Are we chasing away the best and brightest?

[Jeff]

I have had some discussions lately with some on line friends that are really disturbing to me. Some amazingly talented painters and sculptors are turning away from shows because they are too strict in what is considered gold medal quality. Cretin styles prevail and you do not paint that way you do not win gold or at least are less likely too. I have hearing from European's that the old by network as we call it in America is also prevalent in Europe. Now I am not hearing the old kind of sour graps that we have all heard at shows and after shows. This is something else. The people I am hearing this from are amazingly talented individuals that are universally praised.

I can not tell you how many times I have heard a conversation at a show that goes something like this. "So how did you do" " I got a Bronze medal these guys hate my stuff " Having been on judging teams I can tell you I hear that and I start looking at their work if it is still on display and ask myself if their sentiment has merit. I want people to feel that the judging was fair. Because if I had a hand in it I take that kind of thing personally. Usually when I look at the work i find it was judged fairly in my opinion. A lot of the time the people have done something big. A diorama or large scale model and feel that the work deserves an award that is more in tune with the scale of the work involved. I usually find that the work over all deserves what is has gotten. That they might have been better served to have just done a smaller dio that they could have lavished more time on. Big does not always equal better. I have seen huge dioramas that are beautiful in all of the technical details, but have no focus they tell no story, and I find what is use of that. I remember a last stand sort of diorama in a Stalingrad sort of setting. It was technically very well done but all the action happened in the center of the piece and the block of buildings going off to either side really served no purpose. But I am getting off subject.

The more I think about the things I am hearing the more I think about Bill Horan. I think we can all agree that his incredible work is extremely influential and his longevity is also quite amazing. I find myself wondering if his influence has had a detrimental effect in some ways. His style has been widely copied over the years and has influenced many of the top painters and sculptors in the hobby today. The hero worship and style influence has also caused some stagnation in the hobby. I have seen many painters over the years start to paint like Bill and they start to win gold medals and they simply stop trying to do anything new. They have found the formula that gets them the medal and they simply settle in and go for the ride. The same could be said of painters emulating the painting styles that have come up in Europe like Diego Ruina or Danilo Cartacci the higher contrast style that seems so prevalent now.

When people break out of their hero influenced style people do not seem to know what to do with them. I remember when I first saw Raul Latorre's work you could see Bill all over his work. Not a bad thing because you could also see his personal style in there as well. I also remember when he did a figure and tried a new lighting effect. People just did not know what to do with him and really came down on him hard for tying something new. It seemed like we saw a lot less of him at US shows after that. Our loss.

I guess what I am saying is if we keep rewarding the same old styles and are not open to new innovative styles we well kill the hobby. We are loosing young talent because we are judging figures on to narrow of parameters. We need to be willing to open ourselves up to new styles and artistic interruptions. I have always felt that the open system was a system that could easily do this but perhaps it could use a little tweaking to make it more open to the changing face of the hobby and the artists coming in to it. If we do not change we will for sure continue to chase away the best and brightest of the incoming new talent.

 

[Nappy1]

There's some merit in your comments about breaking new ground, but good is still good, no matter who paints the figure. I don't think 'style' has anything to do with it. You're either a superior Gold Medal-level painter... or you're not. The Open System of judging has removed bias in selecting one style of painting over another, and I think the days of biased judges at Open System shows are long gone.

At no shows anywhere in world, however, will 100% of the painters and viewers ever agree with 100% of the judges' selected winners. Judges are human, and we should always remember that this hobby is one of subjective opinions. If you go to shows primarily to win awards, it's a lose-lose proposition: If you win, then you only walk away what you believe you "deserved"; if you lose, then something must have been wrong with the judges, the system, or your 'style,' and you go home disappointed. Moral: If you want to compete, take your lumps and get better, no matter what your selected style of painting.

I say all this because I don't compete any longer. Awards became a secondary consideration to me years ago, and now I take pleasure in the creative process and occasional compliments from others. I don't need a medal or plinth to enjoy the hobby or justify why I paint.

Great painters and sculptors like Bill Horan are at the top of the hobby solely because of their extraordinary skills and their end-product. They didn't begin at their current level, but worked like hell until they improved. If there's a newer or different painting 'style' and it's Gold Medal quality, it'll be recognized as such. But it absolutely has to be superior quality to compete at this level, no matter how the paint is applied.

