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.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think, for me, it boils down to whether or not the "artist" has a purpose beyond the practical-in this case the practical application of paint to play a game or make some money. In other words, are they trying to express an idea, or convey an emotion, make a point, or make a statement? If so it is art. If the goal is just to slap some paint on a miniature, be it for gaming purposes or to sell, no matter how well applied, it isn't really "Art". To me, the goal of art is expression. As a result, even the most horribly painted miniature with craft store goop non diluted and with glue coming out of every seam can be art. On the other hand, the most technically talented, smoothly transitioned, subtly lit mini might not be, though I would think most people who take that much time with it will inevitably be doing so beyond practical purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
There's the pretentious meaning behind art (I invoke emotion and desire, therefore I art) and then there's the practical meaning (I made this). My figures fall into the latter category. It may not be high art, but I display my painted miniatures, get admiring comments, and take pride in my work - like I'm sure every miniature painter does. It takes skill and creativity, and works towards an pleasing aesthetic - what I make is art, so I guess that makes me an artist. Since I also hate unpainted figures on barren tables, it also makes me a pretentious artist.

See, to me, just going by that definition, you are a craftsman. Possibly an extremely talented one. And I don't see why emotion has to have a pretentious connotation. All humans have emotions. All humans create art in some way.

What, then, would you call people who love painting the miniatures, and to whom the game and tabletop is simply a nice bonus that comes with that painting?

 Deadshot wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think, for me, it boils down to whether or not the "artist" has a purpose beyond the practical-in this case the practical application of paint to play a game or make some money. In other words, are they trying to express an idea, or convey an emotion, make a point, or make a statement? If so it is art. If the goal is just to slap some paint on a miniature, be it for gaming purposes or to sell, no matter how well applied, it isn't really "Art". To me, the goal of art is expression. As a result, even the most horribly painted miniature with craft store goop non diluted and with glue coming out of every seam can be art. On the other hand, the most technically talented, smoothly transitioned, subtly lit mini might not be, though I would think most people who take that much time with it will inevitably be doing so beyond practical purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
There's the pretentious meaning behind art (I invoke emotion and desire, therefore I art) and then there's the practical meaning (I made this). My figures fall into the latter category. It may not be high art, but I display my painted miniatures, get admiring comments, and take pride in my work - like I'm sure every miniature painter does. It takes skill and creativity, and works towards an pleasing aesthetic - what I make is art, so I guess that makes me an artist. Since I also hate unpainted figures on barren tables, it also makes me a pretentious artist.

See, to me, just going by that definition, you are a craftsman. Possibly an extremely talented one. And I don't see why emotion has to have a pretentious connotation. All humans have emotions. All humans create art in some way.

What, then, would you call people who love painting the miniatures, and to whom the game and tabletop is simply a nice bonus that comes with that painting?

It depends. If the love is merely a love to pass the time and to escape, then I would call them hobbyists. If they are trying to tell a story, or express a mood (actually a pretty low bar and one I think most people in the hobby would fall under), I would call them artists. Even if nobody ever sees their work other than themselves.

Well... I'm certainly more on the craftsman end of the scale as opposed to an artist. I've never gone far off piste with schemes or conversions and generally I'm just recreating a look with at most a touch of personal flair but nothing truly creative. I could recognise other hobbyists as artists though, or maybe more specifically certain models they've painted as being works of art. That fire prism on the previous page definitely has artistic merit

I consider myself an artist. Not a professional one though - no, that I save for the people that are really good, really into it, or who get paid for creating.

Still, art is just that to me - the act of creating something for some purpose, whether it be to entertain, to express, to show, to practice, or just to create. The things that we make are all inherently expressions of ourselves, even if we make them for something or someone else. Your effort and time went into that thing you created. Maybe your blood, sweat, and tears. And that means something.

Sure, there can be different levels of art, but who am I to tell someone else how to feel about something? Just because someone who tried hard is not necessarily world class does not make their contributions less.

I am sorry, but seeing a fully painted army by my opponent puts a lump in my throat and makes me want to give them a hug!

