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.
Talizvar wrote: Would "most wargamers" be less skilled than the average person out there?
I like the way you ignored the part of my post where I actually justified calling most wargamers "semi-skilled" rather than skilled. Here, let me quote the bit of my post you cut out...
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If people were painting miniatures as a job and I had to define that job, I'd call it "semi-skilled" labour for all but a small percentage of people who I could genuinely call "skilled". The level of skill of most wargamers is probably on par with anything from a couple of days to a couple of weeks worth of training for a random person off the street under a decent teacher. Certainly nothing like the "skill" I built up to perform my actual day job, which would take months to teach to someone pulled off the street.
If anything I was being generous saying "a couple of days to a couple of weeks", I could get someone painting models as good as 90% of wargamers in I'd say 1 to 3 days (along with teaching them the very simple vernacular).
That is NOT what I call "skilled" work. It's what I call "semi-skilled" work, that is to say; no, you could not get some random person off the street to do it, but the training time to get some random person off the street doing it is trivial.
Like really, I think people have an over inflated idea of how difficult it is to build and paint models simply because they learned the hard way through trial and error. But in reality, it's all pretty basic stuff. The processes are all relatively linear which makes it very easy to teach, easier than training someone to be a mechanic or a machinist or an engineer or the vast majority of day jobs.
If you want to call people who paint miniatures for wargames artists simply because you think they're "skilled", then by extension you have to call EVERYONE who performs any job that requires some level of training an "artist" as well, roof tilers, mechanics, machinists, builders, welders, nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, accountants, basically ANY job that required you to learn something a random person off the street wouldn't know now classifies you as "an artist".
No, I think that's wrong because it becomes trivially easy to be labelled an artist. When you talk about the definition of artist as being...
3.A person who is skilled at some activity.
...it makes sense to limit yourself to people who are exceptionally skilled. Like "he isn't just a football player, he's an artist".
We have our own terms like "priming", "dry-brush", "edge-highlight", "washing", "black or brown lining", "staining", "layering", "gunk", "mini-handle", "magic-wash", "kit-bash", "NMM"... etc. So then, we offer a test of terms and they join the fraternity??
LOL, I like the way you post a link to a bunch of classical art terminology that would actually require time and effort to learn and understand.... but all the wargaming terminology is stuff that is mostly self-evident or at most requires brief description.
Doctors use a fair bit of Latin as well as Lawyers for a reason: it sounds much more impressive and reduces outsider understanding: makes things exclusive.
Is that why you think people have specialised language? No, it's not, it's so things have clear and precise definitions so people within the field can communicate concisely and without confusion. I teach a final year engineering subject at a university, by that time I have to assume all the students know engineering vernacular because I can't get bogged down explaining things as if I were explaining it to a layperson.
By using greek or latin names it helps reduce confusion compared to using English words that often have their own connotations.
EDIT: Sorry this post has had too many edits, I'm at work and so my attention is split Personally I have no problem if a wargamer wants to call themselves an artist, but if that's the case IMO it's predicated on the idea that painting miniatures is art, NOT that it requires skill and therefore it must be art.
If you think painting models that you yourself didn't sculpt is art, ok, call yourself an artist.
Okay, it is getting firmly into the condescending realm.
Yes, it would take little time to drag any old person off the street and get them to slap together some models and paint to a "tabletop standard".
I am sure a couple days of getting them to understand our simple language here along with leetspeak or anything else would be trivial.
Sorry to offend how Latin can be so "succinct", my friend in nursing school would beg to differ, he finds it pretentious how the medical world uses the language (and he used to be a monk reading pure Latin, I kid you not).
The thing is, at some point you have built-up a level of knowledge where it is no longer some assembly line worker level of skill.
I will also point out I had discussed earlier is it a high level or technical proficiency that makes a person an artist or the "vision" they have in their head and bring it into the world?
I also have no small measure of engineering training / skills so I find creativity "from scratch" more exciting than building on an idea but both are strong creative outlets.
I read all your points twice and fail to see your point other than ridicule.
It seems to be saying that most people here have an overinflated view of how much of an "artist" they are at least specifically with the miniature hobbyist end of things.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Talizvar wrote: Sorry to offend how Latin can be so "succinct", my friend in nursing school would beg to differ, he finds it pretentious how the medical world uses the language (and he used to be a monk reading pure Latin, I kid you not).