Bill Ottinger

 

[Anders Heintz]

I think that the problem lies more with the artists rather then the judging. I have judged at every figure show in the US (Except Washington DC show) as well as Euro Militaire, and have always found the judging to be fair and unbiased. With that I mean I have never seen or heard anyone knock this piece or that piece due to who it is and various personal relationships etc. I am not saying that there is no such thing as I have been to shows where we have all scratched our heads as to what this or that piece got awarded.

But at the end of the day, if the artis says "I got a Bronze medal these guys hate my stuff " there is usually a reason for the piece being awarded what it got. The problem with online forums is that everyone seems to say "wow amazing work, best ever etc etc etc" when in fact the piece would not do very well at a show for various reasons. All of the superlative feedback tend to give the artist a false sense of how good their work is, and as such they get upset when it does not get the Gold medal they feel it deserves. But I would bet they would see why if their piece was placed next to a piece that earned a Gold medal, then the visual difference would be much clearer and is a great tool to use when someone ask you as a judge why their piece got what it did.

I don't understand why they would simply quit going to shows because their work did not get what they felt that it earned. In my experience, a Gold is a Gold, doesnt matter if it is painted in oils, enamels, acrylics, toothpaste, whatever. About the only thing other then bragging rights awards does for an artist is to show where they are at that given time in the view of their peers, and should be used as such. When I first started going to shows, I got Certificates of Merit and Bronzes, and I didn't know why, as I wasnt experienced enough to know the difference, but I did not quit because of 'low' awards, I asked the judges why and what to do to become a better painter in their view, they were people who's work I admired and their judgment ment (means) a lot to me. That is how you improve. You take what they give you, ask the reasons for it, and they will be able to tell you why it got this or that, and go from there.

Recently, at MFCA 2010, I got a Silver in the Open Category, that was the first Silver I have earned in 2 years, with almost the same display that earned a gold at Chicago and Atlanta. Now will that make me say "man...they really dogged on my stuff, I am never coming back here blah blah blah..." Hell no, it just goes to show you there is always more to learn, and I took it as a challange, start doing better work etc, and as a result I have tried a ton of new techniques and playing with this or that with the result of better work and having a ton of fun doing it. Don't take an award personal or as a dig at you, take it as a place marker of your progress at that given time and learn from it.

I have also heard about the Latorre story and how he was trashed for trying new stuff, and still is everytime there is a figure relased by him, generally generated by jellousy I think. This is obviously wrong, but I think now, with Acrylics being pretty firmly established, and as such changing the 'style' from the 'old' oil painters style to the more vibrant one of acrylics that it is easier for new artists to 'break through' with different styles of painting. If anything, I think that very unique styles of painting is very welcomed and not frowned upon at all.

 

[Barke02]

'Are we chasing away the best and brightest?'

Yes.

Simply by talking about competitions!

Most modellers are into the hobby , and don't give a flying pancake about competitions. The hobby itself is the important part!

Sod medals, they really are irrelevant! You'll scare more newbies away with talk of competitions and medals than you could ever hope to encourage through having good old fashioned non competitive model clubs!

Cheers,
Jon.

 

[Jeff]

Just to be perfectly clear I was not trying blame Bill for how things seem to be now. That old saying of "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" applies here. After years of it, it does seem as if his style does predominate and if you look at years past this was not always the case.

The modelers that I have been talking to are gold medal winners themselves. They are not the usual suspects as far as their questioning of the way things are now. Yes I know it is hard work doing gold medal work. It does not happen over night even for Bill. My point of this was not to say that judging is all unfair and start another thread where judges and participants debated that.

It was to ask has our definition of what is a gold medal figure become too limited in scope? Have they kept up with the times? Do these talented young painters and sculptors have a point? Are they turning away with good reason?

 

[Anders Heintz]

It was to ask has our definition of what is a gold medal figure become too limited in scope? Have they kept up with the times? Do these talented young painters and sculptors have a point? Are they turning away with good reason?

It was to ask has our definition of what is a gold medal figure become too limited in scope?

I do not think the scope is too limited, I think it is more open then ever really, especially with the Fantasy classes popping up at a lot of the major shows here in the US.

Have they kept up with the times?