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
No I dont consider myself an artis, would never see a reason for doing such a thing either

But what if, for the sake of argument, you transferred the skills you learned mini painting to a canvas piece? I'm just curious really about peoples definition of art as a medium. Especially when it comes to miniature work.

Having done some traditional paintings on canvas... no, the skills don't transfer at all well between the two levels.

The brush skills are far different - mini painting puts an extreme emphasis on point control, while on the larger scale of a canvas that's far less critical. Instead, canvas painting deals with dozens of techniques and many different brush types (round, liner, point, filbert, fan, etc.)... none of which really translate all that well to minis outside freehanding large banners.

In addition, canvas painting makes use of other tools for applying paint, like paint knives.

Then there's the hefty difference in the paints themselves. The body of an oil or acrylic paint used most often in canvas paintings is sufficient to turn a miniature into a featureless blob unless HEAVILY thinned.

It's apples and oranges, really. The only skill that transfers is the discipline to sit down and work at it. In my opinion, anyway.

Nope, my skills have one purpose - to get models to the table and look reasonably well.

Plenty of folks/machines do that in China/overseas selling us prepainted toys that do that as a job, not as an artist - and they often do a much better job than I.

 Vulcan wrote:

Having done some traditional paintings on canvas... no, the skills don't transfer at all well between the two levels.

Believe it or not, a lot of miniature painting skill is directly transferable to doing pixel art. There's a lot of overlap there, not physically, but in the use of color to suggest detail that is otherwise invisible.

Nope, I wouldn't call it art, except in exceptional circumstances.

I'd define what we do as very skilled craft, and you could certainly call the most skilled model painters and builders great artisans. They know how to use their tools incredibly well and spend years perfecting the craft.

However, I'd probably use the more contemporary idea of 'art' as something you make that is MORE than just very good - something that transcends skill to make you think about the world, or an unrelated issue, or conveys emotion. When we call a painting 'art' we're not just saying that it is very cool or very skilful to make, we're saying that it makes us think or feel differently for having experienced it.

I design theatre productions for a living. When I work as part of team to create a new play, and people are crying at the end, or feel differently about the subject matter, then I feel a bit like we've made something you could call 'art'. All the people working on the play are still very good at their craft (the actors, the scene painters, etc), and would be even if they play itself were bad, but there's definitely something 'more' going on when it all comes together.

As an example, does anyone remember the Chapman Brothers' 'Hell' (it can easily be googled if not)? I was lucky enough to see it for real at the Royal Academy about 15 years ago. It was an installation piece involving toy soldiers, thousands of them painted and converted in some sort of hellish undead representation of the holocaust. It was very skilfully made, but the reason it was accepted 'art' wasn't because the models were well-painted or well-converted, it was because the arrangement, scale and setting had a really powerful impact and made you consider great big aspects of life and history that were nothing to do with toy soldiers.



..

 Vulcan wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
No I dont consider myself an artis, would never see a reason for doing such a thing either

But what if, for the sake of argument, you transferred the skills you learned mini painting to a canvas piece? I'm just curious really about peoples definition of art as a medium. Especially when it comes to miniature work.

Having done some traditional paintings on canvas... no, the skills don't transfer at all well between the two levels.

The brush skills are far different - mini painting puts an extreme emphasis on point control, while on the larger scale of a canvas that's far less critical. Instead, canvas painting deals with dozens of techniques and many different brush types (round, liner, point, filbert, fan, etc.)... none of which really translate all that well to minis outside freehanding large banners.

In addition, canvas painting makes use of other tools for applying paint, like paint knives.

Then there's the hefty difference in the paints themselves. The body of an oil or acrylic paint used most often in canvas paintings is sufficient to turn a miniature into a featureless blob unless HEAVILY thinned.

It's apples and oranges, really. The only skill that transfers is the discipline to sit down and work at it. In my opinion, anyway.

Yeah, the differences are many, and I think some folks here don't know what they don't know.

There's plenty that goes into representing a 3D world in 2D, and miniature painting isn't going to give you the drawing skills and understanding of perspective that you need.

