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.

Thought on the scantily clad Commissar: This is a universe where "field" type armour exists. In theory, one could wear whatever one liked, and be as protected by a field of some sort as when wearing the latest in physical armour. (From a fluff perspective. I have no idea if Commissars can still purchase fields 'in game'.)

Wow this really caught fire, I just want to clarify my stance. None of it offends me or upsets me. What brought me to posting this question was my curiosity. I wanted to know why people did it because I myself don't get it all. But I'm not against other peoples desires to paint nude models. Thanks for all the replies.

Ascalam wrote:People with no lives, and who aren't getting any...

Most likely very far from the truth.
There is this whole cliché that gamers are sad lonely people who can't talk to girls. Now, most people here know this is a load of rubbish. Most of the gamers I know haves wives and girlfriends.

Erotic art is very common. People enjoy it, and quite often those involved in the erotica business are the ones getting plenty. Western culture sill has this sleazy attitude to nudity and erotica. Shame they couldn't have the same attitude to war and violence which does a lot more to harm people than nudity ever will.

There are a lot more models made depicting blood and gore. While a naked Commissar may not fit into any fluff I don't see how it should be less acceptable than a decapitated Space Marine.

Ugavine wrote:

Ascalam wrote:People with no lives, and who aren't getting any...

Most likely very far from the truth.
There is this whole cliché that gamers are sad lonely people who can't talk to girls. Now, most people here know this is a load of rubbish. Most of the gamers I know haves wives and girlfriends.

Erotic art is very common. People enjoy it, and quite often those involved in the erotica business are the ones getting plenty. Western culture sill has this sleazy attitude to nudity and erotica. Shame they couldn't have the same attitude to war and violence which does a lot more to harm people than nudity ever will.

There are a lot more models made depicting blood and gore. While a naked Commissar may not fit into any fluff I don't see how it should be less acceptable than a decapitated Space Marine.

The "lonely gamer" cliché is indeed an overstatement to be sure, but often the very community it is applied to help reinforce it. Any time such a miniature makes an appearance in a thread, etc. it attracts those who can't help but giggle, tell stupid boob jokes, and generlly act to reinforce the negative stereotype of gamers...

Self-fullfilling prophecy?

While I do agree that the "lonely gamer" thing is overly used, I can say from experience that there is a higher number of single dudes with no prospects of ever finding a woman in the wargaming community. It's not that they play, its that they're just weird to begin with. This hobby attracts those people because its something you can do the bulk of alone at your pad. I don't think nude models are specific to that group anyways. Comparing the pointless nudity on a female commissar to a headless SM makes no sense. It is a wargame, therefore it involves war. While a decapitated space marine makes sense in the game a naked female commissar doesn't. It adds nothing to the game at all, unless were speaking of models like deamonettes who are supposed to be naked.

And there are many people who are involved in the painting/modeling and fluff aspects of the hobby, and couldn't care less about the actual game.

So, is anyone tempted to do a follow up scenario, where "our" half naked Commissar comes along and shoots all the guardsmen for defiling their humanity by raping xenos filth?

I think it would make a nice point, counterpoint...

-Vilegrimm

What pisses me off, is that whilst I know the scantily clad females will always be a part of this hobby (some of them REALLY badly sculpted I might add!), I don't see why we have so few well sculpted and fully clothed/armored females as well.

I remember making a female KotBS in WAR, she looked fething amazing, like if The Empire had Joan of Arc, with a SOB bob and gothic fullplate with zweihander. Now where are miniatures like that?

Let me tell you what I think, I think the sculptors get lazy and rely on putting massive breasts and bare midriff on a female model, no matter how appropriate, because it's far easier than managing to put a decent looking female face and shape to a model. "oh just slap a couple of tatters on it and it's a girl, make em bare and we can sell em by the boatload" - doesn't matter that 'she's' got a face like a robber's dog, as long as it's got bare or nearly bare dumplings, it doesn't matter that's entirely stupid for a Commissar or Knight.

