We all know that there are genre specialization among armore builders but what about style/finish schools of thought? Like any art form, there’s a broad range of styles out there but have you every given any thought as to how they might be classified? Realism vs. aesthetic, geographic variations/influences, etc. all play a part but how would you break them down and where would that place you, as a builder, in the spectrum?
I’d say the two ditches in this area are extreme aestheticism and extreme “rivet-counting”.
If some modelers like unweathered finishes, that’s fine, as long as it’s not used as an excuse to avoid more difficult methods. Wanting to paint my Sherman light green because it’s what I like and then trying to portray that as accurate, is, in my opinion, taking aestheticism too far. Whenever I hear the we-never-know-exactly-what-color-it-was-anyway argument, I do get rather upset. If you want to paint your armor models orange, that’s your prerequisite, and I can respect that. Just don’t try to convince anyone that what you like is accurate and therefore “right”.
On the other hand we have the rivet, track link, and weld bead counters. If someone wants to be a detail freak that’s fine too, and it can produce some amazing models. When rivet-counters start ruining their own and everyone else’s enjoyment of the hobby because of fanatic commitment to perfect detailing is when it’s gone too far. This is probably my biggest annoyance, modelers who constantly rail on anybody who has one too many rivets on their model.
I am a detail freak when I build but when it comes to painting, I tend to take a little artistic licenese to make the finish look good. For example, I’d paint German Gray as straight gray, because I think it looks better. There are some good arguments for blue-hued Dunkelgrau, though, and even if it may be slightly more accurate, I still will paint mine good ole’ XF-63.
I tend to view wash + dry-brush as an outdated method of weathering, but for beginners, or even those who prefer a smoother finish, it may look fine. I personally need to be careful not to look down on those who use techniques I think aren’t very useful.
The biggest thing here is to respect the various building styles of different modelers. I think especially show judges could stand to learn a little bit of this - I’ve seen very good models pushed to the back of the table because they aren’t built and finished with the same techniques that the said judge would use. I’ve seen judges disqualify excellent models because they weren’t drybrushed, or because they didn’t use any pigment weathering.
I don’t think all techniques or all models are equal. But I think we should be careful not to look down on models built in a style different that our own.
[#ditto] Man, it’s hard to add anything to that!..Well said!
Building “schools”:
1 OOB modelers
2 the guy who adds the occasional detail, so long as it’s convenient and simple
3 the PE guys
4 The PE AND Friul guys (the guys with CASH![(-D] )
5 The “all-outers” and major scratchbuilders
From what I’ve seen, there are several “finishing schools” that people tend to gravitate toward:
- The totally clean finish
2.The single-color wash with drybrushing in ligter shade
3 The “experimenters”–those still trying to find their comfort level with weathering
- The heavy weathering school, including chipping/filters/pastels
–the thing is, for me, I have been, and still am, ALL of the above! I incorporate some or all of the above categories into my models at one time or another–although not so much the totally clean finish anymore. I might do a super-detailed model (like my Hetzer on the bench now), but then I’ll need a break and I might do an OOB and finish it with a wash/drybrush to just relax. I recently did an OOB VK4501 Tiger (P) prototype and did a light weathering on it–not my best model, but one I just wanted in the collection to contrast with my pre-release-built Tiger VK 4501 command tank conversion (built before the DML release)
I 'll take a break from the PE/interior/scratchbuilding/heavy weathering frame of mind after this Hetz, that’s for sure! BUt the thing is, the more I learn and the more skills I acquire, the more enjoyable modelling becomes for me because I 'm finding that I can just about replicate whatever I see in my head if I work at it long enough. I may not turn out as many models as I used to per year, but I’m happier with the ones that I do.
I’m not a rivet counter–it doesn’t bother me if a weld seam is not-so-perfectly portrayed. Nor if the amount of rivets are exact. I am a faithful disciple of, and firm advocate of the power of Aesthetic Value, and when the pursuit of technical perfection impinges on my ability–or the ability of others–to enjoy the hobby and the build, well that’s where I draw the line!
Just my views as a total novice to the hobby that reads the threads. Everyone obviously has an opinion. And I think as humans we do tend to think our opinions are “right”. True but that means the next guy’s opinion is “true” too. And I think alot of poeple forget that. Take weathering for example (not technique but level). I PERSONALLY like both weathered and unweathered models. Extremity of weathering depends. For example if it’s a dio make the weathering match the environement. But I also like a totally clean “captured in a moment in time” representation on a piece of history. However it seems some view clean builds as toyish and not as “model building”.