Then you also have a little something called composition, which in miniature painting is determined for you and/or isn't much of a consideration unless you're creating a diorama or more elaborately based miniature.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
That's just a bit contradictory to what you wrote originally though. as well as somewhat rude. In your original post, (as says above) "it isn't creating art since the miniature isn't your own creative work". and in your reply, "an unpainted miniature is the original creative work of the artist". So is it contradictory, or am i just reading it incorrectly?

I don't know what you don't understand here. Imagine that you're holding a miniature in your hand. That miniature is the original creative work of a sculptor (i.e. not you). The sculptor has a basis for calling it art, and calling himself/herself an artist. You aren't making art or being an artist just by applying paint on top of HIS or HER work. It may be *artistic*. But art? No, probably not unless you start altering it, preferably in new ways conceived of and created by you.

There are grey areas here, and times in history in which these boundaries were pushed.

 kronk wrote:
I disagree with you and your teacher 100% if you feel this wasn't painted by an artist.

It may or may not have been painted by an artist, but painting this didn't make him or her an artist, or make the miniature his or her own artwork.

If you, kronk, sculpted something new out of greenstuff, and then painted it 1% as nicely as the tank in that pic, then YES, you'd have a much better case for your work being ART. It'd be your original creative work.

It's about the creative process...not the level of technique applied.

As long as I don't have to get a beret or an Apple laptop, sure, I'll be an artist.

I also consider myself a craftsman when I paint miniatures.

That's mostly because I don't approach painting of miniatures as an art form. I deliberately paint for tabletop-quality and any acquisition of skills I do is primarily aimed at getting things done faster, with improved quality being a distant second.

Some of my terrain building might border on art as I tend to engage more with my imagination and really try to push beyond the borders of the toys and bits that I combine into terrain. Still, I don't really look at it as an artistic endeavor as much as a craft.

When I want an artistic outlet I break out the bass guitar and play music.

Yes, but not solely because I paint miniatures, well honestly I don't call myself one but my boss and wife do so I kinda lose. My new job is designing, building, and painting, props and sets for a haunted house, in time it'll also include characters and costumes. My boss gives me a concept, I put it on paper, build a story around it, revise it with the story now behind it, then turn it into a physical object. I think that would qualify at least for the bare minimum of what a artist is.

I taken alot of what I've learned from scratch building, kitbashing, and painting however and applied it to my work, just scaled up. I think 40k (or whatever game you might play) has a inherently artistic skillset that's attached to prepping the models for play but its how you use those skills that make you a "artist"

BTW I hate being called a artist, no idea why but I find it... almost condescending. Might help understand my point of view, I'll take being called creative over a artist any day of the week.

No, I am a hobbyist, not an artist.

Cheers,

CB

Being a actual artist in ceramics/painting as well as a professor who taught art in a recognized university, I can say that none of the miniature painters are 'artists', they are very highly advanced craftsmen of the trade.
An artist is someone who is usually ahead of their cultural time, thus they usually don't get recognized till after death, their work guides the culture like a shepard. Artwork are categorized in 2 areas, those invoke emotion/political and those that are decorative.
The illustrators, miniature sculptors, and writers in this industry I consider artists. There is no implied insult toward miniature painters, who myself is also one, just how the culture is organized.

There's an interesting defintion of creativity:

'There are three aspects to human creativity - Art, Crafts, and Science [...] art relies upon intuitive sensing, vision and expression, crafts upon sophisticated technique and science upon knowledge'

On that basis, most miniature painting would probably fall under craft. However, there are definitely aspects of the artistic in the arrangement and composition of a figure; in the visualisation, development and creation of a diorama etc.

If you take away the cultural baggage of the term 'artist' as it is often understood – refinement, otherworldliness, impracticality – then I think it's pretty fair to describe miniature painting as artwork, as it involves at least some form of creativity and expression.

Maybe we can say that they can be artists, but they probably aren't. There's a lot of creativity in the miniature hobby - not just painting, but customizing models, building lists, filling out a table with terrain, coming up with a narrative or scenario for a battle, creating rules - but they are generally more towards a specific goal of creating an enjoyable (aesthetically, socially, emotionally, intellectually) experience.