I think it can often allude to a lack of skill and laziness.

I personally don't feel that nudity belongs in the hobby either. I'm no prude by any means, but when it comes to army men, I feel like it just doesn't belong. Fine art oil painting is one thing, and so is sculpting big statues, but whenever I see a nekkid miniature, no matter how good the paint job is, the only thing that really comes to mind when I see it is "Wow, this kid has no life at all..." .. weather that's really the case or not, it's just the first thing that I think of, pretty much every single time.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:What pisses me off, is that whilst I know the scantily clad females will always be a part of this hobby (some of them REALLY badly sculpted I might add!), I don't see why we have so few well sculpted and fully clothed/armored females as well.

I remember making a female KotBS in WAR, she looked fething amazing, like if The Empire had Joan of Arc, with a SOB bob and gothic fullplate with zweihander. Now where are miniatures like that?

Let me tell you what I think, I think the sculptors get lazy and rely on putting massive breasts and bare midriff on a female model, no matter how appropriate, because it's far easier than managing to put a decent looking female face and shape to a model. "oh just slap a couple of tatters on it and it's a girl, make em bare and we can sell em by the boatload" - doesn't matter that 'she's' got a face like a robber's dog, as long as it's got bare or nearly bare dumplings, it doesn't matter that's entirely stupid for a Commissar or Knight.

I think it can often allude to a lack of skill and laziness.

I completely agree, like I said earlier in this thread I would much rather see a well done female commissar. With an ornate functional uniform, a uniform that looks like it would be worn. Hair pulled back into a bun like female soldiers of today, not lookin like she just came from the salon. She's supposed to be a warrior and i just dont see that in most female guard models. I want to see a badass female commissar who would strike fear into enemies and guardsmen alike, not give em boners.

I know a couple people who are happily married and love to paint nude females. To each their own, really, unless you enjoy only painting lots of muscular, often shirtless men

ITT: People who aren't getting any accusing others of not getting any.

Thare1774 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:What pisses me off, is that whilst I know the scantily clad females will always be a part of this hobby (some of them REALLY badly sculpted I might add!), I don't see why we have so few well sculpted and fully clothed/armored females as well.

I remember making a female KotBS in WAR, she looked fething amazing, like if The Empire had Joan of Arc, with a SOB bob and gothic fullplate with zweihander. Now where are miniatures like that?

Let me tell you what I think, I think the sculptors get lazy and rely on putting massive breasts and bare midriff on a female model, no matter how appropriate, because it's far easier than managing to put a decent looking female face and shape to a model. "oh just slap a couple of tatters on it and it's a girl, make em bare and we can sell em by the boatload" - doesn't matter that 'she's' got a face like a robber's dog, as long as it's got bare or nearly bare dumplings, it doesn't matter that's entirely stupid for a Commissar or Knight.

I think it can often allude to a lack of skill and laziness.

I completely agree, like I said earlier in this thread I would much rather see a well done female commissar. With an ornate functional uniform, a uniform that looks like it would be worn. Hair pulled back into a bun like female soldiers of today, not lookin like she just came from the salon. She's supposed to be a warrior and i just dont see that in most female guard models. I want to see a badass female commissar who would strike fear into enemies and guardsmen alike, not give em boners.

Problem is to make a quality female model, it will be very hard to tell it is a female because if you look at current US soldiers for the most part the face structure and hair are about all that looks different from male and female uniform. To have a form fitting uniform would be out of place for IG imo. I know there is a bare midrif model but I don't think it fits. I would rather just green stuff a bit of hair and leave the models unisex for the most part.

some nudity/sex can be flaverful and even in the case of a slaneshi army apropiate but a fully naked female commissar...well unless your doing a slaneshi themed traitor army then thats OTT

as a note rule #36 there is porn for everything-yes this does include small minis

runmymouth wrote:

Thare1774 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:What pisses me off, is that whilst I know the scantily clad females will always be a part of this hobby (some of them REALLY badly sculpted I might add!), I don't see why we have so few well sculpted and fully clothed/armored females as well.