I also think that the gold medals have evolved over time. What was a gold in the 80's and perhaps even 90's is not a dead sure gold today. Painting and sculpting have evolved dramatically and is of much higher quality over all then ever before. Just compare the releases by companies today and compare them to what was available in the 80's-90's. Huge difference!! I think the current level of golds reflects this.


Do these talented young painters and sculptors have a point? Are they turning away with good reason?

IMHO, absolutely not. What is there to turn away from? Being honestly judged? For fear of people actually showing them in a tangible way what their peers think of their work? In reality, by not going to shows they are only hurting themselves. If they are so worried about the award they are given, just enter your stuff as exhibit only. A gold medal is something to earn, something to strive for, and should not be something that is just given out to encourage return participation.

This is based on my experience at US shows. I do believe it is a whole other ball game in Europe where the competition is so much stronger as there are a higher quantity of superb work, as such the levels you have to achieve over there to earn a Gold is quite substantial.

 

[Jeff]

'Are we chasing away the best and brightest?'

Yes.

Simply by talking about competitions!

Most modellers are into the hobby , and don't give a flying pancake about competitions. The hobby itself is the important part!

Sod medals, they really are irrelevant! You'll scare more newbies away with talk of competitions and medals than you could ever hope to encourage through having good old fashioned non competitive model clubs!

Cheers,
Jon.

Well as one of the founders of and the first president of club of just the type that you are talking about I understand what you are saying. That club continues to grow and I am very proud of that.

For me medals became a lot less important to me after a show in which one of my pieces that I got a lot of attention with during the show got a bronze medal. I had so many people come to me and say that deserved so much better. For weeks after the show I had people come up to me in hobby shops. They would say "Aren't you the guy who did that figure at the show" and when I said yes they would say "You got robbed." After that the competition became secondary for me. It was seeing old friends that I looked forward too. That bronze medal was a great thing for me it changed the way I looked at shows forever after that. In a very positive way. I still have notes from old masters telling me how much they liked my figure. Those memories are so much more precious to me then the medals I have won since. Even my first gold.

So I get it. But I still like shows but for very different reasons then when I started.

 

[Don Johnson]

Bill, I respect your perspective and your long-standing contributions, but I must take some issue with one comment you made: "...I don't think 'style' has anything to do with it."

I have attended shows for the past 15 years, Long Island and MFCA primarily. Over that span, there has been a definite, observable shift in "style". While there is no argument that every art form will evolve naturally, the paradox is that the artists most responsible for the style shift - I'm referring to the sharp/heavy contrast school of painting, primarily - are also serving as judges at these shows.

At this year's MFCA, we had the pleasure of seeing about 60 pieces of Bill Horan's work, covering 20-plus years of converting and painting. The "style" of painting has been amazingly consistent - more refined over time, no doubt, but still recognizable as the Horan mode.

Notwithstanding the noticeable Horan method, as you walked around the rest of the room, very few pieces were painted in the same style. Palettes today are much darker, with significantly more emphasis on contrast, than in recent years. Heck, you had pieces there, I think - did you see many people who blend the same way you do? That use the same colors for faces as you do? I will defer to your greater experience, but I think the answer is a resounding "Darned Few".

Why is this important, and germane to the argument?

In a perfect situation, a judge should embrace all styles, and rate each work based on how well the style was accomplished.

However, if the artist/judge happens to be a practitioner of a particular style, will that judge be able to look at other styles (especially styles he/she has declined to use) and review them without bias?

The knee-jerk response will be to say "Of course, every judge is unbiased". And that may very well be true. But it also may be untrue, and therein lies the rub.

My observation, regarding judging at recent MFCAs, is that the characteristics of award-winning works have changed - not evolved necessarily, but changed.

In my opinion, painting styles of a more classical bent (realistic colors, more subtle shading, generally lighter palettes) are not being rewarded for the artistry and technical precision demonstrated.

Conversely, figures completed in a more dramatic fashion (generally darker palettes, enhanced contrast) seem to be recognized more often, and at a higher level.

(I ask you - in an art form that embraces historical accuracy [where appropriate], what is the basis for all the purple faces seen on tables nowadays?)

(Bias Alert - no, I don't love excessively shadowed/highlighted faces - I admire the expertise, but I dislike the artistic effect.)

Do I have any effective manner of MEASURING my "sense" of the judging results? No, I do not, nor am I seeking a means to do so.

