Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children

So we've come to the conclusion that they're not children's toys. A toy could by definition be a 1500 horsepower car. Stop taking yourselves so seriously. "It's an art-science that promotes my social skills while further advancing my knowledge of statistical artsyness!". These things grant you some form of joy or pleasure; they're toys.

BrookM wrote:It doesn't help that some model shop owners have an attitude towards customers that aren't in their early teens or late forties. I was asked twice if the kits I bought were for myself and not gifts. I wish my local shop would hurry up with the renovations already.

Ooh, I know! Shopping for lingerie is a lot worse, though.

malfred wrote:I call them dollies. Battles are big tea parties. Tournaments are man-dates.

This

Kilkrazy wrote:

BrookM wrote:It doesn't help that some model shop owners have an attitude towards customers that aren't in their early teens or late forties. I was asked twice if the kits I bought were for myself and not gifts. I wish my local shop would hurry up with the renovations already.

Ooh, I know! Shopping for lingerie is a lot worse, though.

Tell me about it, I can never find anything that fits.

Badum tsh.

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children,

So, can I call my Fansproject and other 3rd party Transformers figures "not toys" since they're intended for adult collectors and not suitable for children since they don't go through the safety test that toy companies put products through?

Inanimate wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children

So we've come to the conclusion that they're not children's toys. A toy could by definition be a 1500 horsepower car. Stop taking yourselves so seriously. "It's an art-science that promotes my social skills while further advancing my knowledge of statistical artsyness!". These things grant you some form of joy or pleasure; they're toys.

By your defenition every object is a toy, my tv is a toy, my bed is a toy my shampoo is a toy give me a break!... I tend to read the word toy more associated to children and children objects and these are not suitable for them IMO... Yes you can read Toy in amillion diferent ways although the first association that comes to my mind is children.

"Stop taking yourselves to seriously" I hope you read the rest of my post, if not please do.

Platuan4th wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children,

So, can I call my Fansproject and other 3rd party Transformers figures "not toys" since they're intended for adult collectors and not suitable for children since they don't go through the safety test that toy companies put products through?

Well for you they can be whatever you like them to be... to me using my common sense I see miniatures for collectors to paint something not 100% accurately defined by the word Toy.
Toy, man toys, dollies, junk, token are all valid names since everyone is diferent and see things diferently... But in my personal opinion, I dont play with them, I dont give them to children to play with I just paint and sculpt these things and look at them like I look at tokens or plain objects that I find interesting to transform a bit.
For all I care they could be stones and yes stones can be toys for children yet the first name that comes to my mind to define these stones is not Toys for sure.

NAVARRO wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children,

So, can I call my Fansproject and other 3rd party Transformers figures "not toys" since they're intended for adult collectors and not suitable for children since they don't go through the safety test that toy companies put products through?

Well for you they can be whatever you like them to be... to me using my common sense I see miniatures for collectors to paint something not 100% accurately defined by the word Toy.
Toy, man toys, dollies, junk, token are all valid names since everyone is diferent and see things diferently... But in my personal opinion, I dont play with them, I dont give them to children to play with I just paint and sculpt these things and look at them like I look at tokens or plain objects that I find interesting to transform a bit.
For all I care they could be stones and yes stones can be toys for children yet the first name that comes to my mind to define these stones is not Toys for sure.

I agree that we can and should be calling them whatever we want, I was just saying that relegating toys to things played with by children isn't strictly accurate, IMO, since the definition of the word mentions adults specifically.

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children, I consider them more like Tokens.

Many people try to call themselves artists because they paint or sculpt a mini, I find it all very silly because at best they are competent crafters that can decorate some tokens or objects ( in case of static modelism).

If you take away the delusions of grandeur from your hobby activities you will probably see that its a very enjoyable and relaxing activity... unfortunatly many do not see it that way.
Most of my tokens are just on display and dont see the gaming table, some of them are sold at some companies for people to have fun decorating them and thats about it. Tokens to decorate.