Eh, sorry if I don't automatically believe your friend's word. I have students complain to me all the time how X, Y or Z is unnecessary knowledge, and sure some of it is, but most of the time the students just haven't pushed their knowledge far enough to understand why something is important. Or often they're just frustrated that they struggle to understand.
In many areas Latin is used because it works as a short hand, like etc. and ie. or how we say an argument is ad hominem or certain knowledge is a priori or a posteriori.
In contrast you might have a word like stress, it's English and has it's own connotation, but in engineering stress means something very specific, a student will still have to learn what it means so if you gave it some flowery Latin or Greek name it'd be no easier or harder for them to comprehend.
Talizvar wrote: I read all your points twice and fail to see your point other than ridicule.
I'll be more succinct then.
If your definition of an artist is simply someone who is skilled at something, it should be skill that is exceptional, difficult to attain, etc. Other than a handful of people, most wargamers don't demonstrate all that much skill.
If you don't narrow your definition to exceptional skill, well then everyone is an artist because everyone has some skill in something.
It seems to be saying that most people here have an overinflated view of how much of an "artist" they are at least specifically with the miniature hobbyist end of things.
Nope, I'm simply saying if you want to define yourself as an artist, it's because you think wargaming models are art. You don't have to be good at it for it to be art, the question is whether or not it is art.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/09/08 16:21:05
Talizvar wrote: Sorry to offend how Latin can be so "succinct", my friend in nursing school would beg to differ, he finds it pretentious how the medical world uses the language (and he used to be a monk reading pure Latin, I kid you not).
Eh, sorry if I don't automatically believe your friend's word. I have students complain to me all the time how X, Y or Z is unnecessary knowledge, and sure some of it is, but most of the time the students just haven't pushed their knowledge far enough to understand why something is important. Or often they're just frustrated that they struggle to understand.
In many areas Latin is used because it works as a short hand, like etc. and ie. or how we say an argument is ad hominem or certain knowledge is a priori or a posteriori.
In contrast you might have a word like stress, it's English and has it's own connotation, but in engineering stress means something very specific, a student will still have to learn what it means so if you gave it some flowery Latin or Greek name it'd be no easier or harder for them to comprehend.
So at least we can establish that the wording is important depending on the context.
I am not sure if you are trying to make the case that the more involved and complex the words, the more "skilled" you are in that discipline.
It still seems to be focusing unduly on proficiency of the language = knowledge or skill.
Spoiler:
Talizvar wrote: I read all your points twice and fail to see your point other than ridicule.
]I'll be more succinct then.
If your definition of an artist is simply someone who is skilled at something, it should be skill that is exceptional, difficult to attain, etc. Other than a handful of people, most wargamers don't demonstrate all that much skill.
If you don't narrow your definition to exceptional skill, well then everyone is an artist because everyone has some skill in something.
Now there you have my agreement.
We all like to think we are our own special snowflake but certain titles or labels would be devalued if they were easy to obtain.
Spoiler:
It seems to be saying that most people here have an overinflated view of how much of an "artist" they are at least specifically with the miniature hobbyist end of things.
Nope, I'm simply saying if you want to define yourself as an artist, it's because you think wargaming models are art. You don't have to be good at it for it to be art, the question is whether or not it is art.
A rather narrow definition you are looking for there, I am unsure if I should move the goalpost as well in answer.
It does at first blush sound silly to call wargaming miniatures "art" yet some people certainly execute their builds well into something I would consider art.
I think a review of "Awesome Mini or Not" is sufficient evidence.
The OP's question is "Do you consider yourself an artist?", I think those who enjoy all elements of the hobby have extended those skills beyond just the wargame miniatures.
I have made traditional paintings, I may be considered a hack by some.
Your own efforts as a teacher is to get students to a level of comprehension/proficiency to a defined level.
Unfortunately we may need to be pointed to some form of standardized test to get our artist card.
What you do as a profession is no easy task, you need to teach and then develop a means of testing the student on the information that was presented.
How would you define a passing grade for someone to be considered an artist? I am actually interested in your opinion.
It is the more creative aspects of art I would struggle to find a method of evaluation other than a possible peer review.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Talizvar wrote: Sorry to offend how Latin can be so "succinct", my friend in nursing school would beg to differ, he finds it pretentious how the medical world uses the language (and he used to be a monk reading pure Latin, I kid you not).