Is this perhaps a sour-grapes rant? A resounding No! My painting is of the Certificate/Bronze level, which is entirely appropriate, and I am honored whenever my work is so recognized.

Do I have a suggestion to mitigate the perceived issue? Again, I must say no. Judging at shows is a time-consuming, generally under-appreciated task that, to our great fortune, some people are willing to perform. I have judged at shows, and I have officiated sporting events - there are some interesting similarities!

Do I think there is a nefarious plan to control the judging results? Absolutely not.

But I still believe it is happening, based on natural, all-too-human biases. If a painter embraces the Marvel Comics style, let's say, and paints all his/her pieces accordingly, will that painter, when judging, fully appreciate a piece rendered in a much different style?

So what's my beef? Simply put, I believe certain painting styles, that formerly were state-of-the-art, are now in disfavor, which results in inappropriate awards to some of our artists.

Ours should be a church of many pews. Instead, I think we're in a phase wherein some styles, regardless of technical superiority, suffer in comparison to other styles.

And lastly, I believe this perceived situation IS having a dampening impact on some painters. Ours is a greying hobby - it seems more leave each year than arrive. The last thing we should be doing is discouraging the efforts of present practitioners.

In closing, I'm not seeking to start any flame wars here. I LOVE this art form, and I love going to shows for the fun, the camaraderie, and of course the colorful shirts!! But the question is an interesting one, and there should always be room for polite debate.

 

[Jeff]

Don, "Polite Debate" is what I was aiming for in putting the questions out there.

 

[Nappy1]

No matter what the medium or 'style,' good works are recognized at shows. As a judge of many years, I've never even considered the medium used, and I've personally never heard a judge express a preference for one style over another in deciding awards. Well-painted oils and combinations of mediums are recognized as quickly as acrylics if the painting and final product are top-notch.

The medium doesn't influence awards; the painter's skill are the determining factor. Somewhere along the line many people bought into the idea that 'acrylics are better'. Too many times, figures painted in acrylics are heavily outlined in black, exhibit starkly contrasted faces, or end up looking like coal dust was blown over them. These are painter's problems, not medium or style issues.

I also agree 100% with the observation that unwarranted praise on the websites is very destructive, expecially if it leads new or younger painters to believe their work equals top painters and sculptors who've put years of work into reaching that level. Absolutely nothing wrong with encouragement, but constructive criticism beats the hell out of repetitve feel-good comments. If expectations are raised because of undue praise, newer painters will definitely be disappointed when awards are handed out.

This is a hobby of painting skills that don't develop overnight due to a different style or new medium. As Shep Paine once aptly said, "This isn't model railroading."

 

[tonydawe]

In response to the question, "Are we chasing away the best and brightest", I would say no. The best and brightest are here on Planet Figure.

"Chasing away" imples some kind of deliberate action or conspiracy, and there's simply no evidence of that as far as I can see.

I have no doubt that some people leave our hobby prematurely because they are discouraged by poor results at competitions, but frankly, if that's their motivation to be in the hobby in the first place, then perhaps they need to reassess their priorities.

The only person we really compete against in this hobby is ourselves. The rest is just a beauty contest.

 

[Jeff]

Let me say again that the people I have been talking to are not bronze and silver level painters and sculptors that are struggling to get a higher medal and not getting it. They do not fit that mold at all. Part of the reason I posted this on the Planet is that we are a pretty international group. I thought we might get input from Europe as well as the U.S. The guys I am talking about some are from Europe some are form the U.S.

The reason I included the story about judging was to show I have been on both sides of this. When I have been asked to judge things I personally tend to be a bit more generous then some judges. I tend to give a piece that is on the edge of the medal range a low silver rather then a high Bronze medal. That is just the way I am.

When we say that with the open system you are really only competing with yourself. Well we all wish that was true but it really isn't true. In a perfect world you would get the same judges every year and when they came to a guy who had made a big leap they could say wow look how far he has come in a year and give him the next medal up he really deserves that. That just does not really happen very much. So if the show seems to take a leap up in quality as well, then he still gets the same medal as last year no matter how much he deserves to step up to the next medal level.

Now if some of you are saying that we really only compete against ourselves in the sense that we are our own worse critics. I can not disagree with that. I know it is true with me.

