till after death, their work guides the culture like a shepard. Artwork are categorized in 2 areas, those invoke emotion/political and those that are decorative.
The illustrators, miniature sculptors, and writers in this industry I consider artists. There is no implied insult toward miniature painters, who myself is also one, just how the culture is organized.
'There are three aspects to human creativity - Art, Crafts, and Science [...] art relies upon intuitive sensing, vision and expression, crafts upon sophisticated technique and science upon knowledge'
On that basis, most miniature painting would probably fall under craft. However, there are definitely aspects of the artistic in the arrangement and composition of a figure; in the visualisation, development and creation of a diorama etc.
If you take away the cultural baggage of the term 'artist' as it is often understood – refinement, otherworldliness, impracticality – then I think it's pretty fair to describe miniature painting as artwork, as it involves at least some form of creativity and expression.
Maybe we can say that they can be artists, but they probably aren't. There's a lot of creativity in the miniature hobby - not just painting, but customizing models, building lists, filling out a table with terrain, coming up with a narrative or scenario for a battle, creating rules - but they are generally more towards a specific goal of creating an enjoyable (aesthetically, socially, emotionally, intellectually) experience.
In a way, it's like programming. You are making creative decisions with every line of code, but at the same time, those decisions are as much about problem solving and getting to the finish line as anything else - but there is definitely code that I consider a work of art. A beautiful algorithm, implemented with precision and purpose, transcends mere craftsmanship into a singular expression of the creative self. It does not - could not - exist through craft alone.
And by that standard, miniature painting (and all the other cooperative and creative efforts involved in the hobby) is a craft, but taken together, maybe isn't just a craft. I mean, playing Warmachine with empty bases and unpainted, half assembled models on a flat table with cut out pieces of felt to represent forests is not art. It is a game and nothing more, and perhaps doesn't even rise to the standard of craft. But playing fully painted armies on one of the Warhammer World tables, pitting your army against another in a shared narrative - it's an experience that required the creativity and craftsmanship of multiple people making multiple efforts, a cooperative art form of which painting miniatures is but one (important) part.
The way I see it, miniature games aren't just games. They are art too - more so than any other gaming experience in existence. And if someone peeing into a can of Spaghetti-Ohs can be considered art, then I feel like the umbrella of art is broad enough to include something like this.
Depends on what I'm applying myself to. I don't consider my involvement with miniatures "art", I would label those projects "scale modelling". I'm not saying scale models can't be art, in fact the contemporary art forms I admire the most, are the sort of dioramas which employs models and techniques I'm able to comprehend.
I should also point out that I have a degree from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, and professionally many of my colleagues self-identify as artists. Whether or not modern architecture qualifies as art, is subjective and a different discussion entirely, but personally, when I find myself deeply involved in what I do, and I get to create something truly original, then I feel like an artist.
Building models, on the other hand, does not provide me with the opportunity to create anything original, because by default the model is always going to be a copy of something else. This applies to 40k in particular, with everything I use having originally been purchased as kits. To me, model building is a craft, but it's something I enjoy doing, because it allows me to create things but without the exhaustion of having to come up with everything myself.
It's very comfortable and fulfilling to assemble something someone else has thought out.
The whole point of being a miniature wargamer is to get my art fix on a scale that's compatible with life. I was taught woodworking from under the age of ten, have a tech theatre degree (emphases on scenic design & construction / stage management) and had my own construction business after finishing university. My need to create art and build neat stuff is as fundamental as the need to breathe or drink water. While the macro scale is not practical, the micro world opens tons of creative possibilities. I don't care if I never win a game. I win when the people at the at the FLGS give oohs and aahs to my work, which means that the worst I can do on any given night is break even (assuming I get roflstomped by my opponent, which isn't uncommon).
IMO, if painting minis is a means to an end (i.e. tabletop standard) then you probably aren't an artist. If painting allows you to express yourself in a way that cannot be accomplished via any other means, then you most definitely are. The joy of this hobby is that both options are perfectly acceptable.
Well, the guys who go out and play cover tunes all night at the local club appear to believe they are artists.
So I am unsure how knowing a few things about colour theory and painting little models so they look good is not a consideration for the same title as well.
Wiktionary defines the noun 'artist' (Singular: artist; Plural: artists) as follows:
1.A person who creates art.
2.A person who makes and creates art as an occupation.
