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.

i agree with what everyone thinks about your work .... simply amazing with a slight tinge of jealousy

The mutant command squad

Looking nice,coming along very well.Hope to see a coat of paint on 'em rather soon.

Very good work as usual, I love the little details and individuality of each twist.

They remind me of the artwork used in the =][= rulebook of various mutants with an archaic mish-mash of weapons and gadgetry (always a good thing in my books).

I fainted

A new course for the feast! Love seeing the new stuff. I really like the way your changes bring a 40K/Inquisitor/Necromunda/mutant vibe to the ghoul models. Very characterful and very distinct.

2/August/09 Evil weird vs. Funny has no place


Thanks for the comments! I was discussing some of the choises and thoughts behind this lot and thought I'd explain a bit here as well.

The Shaman is the eyeless guy.

I wanted to keep them as feral, native, almost animalistic looking things, and emphasize the fact they move at night, WHILE avoiding Alpharius looking like he was inspired by their gear or wise versa - hence no more shawls and goggles look! I also have a specific plan on painting the eyes, so those of them who have them need to show them. The one who has the turban, is the second BG and he also has a kroot shoulder armour, like the agent to mark him out as one

The palmtree camo was a deliberate challenge. These things end up humorous because the overall finish fails to convey a certain evil. If you do it right, the effect is twice as vicious. Like the yellow rain boots on "Ghost" of "Shaddes offe Greye".

I also want to try painting shadow as a very strong, stylistic effect - the leaves blocking out the moon light was a brilliant opportunity.

uh oh - August looking pretty busy with a bunch of traveling - but I still intend to do some serious work. Just heard that the Realm of Battle board has arrived!! I intend to use it to build a brand spanking characterful Rhisienne table that can stand for several of the areas on the planet.

Migsula,

I've spent more than an hour wandering through this thread, and it has to be the most jaw-dropping I have seen so far!!!

Your mutants are definitely tainted and wicked, your Alpharius'es are pure gems, and the Effrit cell is a marvel...

I think I won't be able to resist buying some Ghouls for many of my long term projects... Thanks for the idea!!!

I agree with you when you say Fantasy models should see more use in 40k projects... I'm using Flagellants parts for some IG right now, and they fit perfectly with the dark mood of the 41st millenium...

All in all, congratulations for all your work, I'll be keeping an eye on this thread for sure!!

Cheers,

They are sooooo evil. Nice work

These are, officially, the most beautiful models I have ever seen! And they're used in games, too . I would love to be able to paint to that standard, so do you have any tips and hints?

Thanks lads!

Horus Aximand - I think this whole Blog is in many ways about hints and tips I've even tried taking step by step shots of painting process at times and will continue to cover all manner of topics from inspiration to finish!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
10/August/09 Imagery concerns of the narrative nature.
(part 3 or so I think, having discussed similar issues as part of this and the Shaddes Offe Greye project too)

It with the what, why and how mantra that I approach my model making - like cooking, design, or even my sports activities. I always want to understand why and consider the triumvirate, usually in this particular order an easy mapping for “better” and more meaningful.

I’ve edited a small comment made to a good friend and one of the most talented hobbyists out there, with whom I like to spar things. He’s quite technical, scarily skilled and I think there’s a great deal of mutual respect between us. Yet as he tries to perfect his technique, I try to collect courage to forget about technique, and do everything to create emotional impact. There’s obviously no right or wrong here, but like I’ve stated in the past, if we are to see this as an art form, we certainly need to study a lot of different or lateral options on how we go on about it. And I don’t mean which brush brand you use.

So if you find yourself really enjoying the ramblings of this blog, or are curious to know, why this models might end up like they do - why I state my models will fight under moonlight in the beginning of the whole project - do read on. Otherwise, wait for the next batch of pics due in this weekend or so and hopefully they won’t disappoint.

But I know from the past that 75% of people just don't want to know or bother with extra consideration - period - they ask, or say, but really they don't - and it's sometimes hard to read online which is the case. One is free to initiate the discussion in his own blog, but to question the use of someone else’s reasoning, or indeed pose the question, “why” is very challenging.

I think miniature painters in general, but the awarded elite in particular are supremely concentrated on technique to improve and to "get" where you want. Better flow, better blend, better paint, smaller retinas, more breathtakingly tiny reflection in them etc. It's like the camera.