In a way, it's like programming. You are making creative decisions with every line of code, but at the same time, those decisions are as much about problem solving and getting to the finish line as anything else - but there is definitely code that I consider a work of art. A beautiful algorithm, implemented with precision and purpose, transcends mere craftsmanship into a singular expression of the creative self. It does not - could not - exist through craft alone.

And by that standard, miniature painting (and all the other cooperative and creative efforts involved in the hobby) is a craft, but taken together, maybe isn't just a craft. I mean, playing Warmachine with empty bases and unpainted, half assembled models on a flat table with cut out pieces of felt to represent forests is not art. It is a game and nothing more, and perhaps doesn't even rise to the standard of craft. But playing fully painted armies on one of the Warhammer World tables, pitting your army against another in a shared narrative - it's an experience that required the creativity and craftsmanship of multiple people making multiple efforts, a cooperative art form of which painting miniatures is but one (important) part.

The way I see it, miniature games aren't just games. They are art too - more so than any other gaming experience in existence. And if someone peeing into a can of Spaghetti-Ohs can be considered art, then I feel like the umbrella of art is broad enough to include something like this.

Depends on what I'm applying myself to. I don't consider my involvement with miniatures "art", I would label those projects "scale modelling". I'm not saying scale models can't be art, in fact the contemporary art forms I admire the most, are the sort of dioramas which employs models and techniques I'm able to comprehend.

I should also point out that I have a degree from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, and professionally many of my colleagues self-identify as artists. Whether or not modern architecture qualifies as art, is subjective and a different discussion entirely, but personally, when I find myself deeply involved in what I do, and I get to create something truly original, then I feel like an artist.

Building models, on the other hand, does not provide me with the opportunity to create anything original, because by default the model is always going to be a copy of something else. This applies to 40k in particular, with everything I use having originally been purchased as kits. To me, model building is a craft, but it's something I enjoy doing, because it allows me to create things but without the exhaustion of having to come up with everything myself.

It's very comfortable and fulfilling to assemble something someone else has thought out.

Absolutely!

The whole point of being a miniature wargamer is to get my art fix on a scale that's compatible with life. I was taught woodworking from under the age of ten, have a tech theatre degree (emphases on scenic design & construction / stage management) and had my own construction business after finishing university. My need to create art and build neat stuff is as fundamental as the need to breathe or drink water. While the macro scale is not practical, the micro world opens tons of creative possibilities. I don't care if I never win a game. I win when the people at the at the FLGS give oohs and aahs to my work, which means that the worst I can do on any given night is break even (assuming I get roflstomped by my opponent, which isn't uncommon).

IMO, if painting minis is a means to an end (i.e. tabletop standard) then you probably aren't an artist. If painting allows you to express yourself in a way that cannot be accomplished via any other means, then you most definitely are. The joy of this hobby is that both options are perfectly acceptable.

Im not sure my collection of bare metal and plastic counts as even the loosest interpretation of art.

Well, the guys who go out and play cover tunes all night at the local club appear to believe they are artists.
So I am unsure how knowing a few things about colour theory and painting little models so they look good is not a consideration for the same title as well.

Wiktionary defines the noun 'artist' (Singular: artist; Plural: artists) as follows:
1.A person who creates art.
2.A person who makes and creates art as an occupation.
3.A person who is skilled at some activity.
4.A person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.

I think we all fit broadly within definition #3.
There are many on this board that fit both within #2 and #4 as well.
Many of those who sculpt their figures and do fancy things like dioramas, NMM and basically make something quite different than the base figure are well within item #1.

In this hobby it is quite obvious there are people who do amazing things with the hobby, where it makes our own humble efforts seem like garbage in comparison.
But you should not sell yourself short that you develop skills that few people can attempt outside of the hobby.
I think this is why it is so great a hobby: there is so much to learn!
Plus, anyone I met that was a true master at what they do, every one of them tell me "I am just learning.".

If John Blanche is considered an artist, then I'd have to say "yes".

Miniatures concept, sculpt, painting and playing are art. Between talent, time, effort, and inspiration, its just how it goes.

Don't cry for me Argentina.

I've been told once that I am an artist with a machinegun. I'll happily stick by that branding.