3.A person who is skilled at some activity. 4.A person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.
I think we all fit broadly within definition #3.
There are many on this board that fit both within #2 and #4 as well.
Many of those who sculpt their figures and do fancy things like dioramas, NMM and basically make something quite different than the base figure are well within item #1.
In this hobby it is quite obvious there are people who do amazing things with the hobby, where it makes our own humble efforts seem like garbage in comparison.
But you should not sell yourself short that you develop skills that few people can attempt outside of the hobby.
I think this is why it is so great a hobby: there is so much to learn!
Plus, anyone I met that was a true master at what they do, every one of them tell me "I am just learning.".
It is funny how certain labels is like a status, branding or profession. You feel you need some test, hazing or ritual to be entered into the "brotherhood".
Do we need some secret handshake or something?
My son doused a SM model in paint so I could easily say "Good coverage!" he certainly went at it with the gusto of the inspired.
From the imagination of his drawings he "is" an artist just needs to work on technique. Lord help us all if he got any of those images in his head out in the world more vividly... Tzeentch has nothing on him.
Having a green/red colourblind challenge makes it all the more... surprising the creation, his sense of tones is spot-on.
Talizvar wrote: It is funny how certain labels is like a status, branding or profession. You feel you need some test, hazing or ritual to be entered into the "brotherhood".
Do we need some secret handshake or something?
My son doused a SM model in paint so I could easily say "Good coverage!" he certainly went at it with the gusto of the inspired.
From the imagination of his drawings he "is" an artist just needs to work on technique. Lord help us all if he got any of those images in his head out in the world more vividly... Tzeentch has nothing on him.
Having a green/red colourblind challenge makes it all the more... surprising the creation, his sense of tones is spot-on.
You don't know the handshake? Such cretinhood.
Your son is an excellent example of what I take art to be: use of artistic techniques such as painting or drawing as expression or fun or profession. At some point in his life, van Gogh must have been told he wasn't an artist, he was simply painting his own face. Da Vinci must have been told the Mona Lisa wasn't art. Donatello must have heard something akin to "you aren't really an artist, you just break that beautiful hunk of marble." Everyone gets told their art isn't art until the world begins to appreciate.
Talizvar wrote: Well, the guys who go out and play cover tunes all night at the local club appear to believe they are artists. So I am unsure how knowing a few things about colour theory and painting little models so they look good is not a consideration for the same title as well.
Wiktionary defines the noun 'artist' (Singular: artist; Plural: artists) as follows: 1.A person who creates art. 2.A person who makes and creates art as an occupation. 3.A person who is skilled at some activity. 4.A person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.
I think we all fit broadly within definition #3. There are many on this board that fit both within #2 and #4 as well. Many of those who sculpt their figures and do fancy things like dioramas, NMM and basically make something quite different than the base figure are well within item #1.
In this hobby it is quite obvious there are people who do amazing things with the hobby, where it makes our own humble efforts seem like garbage in comparison. But you should not sell yourself short that you develop skills that few people can attempt outside of the hobby. I think this is why it is so great a hobby: there is so much to learn! Plus, anyone I met that was a true master at what they do, every one of them tell me "I am just learning.".
Even 3 is subjective on how you define "skilled".
If people were painting miniatures as a job and I had to define that job, I'd call it "semi-skilled" labour for all but a small percentage of people who I could genuinely call "skilled". The level of skill of most wargamers is probably on par with anything from a couple of days to a couple of weeks worth of training for a random person off the street under a decent teacher. Certainly nothing like the "skill" I built up to perform my actual day job, which would take months to teach to someone pulled off the street.
If your definition of "skilled" is so low as to include most wargamers, well, I'd say everyone in the world is probably skilled at SOMETHING well enough to be considered an "artist".
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Even 3 is subjective on how you define "skilled".
If people were painting miniatures as a job and I had to define that job, I'd call it "semi-skilled" labour for all but a small percentage of people who I could genuinely call "skilled".
If your definition of "skilled" is so low as to include most wargamers, well, I'd say everyone in the world is probably skilled at SOMETHING well enough to be considered an "artist".
"Define" or "Compare with"?
Like so many "labels" we like to throw around, it depends on what you compare against.
Would "most wargamers" be less skilled than the average person out there?
Maybe if they consistently field a chrome or grey legion whenever they play.