Only it isn't, because with Miniatures, we are in a tricky area, we cannot paint the surroundings, or choose the light that falls on them at the time of "judging" or viewing - yet we somehow need to convey the world they inhabit, the emotion, that drama the suspense... all by just painting the miniature. To me a lot of what is generally considered awesome in miniature standards, fails to do this totally. Yet it is very obvious even to an untrained eye, how much emotional kick can something like light source paint effect create - everyone absolutely adored those stalking Lictor, or burning stake dioramas from few years past.

It can be a very good idea to start a project with a collection of mood imagery and references outside of the miniature world. It gives you that leverage that incentive to go after something more than flawless execution that might not really serve a purpose.

Now, this is quite disturbing, eh? It was hard to read the text above even, without looking at the image the moment you scrolled down and it was even partly visible.



Would it actually benefit from all of Joker being rendered perfectly, in an accurate image!?!?

That to me is the core question we face.

AND IF they had no translucent glass to play/write on with, like a miniature might not have, what would you change/do to carry the same impact!?

Or how would you convey a moment, a direction and light - there is always Caravaggio for gothic contrast from a limited palette - on a miniature?



TBC

Errh...

I think you made your point... And I totally agree with you... It's no surprise dioramas appeal to us that much, for what makes us delve into The Hobby is much more than the minis by themselves, it's the background, history and emotions that they convey...

So thanks for putting what most of us (I guess) feel into words... I hope a lot of Dakkaites will take heed....

Cheers,

Raphaël

I think that post should be made mandatory reading for anyone who really takes the painting and modelling aspect of our hobby seriously.

It certainly opened my eyes to an aspect I think I've been aware of for a time, but never truly grasped with both hands or put enough consideration to.

I think this will be getting printed and put on my painting desk as a reminder.

Looking forward to the pics this weekend too!

Cheers,

Dante

Dante said everything I was going to say Especially the printing it and putting on my painting desk part

Migs,

Read your post then walked away for awhile, let it mull over in the back of my mind whilst working on some graphics.

I'm quite sure we covered the conflict between technical miniature painters and the emotive modeller. To be frank, I've felt more impact from a well painted conversion than any single GD entry.

It's like comparing a Caravaggio to a Degas. The former shows serious technical skills in producing near photo realistic results, the latter? Emotive, luminescence.. there's energy on the canvas, it's an expression of what the artist sees.



When I read about your intentions for the Twists.. I understand the need to control your palette and lighting, not unlike this Renoir I came across whilst hunting an image of Degas' Ballerina. You can see he wanted to capture motion of the scene but also convey the summer lighting, which gives us a sense of a relaxed early afternoon, even the palette choice aids this feeling;



If it wasn't for the light playing on the subjects.. this would be a pretty ordinary scene. If you want to consider miniature painting as art, which I feel is more accepted in Europe than elsewhere, one has to refer to these examples as a fairly visual way to reiterate your point, but show like the Joker above, that the more powerful is the emotive, not the technical. (Ferrari vs BMW? ... well, 135i Coupe me thanks! )

I do agree, and really encourage, modellers start their projects with a defined vision, and execute it emotively. I'm well over this cold, technical painting I've seen on the circuit these days. If the sheer energy and inspiration of the varied skill levels developing models for =I=Munda and all the variations about the forums don't get this across.. I really don't know what will.

All that said, I still have a hard time being emotive with my own painting, I like to define elements of the model.. so just like above you could compare any one of your Alpharius to my Scythes' Stavus, and you can see a marked difference in artistic approach. I mostly try to get some mood across via the pose and components of the model.

Interesting stuff..
~ Tael.

EDIT : Did you edit in that Caravaggio comment?? I swear it wasn't there when I read your post hahaha.. at least we're on the same wave length.

Tael, I edited the pic because it wasn't working. But the text was there

The Ballerina piece is a great example! Thanks for sharing.

I like to use "Goodbrush" as a reference a lot. His work being so current, digitally produced and somewhat futuristic and gothic, it's easy for people to get the point.

http://www.goodbrush.com/

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

Aye indeed, I have FlyBoy and Jungle Knight in my inspiration folders. Though obtained via random rather than through the website.

Lovely stuff. Particularly his mecha.

Await the results of your thoughts being put to brush upon the Twists!
~ Tael.

Your post has given me alot of thinking to do.Most of what I feel however Dante said.Lovely work,can't wait for more.

Back home - first to the gym and then some treatment on the dune twists. I want to have the whole squad and their lead agent painted by the end of the weekend, so I can move on to trying to do crazy things with the desert chipping Alpharius man.

Ahh migs your so mean. Stop teasing me like this it's killing me Just kidding looking forward to it Migs.