I remember making a female KotBS in WAR, she looked fething amazing, like if The Empire had Joan of Arc, with a SOB bob and gothic fullplate with zweihander. Now where are miniatures like that?

Let me tell you what I think, I think the sculptors get lazy and rely on putting massive breasts and bare midriff on a female model, no matter how appropriate, because it's far easier than managing to put a decent looking female face and shape to a model. "oh just slap a couple of tatters on it and it's a girl, make em bare and we can sell em by the boatload" - doesn't matter that 'she's' got a face like a robber's dog, as long as it's got bare or nearly bare dumplings, it doesn't matter that's entirely stupid for a Commissar or Knight.

I think it can often allude to a lack of skill and laziness.

I completely agree, like I said earlier in this thread I would much rather see a well done female commissar. With an ornate functional uniform, a uniform that looks like it would be worn. Hair pulled back into a bun like female soldiers of today, not lookin like she just came from the salon. She's supposed to be a warrior and i just dont see that in most female guard models. I want to see a badass female commissar who would strike fear into enemies and guardsmen alike, not give em boners.

Problem is to make a quality female model, it will be very hard to tell it is a female because if you look at current US soldiers for the most part the face structure and hair are about all that looks different from male and female uniform. To have a form fitting uniform would be out of place for IG imo. I know there is a bare midrif model but I don't think it fits. I would rather just green stuff a bit of hair and leave the models unisex for the most part.

I agree, i was talking more about special characters like commissars. You can make them appear feminine while still keeping the warrior feel. A small height and weight difference I think would help it be distinguishabled. Just minor things that make people see that it is a female.

snake wrote:And to the Eldar rape scene thing [...] is really just an offensive display that someone got a kick out of making.

Isn't that all there is to a hobby?

Seriously though, I don't want to make this a cultural debate, but most Americans seem to have booby allergy.
The nudist commissar isn't to my taste because it is rather silly, but I don't find it any more offensive than someone painting their army all metallic pink. They payed for the minis, so they can just do with them whatever floats their boat.

To all the people on their high horses: art is rather subjective but the vast, vast, vast majority of miniature work is not art. Just because someone spent 200 hours painting a tiny face does not art make. It's a hobby.
For example, I like to compare my black library books to the candlelight novellas my girlfriend sometimes reads. "Lord something whispered in her ear as she could feel his manhood quivering against her thigh" is to her what "Sergeant something deftly parried the blow and emptied his bolt pistol in the traitor marine's head" is to me. No art, but I still like reading it.

TiB wrote:

Seriously though, I don't want to make this a cultural debate, but most Americans seem to have booby allergy.
The nudist commissar isn't to my taste because it is rather silly, but I don't find it any more offensive than someone painting their army all metallic pink.

I won't speak for ALL americans as you seem to want to do, but I will say personally that I often find these types of models facepalm inducing because of the comments and types of people they encourage.

The model itslf isn't the issue, it is the creepy/school boy vibe that it sometimes stirs up in some of the people attracted to it.

And it is THESE types (the creepers/giggling school boys who saw boobies) that insure the reinforcement of that "lonely gamer" stereotype...

Let's be clear here, I've nothing against the skimpy costumes in. for example, a secret agent in a 'bond' style setting or something. I've also nothing against ensuring the female form is visible in a costume or uniform, after all, it's a 28mm high mini, you need to make things clear.

But what I'm saying is sticking tats on a crap mini and shamelessly marketing it for titillation is miles away from producing a really good female sculpt in a feminine pose.

I don't think most people are offended by it or have a "booby allergy" as you put it. What were saying is that a lot of these nude female minis are strange, and usually the motivation for painting them is also strange. Also, whether spending 200 hours on a mini or an oil painting it is art. You are way off on what you believe is or isn't art. There are models that I look at and they couldn't be anything but art. I've seen some paintings that look like crap compared to some golden demon winning minis. It is most definitely art, some bad some good.

Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?