Demonstrable application of skilled technique?
That is only one side to the coin.
Some demonstrable vision or creative thought/image brought to light is another element.
I think many of my skills fall in an "expert" method of assembling models and removing all the gaps and joins all the while ensuring glue is not smeared outside of joins.
That is technically proficient but may not fall at all within any artist skills.
Being able to kit-bash, add detail with green-stuff, is that more in line or does it need to be a completely new object from scratch?
Painting: what techniques do you need to use to be considered artistic enough?
One guy in our gaming group has the most accurate painting, almost no shade or edge highlight but edge control you can cut yourself on... artist or not?
Each group or culture usually has their own language or terms and I think we have that.
Doctors use a fair bit of Latin as well as Lawyers for a reason: it sounds much more impressive and reduces outsider understanding: makes things exclusive.
For instance, for the classically trained take a look at the language here: http://www.essentialvermeer.com/glossary/glossary_a_c.html#.V9AxQo-cE4k
We have our own terms like "priming", "dry-brush", "edge-highlight", "washing", "black or brown lining", "staining", "layering", "gunk", "mini-handle", "magic-wash", "kit-bash", "NMM"... etc. So then, we offer a test of terms and they join the fraternity??
Talizvar wrote: Would "most wargamers" be less skilled than the average person out there?
I like the way you ignored the part of my post where I actually justified calling most wargamers "semi-skilled" rather than skilled. Here, let me quote the bit of my post you cut out...
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If people were painting miniatures as a job and I had to define that job, I'd call it "semi-skilled" labour for all but a small percentage of people who I could genuinely call "skilled". The level of skill of most wargamers is probably on par with anything from a couple of days to a couple of weeks worth of training for a random person off the street under a decent teacher. Certainly nothing like the "skill" I built up to perform my actual day job, which would take months to teach to someone pulled off the street.
If anything I was being generous saying "a couple of days to a couple of weeks", I could get someone painting models as good as 90% of wargamers in I'd say 1 to 3 days (along with teaching them the very simple vernacular).
That is NOT what I call "skilled" work. It's what I call "semi-skilled" work, that is to say; no, you could not get some random person off the street to do it, but the training time to get some random person off the street doing it is trivial.
Like really, I think people have an over inflated idea of how difficult it is to build and paint models simply because they learned the hard way through trial and error. But in reality, it's all pretty basic stuff. The processes are all relatively linear which makes it very easy to teach, easier than training someone to be a mechanic or a machinist or an engineer or the vast majority of day jobs.
If you want to call people who paint miniatures for wargames artists simply because you think they're "skilled", then by extension you have to call EVERYONE who performs any job that requires some level of training an "artist" as well, roof tilers, mechanics, machinists, builders, welders, nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, accountants, basically ANY job that required you to learn something a random person off the street wouldn't know now classifies you as "an artist".
No, I think that's wrong because it becomes trivially easy to be labelled an artist. When you talk about the definition of artist as being...
3.A person who is skilled at some activity.
...it makes sense to limit yourself to people who are exceptionally skilled. Like "he isn't just a football player, he's an artist".
We have our own terms like "priming", "dry-brush", "edge-highlight", "washing", "black or brown lining", "staining", "layering", "gunk", "mini-handle", "magic-wash", "kit-bash", "NMM"... etc. So then, we offer a test of terms and they join the fraternity??
LOL, I like the way you post a link to a bunch of classical art terminology that would actually require time and effort to learn and understand.... but all the wargaming terminology is stuff that is mostly self-evident or at most requires brief description.
Doctors use a fair bit of Latin as well as Lawyers for a reason: it sounds much more impressive and reduces outsider understanding: makes things exclusive.
Is that why you think people have specialised language? No, it's not, it's so things have clear and precise definitions so people within the field can communicate concisely and without confusion. I teach a final year engineering subject at a university, by that time I have to assume all the students know engineering vernacular because I can't get bogged down explaining things as if I were explaining it to a layperson.
By using greek or latin names it helps reduce confusion compared to using English words that often have their own connotations.
EDIT: Sorry this post has had too many edits, I'm at work and so my attention is split Personally I have no problem if a wargamer wants to call themselves an artist, but if that's the case IMO it's predicated on the idea that painting miniatures is art, NOT that it requires skill and therefore it must be art.
If you think painting models that you yourself didn't sculpt is art, ok, call yourself an artist.