Seems its just a matter of scale, surely? Is it any more or less "competent craftsmanship" to sculpt a full sized Bronze, or daub a Sistine Ceiling? Were a box to be discovered in some Florentine shed that contained a collection of small lead men sculpted by no less a personage than Leonardo Da Vinci, would they just be "tokens to decorate"? The techniques used to paint an award winning miniature would not seem so very strange to Boticelli or Rembrandt. Colour Theory is Colour Theory. Consider, I kinow a lady of advanced years who is a classically trained artist and qualified Japan Guilder ( a leafing technique used on very expensive ceramics) and can also turn out a mean figure. I know personally that at least one of the GW studio figure painters holds multiple qualifications in fine art, and can create images of photographic quality using standard artistic techniques. I knew of another lady, sadly passed on, who was not only a qualified artist, but also worked for the War Department creating wind tunnel models during the war, who, when retired, went on to spend her twilight years crafting intricate and detailed models of all manner of thing, many of them on a par with a wargaming model. Does all their artistry simply disappear when they sit down to detail an Elf? Seems to me that your reverse snobbery over what is or is not art is clouding your view of great artistry, mon ami.

I... don't even know why this is an argument. We're all doing models, and the same techniques are used. The biggest gripe here should be that a lot of wargamers quickly slam things together just to get them on the table, but even that is becoming an art form. And it's all toys. It's something we're all doing for fun. Some people get more satisfaction out of turning out highly detailed models than others, though.

When I play with 40k I am playing with toys. The table is going to be like six feet from a counter selling magic and yugioh and my giant knife snake thing isn't cutting a very historical figure when it punches my opponents almost naked elf girl in the face.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children, I consider them more like Tokens.

Many people try to call themselves artists because they paint or sculpt a mini, I find it all very silly because at best they are competent crafters that can decorate some tokens or objects ( in case of static modelism).

If you take away the delusions of grandeur from your hobby activities you will probably see that its a very enjoyable and relaxing activity... unfortunatly many do not see it that way.
Most of my tokens are just on display and dont see the gaming table, some of them are sold at some companies for people to have fun decorating them and thats about it. Tokens to decorate.

Seems its just a matter of scale, surely? Is it any more or less "competent craftsmanship" to sculpt a full sized Bronze, or daub a Sistine Ceiling? Were a box to be discovered in some Florentine shed that contained a collection of small lead men sculpted by no less a personage than Leonardo Da Vinci, would they just be "tokens to decorate"? The techniques used to paint an award winning miniature would not seem so very strange to Boticelli or Rembrandt. Colour Theory is Colour Theory. Consider, I kinow a lady of advanced years who is a classically trained artist and qualified Japan Guilder ( a leafing technique used on very expensive ceramics) and can also turn out a mean figure. I know personally that at least one of the GW studio figure painters holds multiple qualifications in fine art, and can create images of photographic quality using standard artistic techniques. I knew of another lady, sadly passed on, who was not only a qualified artist, but also worked for the War Department creating wind tunnel models during the war, who, when retired, went on to spend her twilight years crafting intricate and detailed models of all manner of thing, many of them on a par with a wargaming model. Does all their artistry simply disappear when they sit down to detail an Elf? Seems to me that your reverse snobbery over what is or is not art is clouding your view of great artistry, mon ami.

^^^^This.

I have to take art appreciation for my degree and my instructor is fasinated by this hobby. She's a photogropher by trade but is well versed in all forms of art.

I recently had the chance to compare notes with a professional painter working in the fine scale industry. We each made about the same amount of money for the same amount of work and used many of the same techniques, but in the last 12 months, he painted 15 models, whilst I painted over 500.

R.

precinctomega wrote:I recently had the chance to compare notes with a professional painter working in the fine scale industry. We each made about the same amount of money for the same amount of work and used many of the same techniques, but in the last 12 months, he painted 15 models, whilst I painted over 500.

R.

Takes longer to build a scale model than a wargaming one. And there is a substantially smaller amount of area to paint on the average 28mm Ork than a 1/52 Merkava. What are you saying here though? Are you doing more work or less? Which one of you in underpaid?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children, I consider them more like Tokens.

Many people try to call themselves artists because they paint or sculpt a mini, I find it all very silly because at best they are competent crafters that can decorate some tokens or objects ( in case of static modelism).