It is funny how certain labels is like a status, branding or profession. You feel you need some test, hazing or ritual to be entered into the "brotherhood".

Do we need some secret handshake or something?

My son doused a SM model in paint so I could easily say "Good coverage!" he certainly went at it with the gusto of the inspired.

From the imagination of his drawings he "is" an artist just needs to work on technique. Lord help us all if he got any of those images in his head out in the world more vividly... Tzeentch has nothing on him.

Having a green/red colourblind challenge makes it all the more... surprising the creation, his sense of tones is spot-on.

 Talizvar wrote:
It is funny how certain labels is like a status, branding or profession. You feel you need some test, hazing or ritual to be entered into the "brotherhood".

Do we need some secret handshake or something?

My son doused a SM model in paint so I could easily say "Good coverage!" he certainly went at it with the gusto of the inspired.

From the imagination of his drawings he "is" an artist just needs to work on technique. Lord help us all if he got any of those images in his head out in the world more vividly... Tzeentch has nothing on him.

Having a green/red colourblind challenge makes it all the more... surprising the creation, his sense of tones is spot-on.

You don't know the handshake? Such cretinhood.

Your son is an excellent example of what I take art to be: use of artistic techniques such as painting or drawing as expression or fun or profession. At some point in his life, van Gogh must have been told he wasn't an artist, he was simply painting his own face. Da Vinci must have been told the Mona Lisa wasn't art. Donatello must have heard something akin to "you aren't really an artist, you just break that beautiful hunk of marble." Everyone gets told their art isn't art until the world begins to appreciate.

 Talizvar wrote:
Well, the guys who go out and play cover tunes all night at the local club appear to believe they are artists.
So I am unsure how knowing a few things about colour theory and painting little models so they look good is not a consideration for the same title as well.

Wiktionary defines the noun 'artist' (Singular: artist; Plural: artists) as follows:
1.A person who creates art.
2.A person who makes and creates art as an occupation.
3.A person who is skilled at some activity.
4.A person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.

I think we all fit broadly within definition #3.
There are many on this board that fit both within #2 and #4 as well.
Many of those who sculpt their figures and do fancy things like dioramas, NMM and basically make something quite different than the base figure are well within item #1.

In this hobby it is quite obvious there are people who do amazing things with the hobby, where it makes our own humble efforts seem like garbage in comparison.
But you should not sell yourself short that you develop skills that few people can attempt outside of the hobby.
I think this is why it is so great a hobby: there is so much to learn!
Plus, anyone I met that was a true master at what they do, every one of them tell me "I am just learning.".

Even 3 is subjective on how you define "skilled".

If people were painting miniatures as a job and I had to define that job, I'd call it "semi-skilled" labour for all but a small percentage of people who I could genuinely call "skilled". The level of skill of most wargamers is probably on par with anything from a couple of days to a couple of weeks worth of training for a random person off the street under a decent teacher. Certainly nothing like the "skill" I built up to perform my actual day job, which would take months to teach to someone pulled off the street.

If your definition of "skilled" is so low as to include most wargamers, well, I'd say everyone in the world is probably skilled at SOMETHING well enough to be considered an "artist".

Piss artist, maybe.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even 3 is subjective on how you define "skilled".
If people were painting miniatures as a job and I had to define that job, I'd call it "semi-skilled" labour for all but a small percentage of people who I could genuinely call "skilled".
If your definition of "skilled" is so low as to include most wargamers, well, I'd say everyone in the world is probably skilled at SOMETHING well enough to be considered an "artist".

"Define" or "Compare with"?
Like so many "labels" we like to throw around, it depends on what you compare against.
Would "most wargamers" be less skilled than the average person out there?
Maybe if they consistently field a chrome or grey legion whenever they play.

Demonstrable application of skilled technique?
That is only one side to the coin.
Some demonstrable vision or creative thought/image brought to light is another element.

I think many of my skills fall in an "expert" method of assembling models and removing all the gaps and joins all the while ensuring glue is not smeared outside of joins.
That is technically proficient but may not fall at all within any artist skills.