Talizvar wrote: Would "most wargamers" be less skilled than the average person out there?
I like the way you ignored the part of my post where I actually justified calling most wargamers "semi-skilled" rather than skilled. Here, let me quote the bit of my post you cut out...
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If people were painting miniatures as a job and I had to define that job, I'd call it "semi-skilled" labour for all but a small percentage of people who I could genuinely call "skilled". The level of skill of most wargamers is probably on par with anything from a couple of days to a couple of weeks worth of training for a random person off the street under a decent teacher. Certainly nothing like the "skill" I built up to perform my actual day job, which would take months to teach to someone pulled off the street.
If anything I was being generous saying "a couple of days to a couple of weeks", I could get someone painting models as good as 90% of wargamers in I'd say 1 to 3 days (along with teaching them the very simple vernacular).
That is NOT what I call "skilled" work. It's what I call "semi-skilled" work, that is to say; no, you could not get some random person off the street to do it, but the training time to get some random person off the street doing it is trivial.
Like really, I think people have an over inflated idea of how difficult it is to build and paint models simply because they learned the hard way through trial and error. But in reality, it's all pretty basic stuff. The processes are all relatively linear which makes it very easy to teach, easier than training someone to be a mechanic or a machinist or an engineer or the vast majority of day jobs.
If you want to call people who paint miniatures for wargames artists simply because you think they're "skilled", then by extension you have to call EVERYONE who performs any job that requires some level of training an "artist" as well, roof tilers, mechanics, machinists, builders, welders, nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, accountants, basically ANY job that required you to learn something a random person off the street wouldn't know now classifies you as "an artist".
No, I think that's wrong because it becomes trivially easy to be labelled an artist. When you talk about the definition of artist as being...
3.A person who is skilled at some activity.
...it makes sense to limit yourself to people who are exceptionally skilled. Like "he isn't just a football player, he's an artist".
We have our own terms like "priming", "dry-brush", "edge-highlight", "washing", "black or brown lining", "staining", "layering", "gunk", "mini-handle", "magic-wash", "kit-bash", "NMM"... etc. So then, we offer a test of terms and they join the fraternity??
LOL, I like the way you post a link to a bunch of classical art terminology that would actually require time and effort to learn and understand.... but all the wargaming terminology is stuff that is mostly self-evident or at most requires brief description.
Doctors use a fair bit of Latin as well as Lawyers for a reason: it sounds much more impressive and reduces outsider understanding: makes things exclusive.
Is that why you think people have specialised language? No, it's not, it's so things have clear and precise definitions so people within the field can communicate concisely and without confusion. I teach a final year engineering subject at a university, by that time I have to assume all the students know engineering vernacular because I can't get bogged down explaining things as if I were explaining it to a layperson.
By using greek or latin names it helps reduce confusion compared to using English words that often have their own connotations.
EDIT: Sorry this post has had too many edits, I'm at work and so my attention is split Personally I have no problem if a wargamer wants to call themselves an artist, but if that's the case IMO it's predicated on the idea that painting miniatures is art, NOT that it requires skill and therefore it must be art.
If you think painting models that you yourself didn't sculpt is art, ok, call yourself an artist.
Okay, it is getting firmly into the condescending realm.
Yes, it would take little time to drag any old person off the street and get them to slap together some models and paint to a "tabletop standard".
I am sure a couple days of getting them to understand our simple language here along with leetspeak or anything else would be trivial.
Sorry to offend how Latin can be so "succinct", my friend in nursing school would beg to differ, he finds it pretentious how the medical world uses the language (and he used to be a monk reading pure Latin, I kid you not).
The thing is, at some point you have built-up a level of knowledge where it is no longer some assembly line worker level of skill.
I will also point out I had discussed earlier is it a high level or technical proficiency that makes a person an artist or the "vision" they have in their head and bring it into the world?
I also have no small measure of engineering training / skills so I find creativity "from scratch" more exciting than building on an idea but both are strong creative outlets.
I read all your points twice and fail to see your point other than ridicule.
It seems to be saying that most people here have an overinflated view of how much of an "artist" they are at least specifically with the miniature hobbyist end of things.
Talizvar wrote: Sorry to offend how Latin can be so "succinct", my friend in nursing school would beg to differ, he finds it pretentious how the medical world uses the language (and he used to be a monk reading pure Latin, I kid you not).