If you take away the delusions of grandeur from your hobby activities you will probably see that its a very enjoyable and relaxing activity... unfortunatly many do not see it that way.
Most of my tokens are just on display and dont see the gaming table, some of them are sold at some companies for people to have fun decorating them and thats about it. Tokens to decorate.

Seems its just a matter of scale, surely? Is it any more or less "competent craftsmanship" to sculpt a full sized Bronze, or daub a Sistine Ceiling? Were a box to be discovered in some Florentine shed that contained a collection of small lead men sculpted by no less a personage than Leonardo Da Vinci, would they just be "tokens to decorate"? The techniques used to paint an award winning miniature would not seem so very strange to Boticelli or Rembrandt. Colour Theory is Colour Theory. Consider, I kinow a lady of advanced years who is a classically trained artist and qualified Japan Guilder ( a leafing technique used on very expensive ceramics) and can also turn out a mean figure. I know personally that at least one of the GW studio figure painters holds multiple qualifications in fine art, and can create images of photographic quality using standard artistic techniques. I knew of another lady, sadly passed on, who was not only a qualified artist, but also worked for the War Department creating wind tunnel models during the war, who, when retired, went on to spend her twilight years crafting intricate and detailed models of all manner of thing, many of them on a par with a wargaming model. Does all their artistry simply disappear when they sit down to detail an Elf? Seems to me that your reverse snobbery over what is or is not art is clouding your view of great artistry, mon ami.

The little things you are confusing are... even if you are a artist not everything you do is art... and you can have a degree or qualification or know all the techniques and still that does not mean that all that you produce is art... you can even use all artistic techs in one piece and that piece still fails to transcend itslef to a art object...
Te fact that your mini doesnt transcend itself and at the end of the day you can paint it the way you like it and its still just a miniature for your games and nothing more than that should be a hint that art is not what you do
Your comment about "reverse snobbery" is one of those net rude behaviours that somehow most seem to like to use, even if it makes little sense and its totally off track... that mon ami kind of ruins my interest on your arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children,

So, can I call my Fansproject and other 3rd party Transformers figures "not toys" since they're intended for adult collectors and not suitable for children since they don't go through the safety test that toy companies put products through?

Well for you they can be whatever you like them to be... to me using my common sense I see miniatures for collectors to paint something not 100% accurately defined by the word Toy.
Toy, man toys, dollies, junk, token are all valid names since everyone is diferent and see things diferently... But in my personal opinion, I dont play with them, I dont give them to children to play with I just paint and sculpt these things and look at them like I look at tokens or plain objects that I find interesting to transform a bit.
For all I care they could be stones and yes stones can be toys for children yet the first name that comes to my mind to define these stones is not Toys for sure.

I agree that we can and should be calling them whatever we want, I was just saying that relegating toys to things played with by children isn't strictly accurate, IMO, since the definition of the word mentions adults specifically.

True, its not, as you say, strictly accurate yet its just the first association my brain produces when refering to toys... thats the beauty of diverse opinions.
They way I see this is Toys is closer to children related objects... even if its a simplification of a wider concept.

It's the same argument over the topic, to me its not accurate to say minis=toys but for other people its just fine.

When people refer to objects as toys I imagine my kids legos or plasticines wich I like to play with him...

Complete apples and oranges issue.

Scale models are meant to be perfectly realistic representations of real objects. A picture of a well done scale model should look identical to a photograph of the real subject. Dedicated scale modelers are known to take many months, even years to finish a single model. The kits carry far more detail. However, they are made to be put on display and left alone when finished, they are not durable enough for frequent handling.

Gaming models (with some exceptions) represent fictional things. The level of final detail/quality is up to the builder, as there is no true standard other than the same model built by other people. The kits tend to carry fairly low detail as they are made to be handled and moved frequently and small fiddly bits would be broken easily. They are intended to be built and painted in a matter of hours, so they can be ready for use fairly quickly.

That being said, there is no reason that a 1/48 F-18 model cant be slapped together and painted quickly just to have a F-18 model. Same for taking several months to build, convert, detail and paint a Land Raider.

Art (n)
1. The expression of creative skill in a visual form such as painting or sculpture.
2. Paintings, drawings, and sculpture as a whole.