I don't know the commissar model, but I do know the rape scene diorama. I think it is very wrong to put them into the same category or ascribe the same motivation to the modelers of each just because they contain nudity.

I strongly support the diorama. It is beautifully painted and though I have a couple of minor criticisms of the modeling it is an excellent piece. It does something that I find rare in 40K modeling, it tells a story through the medium of miniatures. You might disagree with the quality of the work and you might be uncomfortable with the subject matter, but I would say the fact that you are uncomfortable with it is proof that the artist achieved exactly the effect he was going for. You should be uncomfortable with it. Being uncomfortable with it doesn't make it a bad model. And taking out the rape and nudity would have completely changed the story of the model- it wouldn't have had nearly the power to affect you emotionally.

Now contrast this with the naked commissar. Like I said, I don't know the model in question. But judging by your reaction to it there are some assumptions about it I feel comfortable making. If you can't understand why the commissar is naked, then that means that the miniature failed to tell a coherent narrative to you. It didn't provoke an emotional reaction to you, it just caused confusion.

This is akin to the difference between the artistic nude and pornography. One is a celebration of the human form in a context that gives it emotional relevance, the other is a cheap thrill. I love that occasionally our hobby dips ever so slightly into the world of art, but unfortunately more often it dips into pornography. You are welcome to have any opinion you want about how well-executed any of these pieces are, and you are welcome to say you would prefer that your toy soldiers not attempt to be serious and artistic. But let's not confuse the two just because both may have boobs. To ascribe pornographer motivations to the artist as some people in the thread have, that suggests to me an immaturity and discomfort with the human body and the real world.

Also, the distinction here is akin to the argument of strongly-characterized women versus "strong women". The Eldar diorama reflect an uncomfortable reality of war (and we should never presume that just because it is depicted that the intention is to glorify it). The Eldar woman is strongly characterized. When this diorama was first posted on the board, we had several pages of argument about it but I remember people having very strong notions of what the Eldar woman was going to do next. A 30mm hunk of plastic and putty was invested with enough characterization that without even a line of dialog or the slightest bit of motion, people were willing to invest themselves in this frozen moment of time and imagine who the people were and what they were all about. That's really an amazing achievement. Now contrast this with the thousands and thousands of generic battle-armor bikinied women this hobby churns out every year. Like the commissar, they might be depicted as "strong", but they are not strongly-depicted. They are paper-thin stereotypes that exist purely to put a woman's sexual characteristics on display. Now rape scenes can be exploitative and I accept it can be open for argument if the Eldar rape diorama is exploitative (personally I think not enough is known to make a decision one way or the other), but surely we can all agree that a model that depicts a "strong woman" in such a way that displaying her sex characteristics takes prominence over displaying evidence of her strength is far, far more exploitative.

I like that in this hobby there are thoughtful people trying to push the envelope of artistry and try new things. This means we're not all going to be comfortable with every miniature we see. We don't have to all agree that a chick in a chainmail bikini, a rape diorama, a boob monster, an anotomically correct minotaur, or any of the other controversial depictions of anatomy that we see are good works. But let's show a little respect to the artists who make them.

Also, it's a pre-rape scene, the act is not actually in progress. It's a scene that is perhaps a bit disturbing, given that for all its alleged 'grimdark', 40K really restricts itself to 'safe' depictions of violence - but I can't see it as gratuitous in any way.

I'd like to say...me and my girlfriend (Whose 116lb..without sharing a photo thats close-as-I-can-get without upsetting her) lead highly sexual, life-style M/s lives. We also both happen to love Warhammer 40k. Including the Rule 34 of it.

Nudity and sexualism is not wrong or "bad" if done appropriately. IE: Salvar Chemdogs would be more likely to be sexualy oriented in theme/banners/outfits than Cadians. (For Feth's sake, look at Space Marine. Cadians have ZERO sexual fashion sense! Her breasts were not even displayed in armor design!!!) That doesn't mean Cadians don't have sex...and does not mean they don't have porn...nor does it mean rape does not happen. Rape happens. Deal with it. Humans rape everything from rocks to dogs to other humans. I could easily accept rape of an Eldar or even a demon if one could find a way...