Just some comments of a disagreeable nature; I hope you don't mind. It seems you want people to write something and not just look at the pretty photos.

migsula wrote:
I’ve edited a small comment made to a good friend and one of the most talented hobbyists out there, with whom I like to spar things. He’s quite technical, scarily skilled and I think there’s a great deal of mutual respect between us. Yet as he tries to perfect his technique, I try to collect courage to forget about technique, and do everything to create emotional impact. There’s obviously no right or wrong here, but like I’ve stated in the past, if we are to see this as an art form, we certainly need to study a lot of different or lateral options on how we go on about it. And I don’t mean which brush brand you use.

The bolded part is where you have created a false dichotomy. You right term would probably be Unconscious competence whic need a lot of practice until the relevant skills become second nature which would be akin to the forgetting about technique part. If you were really to forget about technique you could start by poking your miniatures with the wrong end of a brush and see what happens.

I think miniature painters in general, but the awarded elite in particular are supremely concentrated on technique to improve and to "get" where you want. Better flow, better blend, better paint, smaller retinas, more breathtakingly tiny reflection in them etc. It's like the camera.

Well, yes, and no. And I won't touch the camera comment because there is a huge pile of discussions like photorealism versus realism versus hyperrealism, art versus not art, too easy versus it also need skill, that curiously tend to explode if one gets near them.

But to the point: The reliable execution of advanced techniques is needed because some traditional ones do not work on miniatures. When it comes to optical mixing there is more or less only glazing and washing, and to some degree underpainting. Thickly applied paint is at most used for weathering and has nearly no other application on a scale that small. A traditional (often much bigger) sculpture does not need to be rendered as it has a certain size that works with natural light to create highlights and shadings while a traditional painting needs highlights and shadings to imply a form that is not only two dimensional. Miniature painter need to work with both of these problems (and scale). A big amount of techical skill and attention to tiny details (and a lot of frustration) is just a prerequisite for good work in this medium.

And just because something moves from the realist representational towards the abstract does not mean that there is no need for a strong foundation and knowledge.

There are a lot of technically high quality miniatures that stop at this point. But if you look at the best (although a very subjective topic) miniatures then you will find a lot of them include varius storytelling elements, be it little conversion that add a certain charm or a base that includes the miniature instead of creating this feeling of the two being two seperate elements that just happen to be glued together by accident. And when it comes to colour there are various options, from implying different types of lighting or grisaille-like monochormatic colour palettes to affect the mood.

Only it isn't, because with Miniatures, we are in a tricky area, we cannot paint the surroundings, or choose the light that falls on them at the time of "judging" or viewing - yet we somehow need to convey the world they inhabit, the emotion, that drama the suspense... all by just painting the miniature. To me a lot of what is generally considered awesome in miniature standards, fails to do this totally. Yet it is very obvious even to an untrained eye, how much emotional kick can something like light source paint effect create - everyone absolutely adored those stalking Lictor, or burning stake dioramas from few years past.

Miniature painters finally "stole" source lighting from cinematgraphy/film but in the end you still need to know what you are doing (technical foundation) to create that effect. Like I wrote above, it is not either/or but use one to create the other.

Would it actually benefit from all of Joker being rendered perfectly, in an accurate image!?!?

That to me is the core question we face.

And to me it is not the right question. The poster shows a lot of techique and knowledge, not the lack thereof. The focus is on the foreground and the text (the Joker's motto and the film credits/identity). The Joker himself is in the middle distance with Gotham city in the background. The composition directs you and is nicely designed. There is no lack of technique, just a lack of sharpness in some elements.

Technique is not just about chromey bling perfection and sharpness as your post somewhat implies. It can be a sledgehammer brutally applied to get the desired effect, and is not just some abstract hunt for perfection.

And what techique could be used on miniatures to create a similar effect?
It depends. For the high impact of the first read you will need a contrast that disrupts the rest of the miniature or diorama. Something that wants attention and doesn't share it happily. High chroma/value (while the rest is of lower chroma/value), bigger size (while the rest stays small), different texture (if everything is in a toxic, bloody, and destroyed wasteland give the focus a clean oasis amidst all the carnage). Something like that could take the place of the text in the poster as the main focus of the first read. The next part would be the blurry Joker. In a diorama that would be the scondary characters, lighting conditions and other major elements secondary to the focus gizmo, or in an individual minature the base and some major equipment (for example). The city in the background would comparable to all these little tiny details, like a band-aid, a quirky element in the pose that is only visible from a specific point of view, and other minor elemenets that support/twist the main narrative element to your need.