Toy (n)
1. An object for a child to play with.
2. A gadget or machine that provides amusement for an adult.

Definitions from the OED. Well within the bounds of 'art.' A gadget is defined as a 'small mechanical device' so I guess 'toy' is an innappropriate term. Use of it to refer to them doesn't fit with the strict definition, but I suspect we'll see that definition revised with the next edition of the OED. The absolutely best thing about the English language is that it is mutable and evolving, no matter what some people may think.

So here's my revised answer. In correct usage of the word, miniatures are not toys but are art. Now, don't we all feel special?

They'll always be toys to my inner child, though.

NAVARRO wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children, I consider them more like Tokens.

Many people try to call themselves artists because they paint or sculpt a mini, I find it all very silly because at best they are competent crafters that can decorate some tokens or objects ( in case of static modelism).

If you take away the delusions of grandeur from your hobby activities you will probably see that its a very enjoyable and relaxing activity... unfortunatly many do not see it that way.
Most of my tokens are just on display and dont see the gaming table, some of them are sold at some companies for people to have fun decorating them and thats about it. Tokens to decorate.

Seems its just a matter of scale, surely? Is it any more or less "competent craftsmanship" to sculpt a full sized Bronze, or daub a Sistine Ceiling? Were a box to be discovered in some Florentine shed that contained a collection of small lead men sculpted by no less a personage than Leonardo Da Vinci, would they just be "tokens to decorate"? The techniques used to paint an award winning miniature would not seem so very strange to Boticelli or Rembrandt. Colour Theory is Colour Theory. Consider, I kinow a lady of advanced years who is a classically trained artist and qualified Japan Guilder ( a leafing technique used on very expensive ceramics) and can also turn out a mean figure. I know personally that at least one of the GW studio figure painters holds multiple qualifications in fine art, and can create images of photographic quality using standard artistic techniques. I knew of another lady, sadly passed on, who was not only a qualified artist, but also worked for the War Department creating wind tunnel models during the war, who, when retired, went on to spend her twilight years crafting intricate and detailed models of all manner of thing, many of them on a par with a wargaming model. Does all their artistry simply disappear when they sit down to detail an Elf? Seems to me that your reverse snobbery over what is or is not art is clouding your view of great artistry, mon ami.

The little things you are confusing are... even if you are a artist not everything you do is art... and you can have a degree or qualification or know all the techniques and still that does not mean that all that you produce is art... you can even use all artistic techs in one piece and that piece still fails to transcend itslef to a art object...
Te fact that your mini doesnt transcend itself and at the end of the day you can paint it the way you like it and its still just a miniature for your games and nothing more than that should be a hint that art is not what you do
Your comment about "reverse snobbery" is one of those net rude behaviours that somehow most seem to like to use, even if it makes little sense and its totally off track... that mon ami kind of ruins my interest on your arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children,

So, can I call my Fansproject and other 3rd party Transformers figures "not toys" since they're intended for adult collectors and not suitable for children since they don't go through the safety test that toy companies put products through?

Well for you they can be whatever you like them to be... to me using my common sense I see miniatures for collectors to paint something not 100% accurately defined by the word Toy.
Toy, man toys, dollies, junk, token are all valid names since everyone is diferent and see things diferently... But in my personal opinion, I dont play with them, I dont give them to children to play with I just paint and sculpt these things and look at them like I look at tokens or plain objects that I find interesting to transform a bit.
For all I care they could be stones and yes stones can be toys for children yet the first name that comes to my mind to define these stones is not Toys for sure.

I agree that we can and should be calling them whatever we want, I was just saying that relegating toys to things played with by children isn't strictly accurate, IMO, since the definition of the word mentions adults specifically.

True, its not, as you say, strictly accurate yet its just the first association my brain produces when refering to toys... thats the beauty of diverse opinions.
They way I see this is Toys is closer to children related objects... even if its a simplification of a wider concept.

It's the same argument over the topic, to me its not accurate to say minis=toys but for other people its just fine.

When people refer to objects as toys I imagine my kids legos or plasticines wich I like to play with him...

Yeah, reverse snobbery is exactly what you're doing, by denigrating the artistic merits of a particular area and reducing what is in effect a very very small scuplture to "a token". By your logic, the Elgin Marbles are just "some carved rock".