I also accept that doing such a thing is heresy. Even to heretics and civillians. Look at the Gaunts Ghosts books with their whole legal-issue brought up at some point I won't spoil. Guard DO have liability. Rape is not permitted to other humans...and likely doing Xenos is heresy, not just a felony.

Fluff wise, you need to justify it.

If it is an art piece? I have NO issues with ANYTHING. Social standards out the window. I do not have to respect your beliefs, favorites, politics, agendas, or otherwise if it is an art piece.

If you don't like it, don't look at it.


Let me give an example; If I put my girl into fetish wear, on a leash, in my FLGS...so long as she is "PG" and the store OKs it, you can't do anything about it. If you complain it is offensive to your views of women...well, to bad. I have permission. My girl likes living life in a collar as a pet. I love her and would turn the world around for her...but our life style, our tastes, do not have to conform with yours. Same goes for models being nude/sexual/otherwise.


Also, Eldar rape is a total turn on as is that diorama...have you seen the sequel? Dark Eldar getting their hands on the rapists. Pay back to them for doing that

A lot has already been said about that eldar rape scene, it's amazingly painted and well modeled. I just don't want a rape scene in my 40k. Now some argue strongly that it's 'realistic' and that's certainly a valid argument (although it's got a space elf maiden in it... so I'm not sure about how much argument for realism can be made about 40k) but then there are lots of things about the real horrors of war that I just have no interest in seeing lovingly recreated into a 28mm fantastical wargaming diorama. I would also not like to see the Emperor's Children re-enacting the atrocities of Nanking on Tau civilians nor the burning little Imperial children, running down a road chased by a napalm dropping ork fighta-bomber imitating Vietnam. Just because it happened in real life, doesn't mean I want it in my fantastical wargame.

And it is because it is rape, and not some other atrocity, that makes me even more leery of it's reason for being and it's verbal support here and elsewhere in the hobby.

snake wrote: As people have said, sex sells and pervs buy. It's that simple and unfortunate.

I think this is a very blinkered view of the "issue". Calling a person a "perv" because they find pleasure in the form of the opposite sex is bordeline insanity. Something as natural as finding the opposite gender attractive and arousing is actually what keeps the human race going, society has created this dichotomy where something so needed for it's continuation is also something depicted as nasty / negative......sex sells and theres nothing wrong with it in the slightest. Someone acting in a perverse manner would be someone going against the flow of "what is considerd normal".....in this case, nature.

snake wrote: And to the Eldar rape scene thing - I just think that's over the top. I don't really care for the whole "depicting the true harshness of war" argument. I think that's a politically correct excuse for what is really just an offensive display that someone got a kick out of making. There are plenty of ways to depict the harshness of war without bringing the abuse of females into the picture.

Only the artist himself (assuming it's a "him") can say for sure why he created the Eldar piece, and we have to assume he's not lying about the reasons......given the reaction, there would be significant reason to lie!!.

That said, what-ever his reasons, the reaction that people have had is actually quite interesting, and like you have stated there is an arguement about the piece depicting the harshness of war. What's interesting for me, are people like yourself who don't care to consider that argument as valid. Certain aspects of war are acceptable to people like yourself, and certain others are not......however, consider a person who is really unfortunate enough to have been exposed to a war scenario....Bosnia, Vietnam, Africa, etc etc.....do you suppose they got to chose which aspects of war they would be exposed to?

I take on board the fact that you are playing a wargame, and as such are sheltered from the true horrors of war, and that your ideas of war are akin to walk in Disneyland, where men are really men and women are helpless damsels waiting for their knights in shining armour.....yeah, I get that. However, just because you lack the experience of a real war-zone you shouldn't presume to lecture others on what is appropriate or not. You do the artist a diservice, and also, you do a diservice to those who were not as fortunate as yourself to be able to simply turn away from said horrors and sulkingly deny that they really happen.