Edit: Totally forgot that: Rally great work on your Incromunda gangs, the wall of text above disagreeing with you on this topic doesn't mean that I don't like your work.

your art is striking Migsula i must say, i really do enjoy it immensely.

(and yes art because thats what it is.)

Excellent work as always Migs, and I really appreciate the discussion of your thought process and approach.

I do tend to agree more with Mario, however, when it comes to the subject. Perhaps mainly because I really love renaissance art, though I can't spell it to save my butt. However, I think the dichotomy stems more from the order and progression of skills, both in history and individuals, than any true dichotomy.

It seems to me, in my humble, non-art student way, that the first step most people and most art history, has taken is ever towards skill and accuracy. As Mario describes, without technique to get a certain color or shape when desired there can be no transition from mind to medium. I can not express a sad girl holding a bolter in the snow if I can not draw something resembling a female, a bolter or snow.
After we learn to do such representation, we then learn to better choose what to represent. We realize what elements of the reality of said sad snow shooter sheila really click with our emotions and conception of the scene. We find that a five word alliteration, even though each word describes well enough the scene, really is jarring and annoying. We gain skill in choosing important elements, perhaps playing up the eyes and the tear splashes on the bolter, and play down the blemish on her cheek.

However, this often gets artists into trouble. Learning that humans respond to light and other notable features in a scene before soaking in details, they often consider the previous details unecessary or even childish, a lower form of "art." But just as the skills we learn as children are very important to our adult lives, that technical detail is important as well. Art that is striking upon first glance and really conveys the feeling of the moment is good. Art that does that, and then keeps displaying further detail and stories within as you examine it is better still.

So, anyway, that is my take on things. Personally, I think you have gotten so deep into unconscious competance that you do not realize just how skilled you are technically. Your ability to put a concept into plastic and paint is far beyond what any art student in another medium would be able to accomplish by picking up a pile of bitz and being told "have at it."

Mario wrote:Just some comments of a disagreeable nature; I hope you don't mind. It seems you want people to write something and not just look at the pretty photos.

...
The bolded part is where you have created a false dichotomy. You right term would probably be Unconscious competence whic need a lot of practice until the relevant skills become second nature which would be akin to the forgetting about technique part. If you were really to forget about technique you could start by poking your miniatures with the wrong end of a brush and see what happens.
...

Edit: Totally forgot that: Rally great work on your Incromunda gangs, the wall of text above disagreeing with you on this topic doesn't mean that I don't like your work.

Firstly, thanks for the reply Mario! I really appreciate it. Would be really nice to see some of your work too! Puts the discussion into so much more of a useful context.

My post is in NO WAY intended as a "fact", but a specific point of view of a personal journey that I hope makes people think - I think yours is the same?

I obviously disagree with some of what you are saying and even disagree that we actually disagree in parts, where I feel you just want to use another wording or to read my post in a manner that lets you describe it as black and white, or somehow dismissive of "skill" - which it isn't. I certainly do not look down on technique, when I've spent all of my time trying to get technically as adept as possible.

"Unconscious competence" to me is missing the point and as narrow a definition or a false dilemma, I really do not mean unconscious competence in my writing! - while I agree that it is achievable and important in a lot of things - take sports for example, like in figure skating. It's a good example actually, because it combines sport and art. There are some great painters who started doing some of their best work when losing some of their eye sight for example. That's a clear technical limitation, "less competence if you will" that has led to a very meaningful and different result.

In my personal opinion intention - even through an accidental process is crucial. If a technique becomes a given, to me it really leads to mannerism and stale, not some greater level of creation where I don't need to think of technique. Again, different to sports, when I play basketball, I don't think what I do next, it just happens through Unconscious competence.

So why do we have so little intentionally different approaches at the perceived top of our hobby?? Because large majority of those who have P&M ambitions of being significant in this field have technique as goal number one?

I don't know, but I intend to study a different path, deviating from my path towards the technical perfection, because I feel there can be more meaningful results else where. I welcome all different opinions and really want to underline - that ideally, we'd see them also as new blogs with work to go along the opinions. That would be truly interesting and beneficial to dakka as a community.

I do not see anything as a black and white question. It's a spectrum of grey, where I choose to make personal "positions" that even significantly change through time and experience. My previous project, "The Shaddes offe Greye" were a manifestation of consideration to this issue.