Rivet counting is another. Personally if the real one had 3/4" bolt and when you measure a part out it equates to say 1" I dont mind. Or even if it’s missing 1 of the 16 bolts it “should” have. But if you do thats fine, it’s your hobby too. I personally know I wont mind and the poeple that will be in my house looking at it wont know or care. Again thats just MY opinion. My view on much of this is the same as poeple say about figure paining. Stand 35 feet away and tell me what size a bolt is (well actually alot of us could LOL) or count those 1/4" rivets.
I doubt I’ll ever enter a contest but it would be pretty disapointing to be judged by such a narrow vision of such a broad hobby.
Man, I’m a bit disappointed by all the “negative waves” toward those model builders who strive to reproduce as accurate a model as possible. However, I’m also not surprised. I applaud these modelers. Without them there would likely be far fewer masters created for AM manufacturers, model manufacturers wouldn’t have a pool of dedicated researchers from which to gleen feedback, and we very well could still be building armor models with battery compartments (actually, my last build did have a battery compartment). These so called “rivet counters” represent a very small, yet very valuable segment of the modeling community. I’ve personnally seen people who couldn’t operate an airbrush or glue two parts together properly rip into other’s models far more frequently than expert modelers, but that’s just my experience.
At the other end of the spectrum are the OOTB modelers. These run the gammit from new modelers to old, novices to experts. While this segment of the modeling community is also somewhat small, it is also important. OOTB modelers are frequently the first to complete newly released kits and often are the first to identify errors with instructions or engineering. For these reasons, I also applaud these modelers.
By far the biggest segment of modelers - including myself - fall somewhere between these to “extremes”. While I will sometimes push the envelope and attempt to super detail a model, I will also build a kit completely OOTB. It really depends on the kit, my mood, and the availability of AM parts. I don’t know what you would call this group…perhaps eclectic modelers. If so, then that’s what I am.
I have not built as much armor lately as I use to. My last build was the Tamiya Panther G late. I think I fall somewhere in the middle also when I do build armor. I am fortunate to have the cash to purchase high end detail items like Fruilmodel tracks and Verdelin zimmeret photo etch which often cost more than the kit itself. There are very few models that I have seen posted here that were not worthy of much praise. I have seen a couple that to my eye just did not look right. I will never post anything negative about another forum members build. If I do not like it I just do not post anything. As for weathering I do not have much artistic ability. I can airbrush and do a decent job. My drybrushing skills are probally my strong point. I can usally lay down a wash compitently and make it realistic. I am definelty not a rivet counter but I do expect the finished model to look close to the real thing. I believe the most important thing is to enjoy what you build and just because your skills are more advanced than another forum member do not tear his or her work apart. You can offer helpfull advice in a freindly tone and help that builder improve there next build. Like suggesting something hey Model Masters sand yellow is a better match for that particular tank. I am always open to judging as long as it is done in a way as to help me on a future build. All we can do is the build to the best of our particular abilities and for those of you that turn out some of these beautifull works of art I have seen here be kind to us who can only build decent models. Point out the positive and offer freindly advice on the negative.
Soulcrusher
at this point of my building ability and experince, I like my models to look newer to moderately weathered,with good coloring and tone, (I like ‘clarity’ on my builds) and I don’t like to hide any details with mud,debris or unusual rusting(on the tracks)- I have strived for a realistic appearance that is based on the 1/1 photos I like to work from- this is not a comment on other guys’ ‘heavily’ weathered models-- I LOVE 'EM!-- it is just where I am at[:)]— tread[8D]
To be honest, when I posted I was thinking of styles of finishing (i.e. painting and weathering styles), not necessarily class of modeler or methods of building, although I guess those are influential too…and there can be different schools of building vs. different schools of painting/finishing/weathering.
I’ve always thought it interesting that our hobby as an art form isn’t really discussed much…maybe because it’s viewed more as a craft than a more conventional art form, but I still think it’s an art form. You start out with a bunch of parts and, using imagination, perception, skill, and techniques produce a finished product that’s truly unique from what any one else woudl do because it’s a hand-made, one-of-a-kind original, but as you build more models and skill or techniques or even just preferences change, the style will shift.
The same is true in our hobby, there are “in” ways of doing things that change over time…and just like paintings, music, etc. there are “periods” of when those styles are dominant and then go out of style and/or are absorbed/supplanted by something else. Yet no one thinks of themselves as a “classical” modeller vs. a “neo-realist” or anything like that…that’s what sparked this thought in my mind. If you did come up with a “school” of style or finish description, how would you characterize it? For instance, is there an “Asian” school vs. a “Nordic” vs. a “Spanish” school governed by regional personalities and trends via the contests or is it more of a “Realist” school vs. an “Aesthetic” vs. a “Derelict” school vs. a “Diorama” school (as examples) tendency as our hobby becomes increasingly international and blurred by the Internet?