Being able to kit-bash, add detail with green-stuff, is that more in line or does it need to be a completely new object from scratch?
Painting: what techniques do you need to use to be considered artistic enough?
One guy in our gaming group has the most accurate painting, almost no shade or edge highlight but edge control you can cut yourself on... artist or not?

Each group or culture usually has their own language or terms and I think we have that.
Doctors use a fair bit of Latin as well as Lawyers for a reason: it sounds much more impressive and reduces outsider understanding: makes things exclusive.
For instance, for the classically trained take a look at the language here: http://www.essentialvermeer.com/glossary/glossary_a_c.html#.V9AxQo-cE4k

We have our own terms like "priming", "dry-brush", "edge-highlight", "washing", "black or brown lining", "staining", "layering", "gunk", "mini-handle", "magic-wash", "kit-bash", "NMM"... etc. So then, we offer a test of terms and they join the fraternity??

 Talizvar wrote:
Would "most wargamers" be less skilled than the average person out there?

I like the way you ignored the part of my post where I actually justified calling most wargamers "semi-skilled" rather than skilled. Here, let me quote the bit of my post you cut out...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If people were painting miniatures as a job and I had to define that job, I'd call it "semi-skilled" labour for all but a small percentage of people who I could genuinely call "skilled". The level of skill of most wargamers is probably on par with anything from a couple of days to a couple of weeks worth of training for a random person off the street under a decent teacher. Certainly nothing like the "skill" I built up to perform my actual day job, which would take months to teach to someone pulled off the street.

If anything I was being generous saying "a couple of days to a couple of weeks", I could get someone painting models as good as 90% of wargamers in I'd say 1 to 3 days (along with teaching them the very simple vernacular).

That is NOT what I call "skilled" work. It's what I call "semi-skilled" work, that is to say; no, you could not get some random person off the street to do it, but the training time to get some random person off the street doing it is trivial.

Like really, I think people have an over inflated idea of how difficult it is to build and paint models simply because they learned the hard way through trial and error. But in reality, it's all pretty basic stuff. The processes are all relatively linear which makes it very easy to teach, easier than training someone to be a mechanic or a machinist or an engineer or the vast majority of day jobs.

If you want to call people who paint miniatures for wargames artists simply because you think they're "skilled", then by extension you have to call EVERYONE who performs any job that requires some level of training an "artist" as well, roof tilers, mechanics, machinists, builders, welders, nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, accountants, basically ANY job that required you to learn something a random person off the street wouldn't know now classifies you as "an artist".

No, I think that's wrong because it becomes trivially easy to be labelled an artist. When you talk about the definition of artist as being...

3.A person who is skilled at some activity.

...it makes sense to limit yourself to people who are exceptionally skilled. Like "he isn't just a football player, he's an artist".

We have our own terms like "priming", "dry-brush", "edge-highlight", "washing", "black or brown lining", "staining", "layering", "gunk", "mini-handle", "magic-wash", "kit-bash", "NMM"... etc. So then, we offer a test of terms and they join the fraternity??

LOL, I like the way you post a link to a bunch of classical art terminology that would actually require time and effort to learn and understand.... but all the wargaming terminology is stuff that is mostly self-evident or at most requires brief description.

Doctors use a fair bit of Latin as well as Lawyers for a reason: it sounds much more impressive and reduces outsider understanding: makes things exclusive.

Is that why you think people have specialised language? No, it's not, it's so things have clear and precise definitions so people within the field can communicate concisely and without confusion. I teach a final year engineering subject at a university, by that time I have to assume all the students know engineering vernacular because I can't get bogged down explaining things as if I were explaining it to a layperson.

By using greek or latin names it helps reduce confusion compared to using English words that often have their own connotations.

EDIT: Sorry this post has had too many edits, I'm at work and so my attention is split Personally I have no problem if a wargamer wants to call themselves an artist, but if that's the case IMO it's predicated on the idea that painting miniatures is art, NOT that it requires skill and therefore it must be art.

If you think painting models that you yourself didn't sculpt is art, ok, call yourself an artist.

I'm a professional furry artist (works for money), and semi-pro miniatures painter (give me some mini's to paint and will in exchange for more minis)