Eh, sorry if I don't automatically believe your friend's word. I have students complain to me all the time how X, Y or Z is unnecessary knowledge, and sure some of it is, but most of the time the students just haven't pushed their knowledge far enough to understand why something is important. Or often they're just frustrated that they struggle to understand. In many areas Latin is used because it works as a short hand, like etc. and ie. or how we say an argument is ad hominem or certain knowledge is a priori or a posteriori. In contrast you might have a word like stress, it's English and has it's own connotation, but in engineering stress means something very specific, a student will still have to learn what it means so if you gave it some flowery Latin or Greek name it'd be no easier or harder for them to comprehend.
So at least we can establish that the wording is important depending on the context. I am not sure if you are trying to make the case that the more involved and complex the words, the more "skilled" you are in that discipline. It still seems to be focusing unduly on proficiency of the language = knowledge or skill.
I made no such correlation between language and skill, unless your skill is specifically in a rhetorical sense.
I was simply opposes your supposition that Latin was used in certain fields for the purpose of making things exclusive.
Those fields are exclusive because they inherently require a great deal of knowledge and understanding, the language is entirely unimportant.
I was dictating an engineering report to an admin person the other day and they made the comment that they wish they understood what I was saying. I was entirely using English words with a couple of theories and methods thrown in called after those who developed them, the complication didn't come from the words but the specific meaning they had in the engineering context I was using them.
It was exclusionary by virtue of the fact it required a specific knowledge to comprehend, not because of the words that were used.
If you took the Latin out of fields that use them, you'd just make communicating in those fields less succinct, it'd still be exclusionary.
Now there you have my agreement. We all like to think we are our own special snowflake but certain titles or labels would be devalued if they were easy to obtain.
It's not a question of devaluing, it's simply a question of logic, if your definition of a term is such that it includes damned near every person on the planet it's not a useful term. "artist" simply becomes synonymous with "person" because everyone is "skilled" at something.
A rather narrow definition you are looking for there,
Not really, what you call "art" is very subjective so it's actually an incredibly broad definition.
I am unsure if I should move the goalpost as well in answer.
I'm sorry do you think I moved the goalposts somewhere?
It does at first blush sound silly to call wargaming miniatures "art" yet some people certainly execute their builds well into something I would consider art.
Which is why someone executing something with exceptional skill tends to be called "art" regardless of the field. A mechanic can be execute their trade with such skill as to warrant being called an artist, but that doesn't mean being a mechanic makes you an artist, it means people with exceptional skill are often labelled artists.
Unfortunately we may need to be pointed to some form of standardized test to get our artist card.
What you do as a profession is no easy task, you need to teach and then develop a means of testing the student on the information that was presented. How would you define a passing grade for someone to be considered an artist? I am actually interested in your opinion.
You seem to think I have or am looking for a rigid definition. I am not. I don't think there is a rigid definition of artist just as there is not a rigid definition of art. I don't think of wargaming miniatures as inherently being art so I don't think wargamers are inherently artists.
But if someone thinks of wargaming miniatures as art I don't take umbrage with it though I might disagree.
The thing I took umbrage with was using the definition of artist "A person skilled at a particular task or occupation" to fit any wargamer in to the umbrella of "artist" as there's only a very small number of wargamers who demonstrate any meaningful skill.
But there are other non-skill related definitions of artist that are flexible enough to squish in wargamers in general if that's your aim.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/08 18:33:05
After painting 60~ armies and building 11 full gaming tables with terrain - I'd say yes I am an artist. Not for painting or building the miniatures - but creating the terrain.
Painting is literally coloring in the lines and getting better at this. Picking color choices, using washes, airbrush, customizing the model, and following steps to complete a model you did not sculpt is not being an artist. I didn't feel creative painting the 100th Hormagaunt. I was not an artist when I washed 230 imperial guardsmen in army painter.
I'd say building/creating train diorama's/scale scenes or sculpting your own models is an "art". You pull from your mind what you want to do and build/create it to how you want it to look and feel.
Crafting a Golden Daemon winning model and scultping nearly the entire model? Spending 100+ hours to win a competition. Yes that individual is an artist.
Basecoating some crimson fists with blue spray paint and adding a few base coats? No. I can paint a shelf and nail it to a wall in my room.