If you had to explain your style of finish, how would you characterize it?
For me, I would say that my style of finish is independent of bases and figures, is a stand-alone model, and tends towards moderately complex weathering using washes/color-mixing/filters/pigments but doesn’t go in for chipping or “heavy weathering”. If I had to characterize it, I’d say it’s a “Field Used” school vs. a “Factor Fresh” school but not a “Weary Veteran” school finish…if that makes any sense… [(-D]
I like oob with some AM. Not alot of weathering goes into my projects, as I am not very good at it. I do quite a bit of scratch building on certain kits, but it all depends on the kit. I will be attempting heavy weathering in the future, but at this time, it seems a little daunting. Looking at some of the work in the forums, I am at alose, yes baffled even as to how you guy’s do it. pointers would be great, but I am still fearful of messing up an expensive kit. Fearful meaning my wife would kill me for spending all that money “Just to ruin it!!!”
Think of it like a square and not a line. The corners would be Artistic License, Ultra Realists, Ultra Weathering, and Super Clean. We are all inside the square somewhere. Where we would be would be determined by the strength of pull toward the corners. Most would be near the center of the square. I tend to be of the realist school. I want photos, color chips, to go and see the actual vehicle if possible. I work hard within my skill level to do the best I can to produce a realistic kit. I take no artistic license if at all possible. If I enter a contest, I am the one with the actual photo’s next to my kit. Thats me and I am ready to argue and eccept critizisem with another realist. However I except that there are three other uninformed [:-^] views and I respect their views and tastes. I have to remind myself that a model contest is not a competition of the most accurate model. Fit and finish are the primary scoring components. Even though I grumble to myself that others missed the whole idea of modeling(accuracy) I study what they did with their kits and am often amazed at what they created. I have learned many new tricks from those overly weatherd hulks and those lovely oh so delicately painted, filtered, stained and tinted masterpieces. Without all these wrongminded people to learn from I would not have gained many of the skills that I have. Greg
You could apply the same argument in reverse, i.e. If some modelers like highly weathered finishes, that’s fine, as long as it’s not used as an excuse to hide sloppy building. For me I couldn’t care less at either extreme. If a builder has a clean build and lacks the skillset to do a weathering job, I wouldn’t knock him for keeping it clean. Likewise, if a builder has a Sherman whose star decals silvered, I wouldn’t knock him for smearing mud over the offending decals and desciribing as field camo.
I concur with gjek’s characterization of the schools being on a 2 dimenional box rather than a line. We’re all somewhere there. For me, it depends on my mood, the subject at hand and even the scale (1/48 or 1/35).
To kcmat: as far as entering contests: experienced judges shouldn’t knock anyone for small accuracy items. Don’t think that “rivet” counting is the first thing judged. It’s not (and shouldn’t be). It might be a tiebreaker in some cases. In the AMPS system, you might get an extra half point for being ultra accurate – but that’s about it. Most contests judge models on the BASICS – construction and finish.
If you can, try to make it out to the AMPS International show in Auburn IN next year. It’s not too far from KC. See hundreds of models on the tables. Even attend one of the judgiing seminars – you can learn a lot by doing that.
HTH
The concept of a quadrant scheme I think would have the greater representation of the range of tastes that people fall into. Do you think that geography influences how far some modelers lean towards one square over another? For example, if we took the bi-axis approach and said that the quadrants were laid out like this starting in the top left and moving clockwise around the squares:
- Clean Artistic 2) Clean Realist 3) Heavy Artistic 4) Heavy Realist
where the corners of the squares represent the maximum distance away from each of the opposites (1 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4), it would probably gauge more where people fall in a “school” or “influence” range. In your opinion where do the largely geographic groups (Asian, US, Spanish, Nordic, UK, etc.) fall in the grid and do you identify more with a different geographical region due to the internet or stick more to your “roots” based on exposure and experience?
Ouch, Bill. All that engineer-speak just pretzeled my brain.[%-)][D)][8-]
…could you illustrate your theory?
Just my opinion but I think the Spanish school leans towards the third quadrent. I haven’t seen enough of the Asian school to make an opinion. Most of what I have seen has been fantisy/Sci Fi.
Sure, not that complex really, see below.
The X would represent someone who would consider themselves to be moderately heavy in their approach to weathering and more inclined towards somewhat realistic finish but still with artistic influences. [8-]
I guess that would make the center, PERFECTION!-- the intersection of all possibilities-- with the best characteristics of each!-- tread[8D]-- or are we gettin a little to deep?[:-^]
Tread,
Artists are supposed to be philosophical! [:-^]
I woulda liked that whole chart thing a lot better if it had come with a couple bikini girls or the like…[(-D]