If you are a judge please do not take this thread as "You all suck and I am calling you out!" That was not my point. I have been an assistant and a judge. I can say that I learned a lot from the masters I worked with. They encouraged me to point out pieces I liked and show them stuff they may have missed. Sometimes this leads to people taking a second look at a display and a better medal being received Sometimes they will say I understand while you like the piece but look at how long he sculpted that arm. It really looks wrong if you just look at the figure from this side. So I learned to look at things a different way and in the long run it helped my personal work. I would spin the figures I was working on looking for things that did not look right and fix them before I had finished the piece and had to go back and correct things.

So I like shows but we all always need to remember that you can encourage as well as discourage at a show. That moment you take to talk to the new guy that may only take you away from old friends for a moment may make all the difference in the world for that new guy and how he remembers his experience of a show. I remember going up to a French artist I really liked at Chicago and telling him how much I liked his work. He thanked me and insisted I show him my display. I have never forgotten that. I have tried to follow that example ever since.

I guess what I am saying is that it is not just judging that can make or break peoples experience at a show. We should not over look the little things. They can make all the difference in the world.

 

[ghamilt1]

Perhaps the issue really does come down to why we attend shows. I've been to 6 major figure shows in my life, all within the past 5 years. 3 have been in North America, and 3 in Europe, including the World Expo and Euro. I've won some medals, and have also been shut out completely from the awards. But this much I know, every time I attend a show, my work improves dramatically the next time out, I learn that much. I have also been left scratching my head sometimes at the decisions made, but I think that is because I didn't really know the criteria. Specifically, what were the judges looking for, and that I think is where a trap lay. Should I paint/sculpt with the judges in mind, or do I try to satisfy myself first and foremost? I think the answer to that is fairly obvious. Don't get me wrong, I would be lying if I said I wasn't excited when I win or a little disappointed if I don't, but the point is I know I'll never really be happy with the work if I'm not the most important judge there is.

So, I will continue to attend as many shows as geography and my finances (see also wife) will allow. I know at the end of the next show I will have picked up a few more tips and will be better the next time out. I hope Jeff's friends will come to see the opportunity for growth that these competitions have to offer.

 

[Ferris]

Let me throw in a few lines from Europe then...

With respect to the question "are we chasing the best and brightest away", do I understand correctly that the indicated people are chased away from shows, but not from the hobby? If that is correct, then I would not say they are chased away. They just do not participate in or attend shows any more.
In case it means they stopped with the hobby, this suggests that their peer's praise (in the form of medals) was their key motivator to be doing the hobby.

So I'm not sure if the question is accurate enough to determine if there might be a problem or not.

I have been modeling since I was 4 years old (I won't post those results, for sure!) and went to my first modeling show when I was 16; man was it a thrill to get a bronze award. It wasn't at Euro, let me say that, but I found it very stimulating, because it gave some quantitative measure of how good I was. So I am convinced that modeling contests, and their awards, can be and probably will be, very stimulating overall.

Having said that, I do think that there are 'fashions' that result in better award results when you subscribe to them. The fashions are set by our creative leaders, or let's say our modeling heroes. In the time of the show I just mentioned, Verlinden ruled plastic modeling. You had to wash and drybrush, and (here it comes) you had to demonstrate that you used and controlled those techniques. I have pictures from those days with so heavily drybrushed vehicles (sorry, talking AFVs here, not figures) that it is just not realistic anymore. But they tended to win the golds and silvers. Go to a show now, and such drybrushing, however well done, will not earn you a high award.

Part of this IMO is higher standards; the style of MIG Jimenez is just way more realistic, and he is recognized as a hero because he pioneered these techniques (at least, as far as I know; there are always others that had similar ideas but do not make it out into the open).

But I am quite sure that part is also 'fashions', and judges, being human, are also influenced by them. I have read a few times 'I have been judging and have never heard any of my collegue judges prefer any style over another'. Nobody is truely objective; at the subconcious level (going deep now) everyone has prefernces. This influences judging as well.

So, overall, some styles may actually indeed be doing better than others at shows.

Back to the original question: I don't see why this would chase anyone away? If you're in it for the medals: go with the style and use it better than others, on better figures, in bigger dioramas. If you're in it because you like the hobby and want to share it with others: who cares about medals? And wouldn't it be great if you can feel the fashion rebel with your innovative style, even if only being awarded a low-life bronze??