Crafting a Golden Daemon winning model and scultping nearly the entire model? Spending 100+ hours to win a competition. Yes that individual is an artist.
Basecoating some crimson fists with blue spray paint and adding a few base coats? No. I can paint a shelf and nail it to a wall in my room.
Based on your two extremes I am not convinced by your argument. What about the middle ground? The painter who spends 20, 30 or 40+ hours painting a model. Just paint, no sculpting or converting involved but lots of time applying techniques learned over hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice, is their work not art?
Sure, using the dip method to knock out a Nid or Guard army in an afternoon is stretching the term "art" to the point of breaking. That is simply labor.
But many players go far and above just 3 base coats and dunk in stainer when crafting their armies. Even if only building stock models, the hours of paint work and the effort involved should not be discounted because they don't fall on the extreme end of competition style painting.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Based on your two extremes I am not convinced by your argument. What about the middle ground? The painter who spends 20, 30 or 40+ hours painting a model. Just paint, no sculpting or converting involved but lots of time applying techniques learned over hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice, is their work not art?
But many players go far and above just 3 base coats and dunk in stainer when crafting their armies. Even if only building stock models, the hours of paint work and the effort involved should not be discounted because they don't fall on the extreme end of competition style painting.
I'd say no then. You didn't create the model, it's not your design, you simply picked a dozen or so colors and masterfully blended them onto a model. I can trace a comic and color it in masterfully, but I just finished someone's work and idea. That feeling of "I created this" doesn't generate when only finished a section of the art. Building models is a bit of an art. Posing them. Then you jump into the conversion area where you do create artwork. You take pieces/bitz/card/sculpting putty and make a work of art (using third party/other sculptor's work).
If you count building an army and posing them, then painting them in your own scheme how you envision then I'd say it's art. Sure. For you.
Do I write it on customs forms as primary job role?
Yes.
Do I get paid to make, teach and exhibit art as a job?
Yes.
Do my man dollies have anything to do with my art practice?
No.
*edit* being an artist isn't just execution of techniques in practice but conceptual development of idea to the viewer base. So the people collaboratively developing the mini's and stories can be called artists in a way, the people commission painting minis no (despite what is being done is artistic). More like tradesmen like a commercial photographer or jeweller. Most people painting minis fall into the hobbyist side of things even if it's a full time job, it's more like running a scrap booking store than having a developed practice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/09 20:57:20
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Based on your two extremes I am not convinced by your argument. What about the middle ground? The painter who spends 20, 30 or 40+ hours painting a model. Just paint, no sculpting or converting involved but lots of time applying techniques learned over hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice, is their work not art?
But many players go far and above just 3 base coats and dunk in stainer when crafting their armies. Even if only building stock models, the hours of paint work and the effort involved should not be discounted because they don't fall on the extreme end of competition style painting.
I'd say no then. You didn't create the model, it's not your design, you simply picked a dozen or so colors and masterfully blended them onto a model. I can trace a comic and color it in masterfully, but I just finished someone's work and idea. That feeling of "I created this" doesn't generate when only finished a section of the art. Building models is a bit of an art. Posing them. Then you jump into the conversion area where you do create artwork. You take pieces/bitz/card/sculpting putty and make a work of art (using third party/other sculptor's work).
If you count building an army and posing them, then painting them in your own scheme how you envision then I'd say it's art. Sure. For you.
Well it's awesome that art is subjective because I just can't get behind your narrow definition. So we are both right and both wrong!
I fall more in line with Gen.Steiner. If something elicits an emotional response it is art. I've seen so many well painted miniatures that have moved me that I can't imagine not applying the term art to those pieces.
I suppose I see a miniature as a canvas, blank and ready for an artist's touch to make it beautiful (or horrible, depending on the artist's intentions). It isn't necessary for me that miniature was altered or sculpted by the painter, it is what that painter did with the bare metal or plastic and paint that is artistic.
That isn't to say an artist who completed a massive conversion, or sculpted an entire model from scratch and then painted it beautifully has their art cheapened by the person who "only" painted their model. I think there can be room for both persons to be considered artists as they are both creating something new and interesting that didn't exist previously.
I stand by my comments on page 1, this is an interesting thread and I am enjoying the conversation thus far!
Personally I have no problem if a wargamer wants to call themselves an artist, but if that's the case 