Not everything an artist does is art, true enough, but that doesn't mean that a miniature can't be art. And not everything that is artistic is done by an artist. Besides, in a world where pickling a shark or not making a bed are considered "art", I think its quite feasible to consider a miniature art. The techniques applied to painting a miniature have more in common with classical "art" than Tracy Emin's unwashed underwear (or whatever.), and the results can be a thousand times more impressive than "a receipt on a plate."

And dismissing my arguments because I end the paragraph with a mildly tongue-in-cheek gesture of friendship is ignorant, mein herr. Remind me not to bother trying to lighten the mood next time.

LOL I use to tell my ex wife that as a child I played with little plastic men, so it was only natural that I do so as a man.

Besides, you know what they say; the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys

My minis are toys.

My computer is a toy.

My car is a toy.

And I have no issue with any of that.

Ugavine wrote:My minis are toys.

My computer is a toy.

My car is a toy.

And I have no issue with any of that.

You drive round and round in circles going "brummm BRUMMMMM" and making impossible leaps across the furniture? You don't drive to work in it or anything? Are you an international playboy?

NAVARRO wrote:The little things you are confusing are... even if you are a artist not everything you do is art... and you can have a degree or qualification or know all the techniques and still that does not mean that all that you produce is art... you can even use all artistic techs in one piece and that piece still fails to transcend itslef to a art object...
Te fact that your mini doesnt transcend itself and at the end of the day you can paint it the way you like it and its still just a miniature for your games and nothing more than that should be a hint that art is not what you do
Your comment about "reverse snobbery" is one of those net rude behaviours that somehow most seem to like to use, even if it makes little sense and its totally off track... that mon ami kind of ruins my interest on your arguments.

Do you REALLY want to go down this path?


This is art.

If you want to research it further, a few very accessible exhibitions is the last two by Peter Saville. "This looks like art to me" and "It all looks like art".

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Yeah, reverse snobbery is exactly what you're doing, by denigrating the artistic merits of a particular area and reducing what is in effect a very very small scuplture to "a token". By your logic, the Elgin Marbles are just "some carved rock".

Not everything an artist does is art, true enough, but that doesn't mean that a miniature can't be art. And not everything that is artistic is done by an artist. Besides, in a world where pickling a shark or not making a bed are considered "art", I think its quite feasible to consider a miniature art. The techniques applied to painting a miniature have more in common with classical "art" than Tracy Emin's unwashed underwear (or whatever.), and the results can be a thousand times more impressive than "a receipt on a plate."

And dismissing my arguments because I end the paragraph with a mildly tongue-in-cheek gesture of friendship is ignorant, mein herr. Remind me not to bother trying to lighten the mood next time.

See you first call me a snob twice and say its a friendly gesture and then go a step further and call me ignorant... Keep your friendly gestures to yourself and even if I could answer to your post I believe you failed the basics for a normal dialogue... that is respect.
As such feel free to talk to yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pixelpusher wrote:This is art.

And your point conflicts with mine?

NAVARRO wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Yeah, reverse snobbery is exactly what you're doing, by denigrating the artistic merits of a particular area and reducing what is in effect a very very small scuplture to "a token". By your logic, the Elgin Marbles are just "some carved rock".

Not everything an artist does is art, true enough, but that doesn't mean that a miniature can't be art. And not everything that is artistic is done by an artist. Besides, in a world where pickling a shark or not making a bed are considered "art", I think its quite feasible to consider a miniature art. The techniques applied to painting a miniature have more in common with classical "art" than Tracy Emin's unwashed underwear (or whatever.), and the results can be a thousand times more impressive than "a receipt on a plate."

And dismissing my arguments because I end the paragraph with a mildly tongue-in-cheek gesture of friendship is ignorant, mein herr. Remind me not to bother trying to lighten the mood next time.

See you first call me a snob twice and say its a friendly gesture and then go a step further and call me ignorant... Keep your friendly gestures to yourself and even if I could answer to your post I believe you failed the basics for a normal dialogue... that is respect.
As such feel free to talk to yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pixelpusher wrote:This is art.