Eh, sorry if I don't automatically believe your friend's word. I have students complain to me all the time how X, Y or Z is unnecessary knowledge, and sure some of it is, but most of the time the students just haven't pushed their knowledge far enough to understand why something is important. Or often they're just frustrated that they struggle to understand.
In many areas Latin is used because it works as a short hand, like etc. and ie. or how we say an argument is ad hominem or certain knowledge is a priori or a posteriori.
In contrast you might have a word like stress, it's English and has it's own connotation, but in engineering stress means something very specific, a student will still have to learn what it means so if you gave it some flowery Latin or Greek name it'd be no easier or harder for them to comprehend.
Talizvar wrote: I read all your points twice and fail to see your point other than ridicule.
I'll be more succinct then.
If your definition of an artist is simply someone who is skilled at something, it should be skill that is exceptional, difficult to attain, etc. Other than a handful of people, most wargamers don't demonstrate all that much skill.
If you don't narrow your definition to exceptional skill, well then everyone is an artist because everyone has some skill in something.
It seems to be saying that most people here have an overinflated view of how much of an "artist" they are at least specifically with the miniature hobbyist end of things.
Nope, I'm simply saying if you want to define yourself as an artist, it's because you think wargaming models are art. You don't have to be good at it for it to be art, the question is whether or not it is art.
Talizvar wrote: Sorry to offend how Latin can be so "succinct", my friend in nursing school would beg to differ, he finds it pretentious how the medical world uses the language (and he used to be a monk reading pure Latin, I kid you not).
Eh, sorry if I don't automatically believe your friend's word. I have students complain to me all the time how X, Y or Z is unnecessary knowledge, and sure some of it is, but most of the time the students just haven't pushed their knowledge far enough to understand why something is important. Or often they're just frustrated that they struggle to understand.
In many areas Latin is used because it works as a short hand, like etc. and ie. or how we say an argument is ad hominem or certain knowledge is a priori or a posteriori.
In contrast you might have a word like stress, it's English and has it's own connotation, but in engineering stress means something very specific, a student will still have to learn what it means so if you gave it some flowery Latin or Greek name it'd be no easier or harder for them to comprehend.
So at least we can establish that the wording is important depending on the context.
I am not sure if you are trying to make the case that the more involved and complex the words, the more "skilled" you are in that discipline.
It still seems to be focusing unduly on proficiency of the language = knowledge or skill.
Spoiler:
Talizvar wrote: I read all your points twice and fail to see your point other than ridicule.
]I'll be more succinct then.
If your definition of an artist is simply someone who is skilled at something, it should be skill that is exceptional, difficult to attain, etc. Other than a handful of people, most wargamers don't demonstrate all that much skill.
If you don't narrow your definition to exceptional skill, well then everyone is an artist because everyone has some skill in something.
Now there you have my agreement.
We all like to think we are our own special snowflake but certain titles or labels would be devalued if they were easy to obtain.
Spoiler:
It seems to be saying that most people here have an overinflated view of how much of an "artist" they are at least specifically with the miniature hobbyist end of things.
Nope, I'm simply saying if you want to define yourself as an artist, it's because you think wargaming models are art. You don't have to be good at it for it to be art, the question is whether or not it is art.
A rather narrow definition you are looking for there, I am unsure if I should move the goalpost as well in answer.
It does at first blush sound silly to call wargaming miniatures "art" yet some people certainly execute their builds well into something I would consider art.
I think a review of "Awesome Mini or Not" is sufficient evidence.
The OP's question is "Do you consider yourself an artist?", I think those who enjoy all elements of the hobby have extended those skills beyond just the wargame miniatures.
I have made traditional paintings, I may be considered a hack by some.
Your own efforts as a teacher is to get students to a level of comprehension/proficiency to a defined level.
Unfortunately we may need to be pointed to some form of standardized test to get our artist card.
What you do as a profession is no easy task, you need to teach and then develop a means of testing the student on the information that was presented.
How would you define a passing grade for someone to be considered an artist? I am actually interested in your opinion.
It is the more creative aspects of art I would struggle to find a method of evaluation other than a possible peer review.
Talizvar wrote: Sorry to offend how Latin can be so "succinct", my friend in nursing school would beg to differ, he finds it pretentious how the medical world uses the language (and he used to be a monk reading pure Latin, I kid you not).