In war there is no respect for gender, a man or a woman are potentially going to be pawns in the depraved games of the "victors". It's no more sick showing a female about to be raped as to show a man being beheaded or ambushed and murdered.....if you doubt me, ask the family members of those Blackwater Operatives who were ambushed and killed in Fallujah. Ask them if they would rather see the Eldar scene played out on your next tabletop wargame or just a bunch of IG in a convoy getting ambushed.....I wonder what they would say....which one would be more tasteful in their eyes?

I have seen both, and the paint job was well done on the diorama and should be commended, however the subject matter was not to my taste. I know what he was going for and understand it, I just dont care for it. In the real world I know this kind of thing happens (not with elves of course), however when in my fake world of toy soldiers I don't want to be reminded that much of the real world. As for the commisar with the bare breasts, it does not make alot of sense without the context, questions come up like, why does she not have her top on, did she just get up and threw the coat on, or whatnot? Here is the link to her for those who have not seen her http://www.brother-vinni.com/gallery/28mm/m28agirl04.htm the face not so good, however a good choice on the hair style for a soldier. I do wonder how her coat stays tight on her waist and shoulder? . If you wanted a ornate female commisar, and are willing to spend the coin http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/kapitan-ivanka-kurganova-28mm but you are going to want to add some seams for pants under those boots. So there are some good ones out there if you just want a female commisar, that said, when it comes to the nudity I think when our wargaming comes to play we really dont mind it if it makes sense, in Brother Vinni's example and offering it does not make sense.

Regards,
Carl

EDIT: No longer applies.


I was simply stating my and my woman don't mind these things. Many women are not offended by sexual connotations in their hobbies. Which is one of the things I think a lot of internet white knights crusade about... in my FLGS I've had a few do that, to try and win the favor of various women in the store by showing how "pro woman equality no sexual display!" they are. I just don't think that such things should matter from a social POV...making it an issue is more of an issue than the items themselves.

Thare1774 wrote:You are way off on what you believe is or isn't art. There are models that I look at and they couldn't be anything but art. I've seen some paintings that look like crap compared to some golden demon winning minis.

Perhaps I should have elaborated my point on this matter.
It is not that I think paint on canvas is art and paint on a mini isn't, that would be mad. I think (visual) art has to convey or evoke meaning, have a message that lies beneath the visible. Art is completely detached from aestetic. Aestetic can support the message of a work and lift it to a higher plane, but it is not inherent to it.

( It can be slightly confusing having this discussion in the english world because of the different meanings of the word 'art', but hopefully we're all on the same page here.)

Some minis fall into this category, I would personally consider the eldar rape scene art, as it takes the minis of what is viewed as a kids' game and morphs the fluff to evoke a (shocked) reaction from the viewers and making them think about why we think violence is so normal in kids' games.
The aestetic (the nice painting and modelling) helps this piece being viewed as art, because it helps it being taken seriously. I think the meaning could be even stronger if the paintwork was deliberately dirtied up and sloppier (see Paul McCarthy) but then the point would be lost as then everyone would just see it as the fruit of a lonely nerd living out his fantasy.

What I don't consider art, and what most minis (even GD winners) fall under is the 'look at my mad skills' category. Whether it is in minis or other forms of art. I know plenty of painters that make amazing looking paintings without meaning, but to me they're decorators, not artists (in 'that' sense of the word). Decorators aren't any less than Artists, but it's different nonetheless.
What do you want to say by painting the millionth Ultramarine army? Nothing, you just want an Ultra army. But that's all right, because you don't have to say anything with your armies. Just do stuff because it is cool. It's decoration, not art.

The diorama pretty definitely crosses the boundary into bad taste, however well-executed it is.

However to complain about the topless commissar - and indeed the general trend towards women in sci-fi and fantasy art going to war in their underwear - is to ignore Warhammer 40,000's well-established debt to Metal Hurlant-type art, in which large-chested women routinely wander about ruined cityscapes, carrying huge weapons and wearing little clothing.