And your point conflicts with mine?

No. I said you were engaged in reverse snobbery, which you are. I didn't claim that was a friendly gesture. Its a description of what you are doing. In much the same manner as when you are being ignorant, I would say you were being ignorant.

Funny, I never got the impression you were engaged in using "respect" in your posts. Am I supposed to just automatically respect your opinion regardless of how you treat mine? Not likely to happen. Its a two way street mon ami.

In case you missed it, miniatures are clearly mutable in their uses. They can be used as toys, or as display pieces, or informative items, or simply art for arts sake. But they are not just "tokens", no matter what you do with them. If you chose to insert them in your backside, would we all just have to take it as written that they are "toilet paper"?

Yes, sort of. Let me explain.

It's mostly art. Sometimes really bad art, or trying to mimic art (which is an entire artform in itself).

What Duchamp did with that piece I posted is just what you said didn't qualify as art. He took a urinal, put his name on it, and it was instantly art. Even though it's a "token" and Saville took it further (in a cheap way IMO) and first took simple every day objects and said "This is art!" and yes, it was art.

When painting a mini, you do pretty much what a painter does with a blank canvas painting a portrait. Some parts you exaggerate, some parts you tone down, some parts of it will be your artistic expression of the piece you paint.

So, arguing "Is this art or toys?" is in a post-modern society pretty meaningless. Everything can be art. Look at the artworks made by Banksy (I hate bringing that up, on a personal note), the artworks made by certain toy companies doing "blanks" that artists then paint (Munnys for example). Suddenly it is art. And not very far from what we, in a broad sense, do.

The church frescoes painted by artists in the renaissance, are very much considered art, but where if you break it down. Nothing more than simple "colour this for money" paintings. Done really really well (sometimes). It's still art. Even though it is more of a craft than art.

If you paint a mini (lets forego what standard) and display it in a context other than a gaming table, it can be considered art. Good art? Most likely not. Depending on what angle you approach it from. Put it on a piedestal in an art gallery... yeah, it's art. Good art? I let the critics decide.

I, on a personal note, would say that most of the stuff we paint and do, is so bad art that it shouldn't be considered art. At the same time, there are tons of stuff on CMON and such that would very much be considered art. And to add to that, painting figures is an artform in itself...

Do you get what I'm trying to imply? I'm a little afraid that my english just isn't up to par sometimes.

pixelpusher wrote:Yes, sort of. Let me explain.

It's mostly art. Sometimes really bad art, or trying to mimic art (which is an entire artform in itself).

What Duchamp did with that piece I posted is just what you said didn't qualify as art. He took a urinal, put his name on it, and it was instantly art. Even though it's a "token" and Saville took it further (in a cheap way IMO) and first took simple every day objects and said "This is art!" and yes, it was art.

When painting a mini, you do pretty much what a painter does with a blank canvas painting a portrait. Some parts you exaggerate, some parts you tone down, some parts of it will be your artistic expression of the piece you paint.

So, arguing "Is this art or toys?" is in a post-modern society pretty meaningless. Everything can be art. Look at the artworks made by Banksy (I hate bringing that up, on a personal note), the artworks made by certain toy companies doing "blanks" that artists then paint (Munnys for example). Suddenly it is art. And not very far from what we, in a broad sense, do.

The church frescoes painted by artists in the renaissance, are very much considered art, but where if you break it down. Nothing more than simple "colour this for money" paintings. Done really really well (sometimes). It's still art. Even though it is more of a craft than art.

If you paint a mini (lets forego what standard) and display it in a context other than a gaming table, it can be considered art. Good art? Most likely not. Depending on what angle you approach it from. Put it on a piedestal in an art gallery... yeah, it's art. Good art? I let the critics decide.

I, on a personal note, would say that most of the stuff we paint and do, is so bad art that it shouldn't be considered art. At the same time, there are tons of stuff on CMON and such that would very much be considered art. And to add to that, painting figures is an artform in itself...

Do you get what I'm trying to imply? I'm a little afraid that my english just isn't up to par sometimes.

I have a Swedish friend who has lived in the UK for most of his life, and your english is better than his. I would say its almost spot on par.

Its also superior to a lot of english as written by english people who live in england and are english and have been their whole lives.