To finish with my own view on medals: they gave a kick for a while, then I found what you had to do to get a gold (remember, still not talking Euro here ;-), and lost interest. After many years without shows I have come back to participating every now and then, but mostly because they give me a target and deadline, which is what I need to actually finish something. That, plus they still give a kick, albeit a smaller one than back when I was 16!

Cheers,
Adrian

 

[Nappy1]

Three points:

1) First, I'll say it again (politely, I hope!). If you go to shows to win medals, you're painting for the wrong reasons, and will always find some measure of disappointment, no matter the system, judges, competitors or painting styles.

2) In over 25 years of judging, I've only had 3 painters come to me after the awards ceremony and ask for a critique of their work. What did the judges like or dislike? What could have been improved? What were the weakest and strongest points? How can do they this or that better? Until painters ask for constructive help and recognize their weaknesses, they can't improve.

3) Grow up. Failing to win medals we believe are deserved will always be a part of the hobby. Judging ultimately is subjective, and there's no way around that. Enjoy painting and creating - enjoy other painters' work - shop the vendor area - enjoy your friends and like-minded enthusiasts - and leave your ego and expectations at home.

Bill Ottinger

 

[khorgor]

The only person we really compete against in this hobby is ourselves.

+1
Too true Tony.

Anyways...regarding my thought on my the process, we are definately not chasing or scaring away anyone. If you don't win a medal, buck up and try again.

As a relatively new member on the scene, I got a hit of reality last year when my modified 1/4 scale anime figure was beaten in the fantasy category by Tony's Legolas figure (wargame scale?)

As mentioned in previous posts, you do tend to get in a mind set that if you paint and sculpt big, you should automatically win due to the sheer volume of work required.
However, it does take a loss to realise how much better you could of been in that venture - be it with shading, highlights or merely remembering to put on your entry form the sculpting you did......

I always ask for critique on my work (mainly from Tony as most other judges will handily disappears soon as you want feedback) as that dies help with improving overall.

Getting hit by a judge who puts style over skill does hurt - alot. But unfortunately it happens. But despite that - I won't change my style, I'll just have to keep on improving until my skills will beat that style hands down

 

[bonehead]

While I will not go into the motivations for people participating in competitions, I think that Jeff makes a very valid point. This may come as a shock to some people, but I have a second hobby: It is writing. The subject I generally write about is consciousness. It is about being aware of our thinking and where it comes from.

The biggest influence on all of us is culture. Every word, thought and idea that enters our head originates in the building blocks of culture. The common term for these cognitive components is memes.

Our hobby can be seen as a small insular subculture. It has its own language, lore, heroes and memes built up over a period of time. In this sense, the memes of our hobby can be seen as comparable to our greater cultural memes such as fashion. In the '70s it was all flowery shirts, long hair, bell-bottoms, and broad cuffs, ties and lapels. The previous fashions of the '60s were practically their polar opposites: muted shirts, short "brylcreem" hair, peg legs, narrow cuffs and skinny ties and lapels. I am not making this stuff up, it is just a fact. Those fashion memes characterize the cultural milieu of their individual periods.

The same can be said of the prevalent painting styles of today. When I and my friends, Bill Horan and Brian Stewart first went overseas to England in the late '80s the whole gestalt of the hobby, particularly in Europe, was different than it is now. There was no dominant stylistic force in the hobby. In fact, the whole "fashion" of hobby style was so diffuse as to be completely absent. Frankly, most of the stuff being done at that time was pretty mediocre.

It only took a few years for the influence of our arrival there to take hold. The overall style started to tighten up. Certainly Horan was a huge influence. He, like Shep Paine before him, was and still remains a mythic figure and hero of the hobby. And I do not think the influence of this can be overestimated.

I do very little painting anymore and I am aware that my skills in this area have lost their edge (if they ever had that). But I must also say that I worked from a stylistic theory that runs counter or perpendicular to the prevalent painting fashion of today. Today it is all about contrast: extreme pushing of highlight and shadow. This can be seen in the "purplish" faces mentioned above and the overly dramatic painting that makes for a 12-foot "wow factor".

This stylistic mode is a FASHION. It is not a measure of whether a piece is competently painted or of "gold medal" quality. Personally, I do not care for the style. I never have. My personal style has always hewed more toward the Peter Twist style that influenced me: slight understatement that limited the 12 foot factor to making colors readily identifiable from that distance. With this style, you have to get real close to the figure to detect the "wow" factor.