Thanks,

migs



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wehrkind wrote:

So, anyway, that is my take on things. Personally, I think you have gotten so deep into unconscious competance that you do not realize just how skilled you are technically. Your ability to put a concept into plastic and paint is far beyond what any art student in another medium would be able to accomplish by picking up a pile of bitz and being told "have at it."

Nicely written take at that, and highlights the majority opinion, I am sure. And thanks for the compliment.

I think my reply to Mario also replies to your post. But if it still remains somehow elusive, please let me know and I try to expand it.

Obviously we are at a level where we discuss: good + ? = great. So I take good craftsmanship/skill as a given. And not even the greatest artists or critics have ever totally agreed. My favorite definition is "Art is art and everything else is everything else", but it's fun and educational to try an frame an informed personal opinion.

I have to agree this thread has become very awesome for like minded painters , it has brought together most of the more active painters on here with ideas to mesh together .

migsula wrote:
Firstly, thanks for the reply Mario! I really appreciate it. Would be really nice to see some of your work too! Puts the discussion into so much more of a useful context.

Sorry I have no camera, and have not painted stuff in a few years. The last time was roughly when the new Grey Knights were releases.What year was that?
[edit]I just remembered this: Rackham were still making excellent metal miniatures at that time.

My post is in NO WAY intended as a "fact", but a specific point of view of a personal journey that I hope makes people think - I think yours is the same?

Actually I just picked the points of your post where I could complain the most. That makes for a livelier discussion than if our opinions were to asymptotically converge towards some point and a bunch of "I agree" posts would be boring.

In my personal opinion intention - even through an accidental process is crucial. If a technique becomes a given, to me it really leads to mannerism and stale, not some greater level of creation where I don't need to think of technique. Again, different to sports, when I play basketball, I don't think what I do next, it just happens through Unconscious competence.

That is, I think, were we are agreeing very much. Things like "one trick ponys" or people who focus on one element/technique exclusively. Although I would say that the same exists in sports too. In Basketball a player who, for example, is only good for rebounds and practically useless at any eveything else, or a little more generic example would be a tennis player who excells at one court type while more or less failing on any other court type.

So why do we have so little intentionally different approaches at the perceived top of our hobby?? Because large majority of those who have P&M ambitions of being significant in this field have technique as goal number one?

Because techique is a good foundation and you can see if a "top painter" is really good or just aping a bunch of techiques like a mindless brush machine (see (SE)NMM craze). And the funny thing is that it started with NMM (and was ridden to death) as a very specific form of to zenithal lighting (i.e. on metal parts) as well as source lighting which again led away from the whole idea of using highlights and shadings simply to emphasise the form and as an useful storytelling device.

You posted a link to Craig Mullins home page. His work (and brush economy), especially in his looser work, shows very much his mastery of techniques. The work of John Singer Sargent is one of his big influences (and it still shows in his brushwork, be it traditional or digital). In contrast with that you could put airbrush artist (non-miniature) that work on perfect renderings with a lot of templates and end up being prisoner of their own skills on the side of "technique as goal number one".

Give it some time, it's still in a growth process. Or just look around a bit more. There are painting competitions that are not GW sponsored and have more variety. These were traditionally historical competitions that in recent years added fantasy categories (also for SF material) and these have more variations as the rules are not that strict.

I do not see anything as a black and white question. It's a spectrum of grey, where I choose to make personal "positions" that even significantly change through time and experience. My previous project, "The Shaddes offe Greye" were a manifestation of consideration to this issue.

I know but I had to set up some point of view for my arguments and pinpoint your argument into something "attackable" to show another side because this type of discussion is one that repeats itself.

I think that technical excellence as an end in itself is only a local maximum. For example there was a recent (in the United States I think) Slayer Sword winner, some Forge World inquisitor with a lot off "freehand squigglies" on the robe, pants, and practically everywhere. It was probably very technical and took a lot of time to paint but did only have this one point (being technically very demanding) going for it (n my opinion).

Hello, I just read a whole bunch of your thread and I have to say that your work has really inspired me. I really am fascinated by the thin line detailing you do and the way you paint the armor on the Legionnairres.Now that I have said my piece, I now am wondering a few things. I have read the first post over and over and over, trying to absorb as much info from it as possible but I am still curious as to what the backround to this group is. Also, the different Alpharius' are different me right? Not the Primarch right? Thanks ahead.

---Ghaust Mortium

Ghaust to anyone out side of the Legion they are all called Alpharius. The legion used this tactic to psyche out there foees that would target the primarch. That is why no-one knows if Alpharius is dead or not, hope that helps

Yeah,

The Legion has been very busy operating underground - ie. swamped with work at the moment