Stop lovebombing me. I'm feeling embarrased now

Takes longer to build a scale model than a wargaming one. And there is a substantially smaller amount of area to paint on the average 28mm Ork than a 1/52 Merkava. What are you saying here though? Are you doing more work or less? Which one of you in underpaid?

Sorry, I should have followed up: the point is that the hobbies are the same but different. The effort, skill and many of the techniques required at a professional level in both are largely identical, but the end results have different purposes. My work is intended to be functional and is done with the use of the client in mind: models are painted quickly and with an eye to the impression given by the entire assembled force rather than to individual models (although I can punch out a pretty creditable hero model when required); my models must be regularly handled and be robust enough to stand up to regular transportation and the rigours of the tabletop.

My professional scale-modeller colleague is producing models that should sit on a shelf and be admired, not handled. His work is expected to stand up to a minute examination of every detail.

We both use a multitude of different paints of different types, a dozen different brushes, airbrushes, sprayguns, spraycans, glues, special effects fluids and pigments, stencils, transfers, sculpting media and natural materials (sand, moss etc). We use similar techniques.

But whilst I cannot match his artistry, he cannot match my output.

Mind you, there's no reason he couldn't bring down his attention to detail and paint faster. Nor, I don't mind saying, is there any reason why I couldn't spend hours attaining the perfect wet blend on every miniature... Except that neither of us wants to do that. For all our parities, we aren't, each of us, mentally suited to trying to do the other's job.

The same, but different.

So are his models not toys, whilst mine (and my clients') are? Well, in the sense that my models are made to be played with and his aren't, I suppose it's fair to say so. But designing, building and painting toys isn't, fundamentally, a different process to designing, building and painting fine scale models: it's just a different end product.

Personally, I am delighted that the armies I paint are taking to the tabletops of the world week after week, crushing their enemies and (occasionally) being crushed in their turn. If a client put my work into a cabinet and left it there to be admired and never to be used... well, it's his army and he can do what he wants with it, but I paint models to be played with. If you want someone who paints models that are only to be admired... well, I can give you an email address.

R.

NAVARRO wrote:By your defenition every object is a toy, my tv is a toy, my bed is a toy my shampoo is a toy give me a break!... I tend to read the word toy more associated to children and children objects and these are not suitable for them IMO... Yes you can read Toy in amillion diferent ways although the first association that comes to my mind is children.

"Stop taking yourselves to seriously" I hope you read the rest of my post, if not please do.

That last part about seriousness wasn't really aimed at you in particular or the rest of your post. It's just that I've heard that part I quoted from so many people who try to act superior and self-righteous.

I'm sorry you were offended, but I stand by my point even if the OED definition doesn't clearly state that figurines are toys for grown, hairy men. Adult toys, for example, don't have to be mechanical in nature (gadget), but they're called toys. Furthermore, I thought that it was clear enough that besides granting you pleasure/joy, a toy has to be considered a plaything and not just be a consumable product or whatever.

Shampoo, to take on of your examples, is intended as a hygienic consumable product, but could be used as a toy though. Fill a plastic bag with shampoo, seal it up and call it "Intergalactic-slime-action-defense-force aliens".

Every year the Landscape and Architecture students create these very nice scale models of buildings. Those scale models include little trees, and people, and cars, and look quite nice. If everything goes well, the students will get jobs where they'll get paid to build similar models as part of their job.

If I go up to one of the L&A students at the end of the semester and offer them some money for their model buildings, and then start moving little plastic tanks and alien monsters around the little scale buildings, what have I done? Is the future architect now a toy maker, ruined forever?!?!

A toy is what we make of it. Mr. or Ms. Future Architect is going to smile thinking about the beer or movie tickets that they bought with the money someone paid them for their model, and get on with their life. Meanwhile, I'm going to have fun moving my little plastic giant robots around the latest version of the newly christened Intergalactic Peace Museum.

Calling miniatures "art" or toys is realy up to the individual. I will jokingly call my miniature "little war dudes" or "man dollies" all the time. I do admit, however, that there is a large degree of art involved in creating and finishing these models.


To me, the best word to describe my hobby is really a "craft".