Eh, sorry if I don't automatically believe your friend's word. I have students complain to me all the time how X, Y or Z is unnecessary knowledge, and sure some of it is, but most of the time the students just haven't pushed their knowledge far enough to understand why something is important. Or often they're just frustrated that they struggle to understand. In many areas Latin is used because it works as a short hand, like etc. and ie. or how we say an argument is ad hominem or certain knowledge is a priori or a posteriori. In contrast you might have a word like stress, it's English and has it's own connotation, but in engineering stress means something very specific, a student will still have to learn what it means so if you gave it some flowery Latin or Greek name it'd be no easier or harder for them to comprehend.
So at least we can establish that the wording is important depending on the context. I am not sure if you are trying to make the case that the more involved and complex the words, the more "skilled" you are in that discipline. It still seems to be focusing unduly on proficiency of the language = knowledge or skill.
I made no such correlation between language and skill, unless your skill is specifically in a rhetorical sense.
I was simply opposes your supposition that Latin was used in certain fields for the purpose of making things exclusive.
Those fields are exclusive because they inherently require a great deal of knowledge and understanding, the language is entirely unimportant.
I was dictating an engineering report to an admin person the other day and they made the comment that they wish they understood what I was saying. I was entirely using English words with a couple of theories and methods thrown in called after those who developed them, the complication didn't come from the words but the specific meaning they had in the engineering context I was using them.
It was exclusionary by virtue of the fact it required a specific knowledge to comprehend, not because of the words that were used.
If you took the Latin out of fields that use them, you'd just make communicating in those fields less succinct, it'd still be exclusionary.
Now there you have my agreement. We all like to think we are our own special snowflake but certain titles or labels would be devalued if they were easy to obtain.
It's not a question of devaluing, it's simply a question of logic, if your definition of a term is such that it includes damned near every person on the planet it's not a useful term. "artist" simply becomes synonymous with "person" because everyone is "skilled" at something.
A rather narrow definition you are looking for there,
Not really, what you call "art" is very subjective so it's actually an incredibly broad definition.
I am unsure if I should move the goalpost as well in answer.
I'm sorry do you think I moved the goalposts somewhere?
It does at first blush sound silly to call wargaming miniatures "art" yet some people certainly execute their builds well into something I would consider art.
Which is why someone executing something with exceptional skill tends to be called "art" regardless of the field. A mechanic can be execute their trade with such skill as to warrant being called an artist, but that doesn't mean being a mechanic makes you an artist, it means people with exceptional skill are often labelled artists.
Unfortunately we may need to be pointed to some form of standardized test to get our artist card.
What you do as a profession is no easy task, you need to teach and then develop a means of testing the student on the information that was presented. How would you define a passing grade for someone to be considered an artist? I am actually interested in your opinion.
You seem to think I have or am looking for a rigid definition. I am not. I don't think there is a rigid definition of artist just as there is not a rigid definition of art. I don't think of wargaming miniatures as inherently being art so I don't think wargamers are inherently artists.
But if someone thinks of wargaming miniatures as art I don't take umbrage with it though I might disagree.
The thing I took umbrage with was using the definition of artist "A person skilled at a particular task or occupation" to fit any wargamer in to the umbrella of "artist" as there's only a very small number of wargamers who demonstrate any meaningful skill.
But there are other non-skill related definitions of artist that are flexible enough to squish in wargamers in general if that's your aim.
After painting 60~ armies and building 11 full gaming tables with terrain - I'd say yes I am an artist. Not for painting or building the miniatures - but creating the terrain.
Painting is literally coloring in the lines and getting better at this. Picking color choices, using washes, airbrush, customizing the model, and following steps to complete a model you did not sculpt is not being an artist. I didn't feel creative painting the 100th Hormagaunt. I was not an artist when I washed 230 imperial guardsmen in army painter.
I'd say building/creating train diorama's/scale scenes or sculpting your own models is an "art". You pull from your mind what you want to do and build/create it to how you want it to look and feel.
Crafting a Golden Daemon winning model and scultping nearly the entire model? Spending 100+ hours to win a competition. Yes that individual is an artist.
Basecoating some crimson fists with blue spray paint and adding a few base coats? No. I can paint a shelf and nail it to a wall in my room.