Certainly it is a stylistic choice. But like those narrow lapels and brylcreem hair, it is not the prevalent stylistic mode d'jour. Let's face it: if a figure draws you in from 12 feet away, you are going to look at it. It is the "hook" of this style, like a pretty Hollywood face, that draws people to it. And so, my little understated figures remain in the background, like unappreciated wallflowers, ignored while the flashy faces collect all the kudos. I am perfectly aware of this. I could paint, more or less, like Diego Ruina or Mike Blank if I wanted to.

But I don't. I chose my style for a reason. I am a modeler first and foremost. I want my models to skirt the fine line between realistic depiction and artistic representation. The wild over-painting, to me, moves away from realistic depiction and into the interpretive metaphor of artistic license. I don't want to go there. And, to some extent, that makes me a stylistic pariah. The hobby mode d'jour has passed me by. I no longer qualify for the automatic gold medals of the past. Sure, I mourn their loss. But I never did paint for the accolades. I paint for myself and my own personal reasons.

While I can certainly appreciate the work of today's most revered stylists, I do not care for the stylistic excess that seems to be demanded by the prevalent contemporary fashion. It is just a fact of the hobby. I cannot change it. And like Elvis in the '70s, my day is gone. That is just the breaks.

The trouble is, if there is any, that judging is not and never can be objective. It is influenced by the cultural milieu and the mindset of the judge. Fashion will always play into this, even if it is subconscious in nature. How can you appreciate Elvis when Sergeant Pepper is blasting from your record player? I rest my case.

C'est la vie!

Mike

 

[Don Johnson]

Exceedingly well stated, Mike.

(Hopefully I would say that even if it didn't coincide with my own observations!)

 

[Nappy1]

Mike, I think you under-estimate U.S. judging. Given your excellent sculting and painting skills, you would certainly win Golds if you competed, simplt because most U.S. judges are not about some current "style" or across-the-room contrast

I agree that changes in individual tastes historically are inevitable, but not always good by any means. Sometimes I wonder if John Singer Sargent or Velasquez painted today, would they be recognized by today's 'critics' who currently slobber over paint splashers, drippers, and rooms of gruesome "installations." Because these far lesser talents are "in style" today, would world-class painters be relegated to the back room?

Maybe I'm naive, but you, Horan, DiFranco and the Old Guard are still equal or superior to whatever changes we might see in the basic changes of paint application. Maybe the heavy-outline-coal-dust-stark-contrast is in vogue in Europe and to some newcomers in the States, but I believe U.S. judging is less about the prevalent "style" and more about the quality exhibited by individual artists. If not, shows and the hobby, like today's trendy art world, are in trouble.

Bill Ottinger

 

[Don Johnson]

Bill, I don't mean to belabor this point, but I think your term "US judges" needs to be considered not as one group, but rather two: a) North American painters/collectors/enthusiasts serving as judges at US shows; and b) guest painters/collectors/enthusiasts, from Europe or wherever, serving as judges at US shows.

Bill, your observation that "gold should be gold the world around" (paraphrased) is probably very sound. This is, after all, an area with which you have ample experience.

It is in the Silver/Bronze areas, however, where I believe the "style" preferences show up more readily. The Bronze awards at this year's MFCA included, again in my opinion, several pieces that should have been awarded higher marks. Many of those pieces were NOT painted in the high-contrast style.

My casual observations from recent MFCS shows leads me to think there has been an elevation (if you will) of one style over others. If this trend is, in fact, occurring, it is coming from somewhere - one likely place to look is the collective preferences of those who volunteer/are asked to judge the show.

On the other hand, like any unsupported opinion, I may be completely wrong. The results, if relevant data were available to be analyzed, might support a much different conclusion. I understand and accept that.

But I do think it is at least interesting that Mike has also mentioned similar observations. (If I'm wrong, at least I'm in "good" company! ;-) )

Again, let me stress that this is NOT a rant. I respect those who participate in the subjective process that is judging. I have the highest respect for Dennis Levy (MFCA Head Judge) and the job he, and his team, does. Further, I very much enjoy the participation of modelers from Europe and the rest of the world - I get to see their work in person, and have enjoyed the opportunity to meet and talk with several of these visitors.

Thanks for letting me contribute to the discussion!