Example spoilered since it might be considered vaguely NSFW.

TiB wrote:

Thare1774 wrote:You are way off on what you believe is or isn't art. There are models that I look at and they couldn't be anything but art. I've seen some paintings that look like crap compared to some golden demon winning minis.

Perhaps I should have elaborated my point on this matter.
It is not that I think paint on canvas is art and paint on a mini isn't, that would be mad. I think (visual) art has to convey or evoke meaning, have a message that lies beneath the visible. Art is completely detached from aestetic. Aestetic can support the message of a work and lift it to a higher plane, but it is not inherent to it.

( It can be slightly confusing having this discussion in the english world because of the different meanings of the word 'art', but hopefully we're all on the same page here.)

Some minis fall into this category, I would personally consider the eldar rape scene art, as it takes the minis of what is viewed as a kids' game and morphs the fluff to evoke a (shocked) reaction from the viewers and making them think about why we think violence is so normal in kids' games.
The aestetic (the nice painting and modelling) helps this piece being viewed as art, because it helps it being taken seriously. I think the meaning could be even stronger if the paintwork was deliberately dirtied up and sloppier (see Paul McCarthy) but then the point would be lost as then everyone would just see it as the fruit of a lonely nerd living out his fantasy.

What I don't consider art, and what most minis (even GD winners) fall under is the 'look at my mad skills' category. Whether it is in minis or other forms of art. I know plenty of painters that make amazing looking paintings without meaning, but to me they're decorators, not artists (in 'that' sense of the word). Decorators aren't any less than Artists, but it's different nonetheless.
What do you want to say by painting the millionth Ultramarine army? Nothing, you just want an Ultra army. But that's all right, because you don't have to say anything with your armies. Just do stuff because it is cool. It's decoration, not art.

I wish to tell you, that you probably best explained art in your post in all of the internet. Your way of viewing and describing it to us in english was without a doubt very worth while read. One of my college professors was Greek, he explained often how "Art" is such an ambiguous word...that many languages do not support "art" as a word, and have more complex expressions of what "artists" and "art" are. You, sir, did an excellent job in this.

TiB wrote:

Thare1774 wrote:You are way off on what you believe is or isn't art. There are models that I look at and they couldn't be anything but art. I've seen some paintings that look like crap compared to some golden demon winning minis.

Perhaps I should have elaborated my point on this matter.
It is not that I think paint on canvas is art and paint on a mini isn't, that would be mad. I think (visual) art has to convey or evoke meaning, have a message that lies beneath the visible. Art is completely detached from aestetic. Aestetic can support the message of a work and lift it to a higher plane, but it is not inherent to it.

( It can be slightly confusing having this discussion in the english world because of the different meanings of the word 'art', but hopefully we're all on the same page here.)

Some minis fall into this category, I would personally consider the eldar rape scene art, as it takes the minis of what is viewed as a kids' game and morphs the fluff to evoke a (shocked) reaction from the viewers and making them think about why we think violence is so normal in kids' games.
The aestetic (the nice painting and modelling) helps this piece being viewed as art, because it helps it being taken seriously. I think the meaning could be even stronger if the paintwork was deliberately dirtied up and sloppier (see Paul McCarthy) but then the point would be lost as then everyone would just see it as the fruit of a lonely nerd living out his fantasy.

What I don't consider art, and what most minis (even GD winners) fall under is the 'look at my mad skills' category. Whether it is in minis or other forms of art. I know plenty of painters that make amazing looking paintings without meaning, but to me they're decorators, not artists (in 'that' sense of the word). Decorators aren't any less than Artists, but it's different nonetheless.
What do you want to say by painting the millionth Ultramarine army? Nothing, you just want an Ultra army. But that's all right, because you don't have to say anything with your armies. Just do stuff because it is cool. It's decoration, not art.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Very sensible.

master of ordinance wrote:as a note rule #36 there is porn for everything-yes this does include small minis

That's Rule #34, FYI.