Crafting a Golden Daemon winning model and scultping nearly the entire model? Spending 100+ hours to win a competition. Yes that individual is an artist.
Basecoating some crimson fists with blue spray paint and adding a few base coats? No. I can paint a shelf and nail it to a wall in my room.
Based on your two extremes I am not convinced by your argument. What about the middle ground? The painter who spends 20, 30 or 40+ hours painting a model. Just paint, no sculpting or converting involved but lots of time applying techniques learned over hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice, is their work not art?
Sure, using the dip method to knock out a Nid or Guard army in an afternoon is stretching the term "art" to the point of breaking. That is simply labor.
But many players go far and above just 3 base coats and dunk in stainer when crafting their armies. Even if only building stock models, the hours of paint work and the effort involved should not be discounted because they don't fall on the extreme end of competition style painting.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Based on your two extremes I am not convinced by your argument. What about the middle ground? The painter who spends 20, 30 or 40+ hours painting a model. Just paint, no sculpting or converting involved but lots of time applying techniques learned over hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice, is their work not art?
But many players go far and above just 3 base coats and dunk in stainer when crafting their armies. Even if only building stock models, the hours of paint work and the effort involved should not be discounted because they don't fall on the extreme end of competition style painting.
I'd say no then. You didn't create the model, it's not your design, you simply picked a dozen or so colors and masterfully blended them onto a model. I can trace a comic and color it in masterfully, but I just finished someone's work and idea. That feeling of "I created this" doesn't generate when only finished a section of the art. Building models is a bit of an art. Posing them. Then you jump into the conversion area where you do create artwork. You take pieces/bitz/card/sculpting putty and make a work of art (using third party/other sculptor's work).
If you count building an army and posing them, then painting them in your own scheme how you envision then I'd say it's art. Sure. For you.
Do I write it on customs forms as primary job role?
Yes.
Do I get paid to make, teach and exhibit art as a job?
Yes.
Do my man dollies have anything to do with my art practice?
No.
*edit* being an artist isn't just execution of techniques in practice but conceptual development of idea to the viewer base. So the people collaboratively developing the mini's and stories can be called artists in a way, the people commission painting minis no (despite what is being done is artistic). More like tradesmen like a commercial photographer or jeweller. Most people painting minis fall into the hobbyist side of things even if it's a full time job, it's more like running a scrap booking store than having a developed practice.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Based on your two extremes I am not convinced by your argument. What about the middle ground? The painter who spends 20, 30 or 40+ hours painting a model. Just paint, no sculpting or converting involved but lots of time applying techniques learned over hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice, is their work not art?
But many players go far and above just 3 base coats and dunk in stainer when crafting their armies. Even if only building stock models, the hours of paint work and the effort involved should not be discounted because they don't fall on the extreme end of competition style painting.
I'd say no then. You didn't create the model, it's not your design, you simply picked a dozen or so colors and masterfully blended them onto a model. I can trace a comic and color it in masterfully, but I just finished someone's work and idea. That feeling of "I created this" doesn't generate when only finished a section of the art. Building models is a bit of an art. Posing them. Then you jump into the conversion area where you do create artwork. You take pieces/bitz/card/sculpting putty and make a work of art (using third party/other sculptor's work).
If you count building an army and posing them, then painting them in your own scheme how you envision then I'd say it's art. Sure. For you.
Well it's awesome that art is subjective because I just can't get behind your narrow definition. So we are both right and both wrong!
I fall more in line with Gen.Steiner. If something elicits an emotional response it is art. I've seen so many well painted miniatures that have moved me that I can't imagine not applying the term art to those pieces.
I suppose I see a miniature as a canvas, blank and ready for an artist's touch to make it beautiful (or horrible, depending on the artist's intentions). It isn't necessary for me that miniature was altered or sculpted by the painter, it is what that painter did with the bare metal or plastic and paint that is artistic.
That isn't to say an artist who completed a massive conversion, or sculpted an entire model from scratch and then painted it beautifully has their art cheapened by the person who "only" painted their model. I think there can be room for both persons to be considered artists as they are both creating something new and interesting that didn't exist previously.
I stand by my comments on page 1, this is an interesting thread and I am enjoying the conversation thus far!
) and she said, you'll do fine, you're an artist. It got me thinking, I've always considered myself a mini painter, but not an actual artist. So, to all miniature painters out there, do you consider yourselves artists when you paint?
