Realistic paintjob or artistic license?

[Einion]

Just curious about the numbers on this.

Einion

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Hello Einion!

I took the third option. Cause for me it depends on the subject. It also depends on how much artistick license one uses and the proportion to the realistic apperance.

Cheers

 

[Sambaman]

At the risk of enlisting the ire of all who read this, I went with "Artistic License". I still maintain this is a hobby and I think the best results, at least for me, are achieved by allowing my creativity to stretch within the confines of historical boundries. Even pushing the boundries a little is acceptable for me. Maybe that's why my viking wears plaid!

Jay H.
OKC

 

[John Bowery]

Enion,
I did the same as Janne. Whatever makes one happy. I also do not like to dirty my ones up to much????

 

[megroot]

I voted for an accurate presentation. Maybe it is my AFV history but sometimes we counted the rivets
Some guys going so far to look for the original paint.....
So in my opinion whe all made/paint historicall figures. At least we must try to made them correct as possible, even it is hard to find evidence.
For fantasy figures, we can go flat out, do whatever we wanted to do, he, thats where fantasy is for.
But as far as napoleontic's, romans, celts, vikings, normans, and so on.... we must go historically corret.

Marc

 

[rej]

I took the first option and like Marc above me, coming from a club with so much Aircraft and AFV Historical background (I was an aircraft modeller before) yes Marc we have those who count the rivets and while they may be the back naggers who never complete a model and all they do is scrutinize your work, it is thanks to the likes of them that the bar raises!! It is thanks to them to research where possible and double check before you make something hastily only to find out the next club meeting, that you did this and that incorrect, and the info was there beneath your nose!!

To sum all my bla bla bla........if I for one can make a historically correct model I will do it no questions asked........its not that I never took some liberty of the so called artistic licence, but can I ask a question here? Why is it that Napoleonics, WWI & WWII are amongst the few eras that almost no one accepts GIMMICKS on, while when we tend to go further back in History, the Historical aspect tends to simmer, sometimes DRASTICALLY, and we see more so called "artistic/hollywood licence" CREEPING in and it gets APPLAUDED!? Where is this all leading us as the modellers/buyers/consumers!? I sure hope not in a dark alley way!?

Ok, fair enough if one wants to enjoy the hobby either way he/she wants, so be it, but can shows/competitions across the globe be a bit more aware re this "artistic/hollywood licence" as regards the figures, like they rigorously do vis a vis Aircraft, AFV's & ships models??

I mean we the modellers per se are a bit innocent in this, as many a GREATLY SCULPTED figure comes off the oven like hot cheesecakes, and the TEMPTATION to assemble and paint is so GREAT believe me, but on the other hand, would someone buy and paint a greatly sculpted Napoleonic if it would have some "fantasy" incorporated in it for example? I'm mentioning Napoleonics with all due respect please and I want to stress that my reply is in no way a political (have enough of the nonsense in my country) one!!

Its my 2cents worth as I have been bred in a club S.S.M (Society for Scale Modellers) to which and whom I owe all I know, including those back naggers who instilled in me the fervour for the Scale and for the History of ALL miniatures!!

Ray

 

[renarts]

I voted the first option. I like to be as accurate as possible. There is enough variety in accuarcy to stimulate my own creativity but I see no reason to try and make stuff up to fill in the blanks. There are becoming fewer and fewer blank spots as more and more research and documentation is uncovered to support early period stuff. What bothers me is when people try and bs a reason rather than just say.."cause I felt like it".

 

[Mark S]

I've polled the middle option.It is an artist pursuit
after all for me anyway.I don't paint with an audience in mind.I'm only out to please myself.With each new figure I spend hours researching many sources of information,but only for my own satisfaction.Relax and enjoy.

 

[quang]

Realistic paintjob or artistic license
Einion

It all depends on what you mean by 'realistic' and 'artistic license'. Through Van Gogh's eyes, his 'Sunflowers' were as realistic as they could be.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Quang

 

[Bluesking]

Surely if you are aintingfor yourself - it's what ever floats your boat. Some figures I enjoy being a bit "creative" with and others it would really annoy me if they weren't accurate. Yep I'm definitely on the fence with this one

 

[Chevalier de Malte]

Coming from the same club as Ray and a lover of historical subject, my vote is No1. My concern lately we are getting all the crap and romantic sculptures vis a vie anything that is accurate in some cases ... on another point I am not seeing much diversity in subjects, let say may preferances are crusades and renaissance BUT can we stop having caped warriors and knights coming from the early crusades, what about a simple soldier or a poor knight ... and their enemies, very thin on the choice ...

On the other hand at the price of figures and value for money it gives me a new trend of going back to the stash and try to update or convert that 'old' but still good figure!

But again evryone has his choice ... for the time being this is mine!

Ivan

 

[captnenglish]

I voted for the first option, I'm an academic afterall, but there is still a certain amount of latitude since uniforms are generally not uniform, so accurate as possible.

 

[dinovision79]

Hi,

I choose accuracy, however it's often not possible to go around without artistic license. I understand painting for fun, but will like accurate pieces better.

 

[frank h]

Hi
Accuracy first......With maybe a bit of creativity here and there

Frank

 

[KeithP]

I voted for option #1. I make a strong effort to be as historically accurate as I can be within the confines of my skills and available reference material.

With that said, what is an egregious anachronism for one person is a minor item for another... what ever you enjoy.

Keith

 

[Roy]

Hi Einion...you have some great replies and also a great response to your poll.

I think as this is a hobby, everyone is of course free to enjoy it in the way they see fit..

Personally, as it's purely about the painting, which I would love to get more time for and more experience in..I have clicked the first choice, as I will try to be as accurate a possible (as others have said) within whatever my level of skill will allow, taking all reference into account (that I can find)..but within these limitations, I always enjoy being as creative as I possibly can, well, most of the time anyway...and it certainly adds to the fun.

Roy.

 

[slaj]

I went for the last. I think it's somewhere between the first and last options actually. While a historically correct figure is imperative one has to adjust to the circumstances and subject at hand.

Stephen Mallia

 

[PeteC]

I voted for Artistic License. Not because I don't value historical accuracy but because 100% accurate is impossible. On an art forum I participate in, there was a debate about Abstract vs. Realism. The argument was made that since paint can only reproduce a fraction of the real color found in nature, all art is thereby abstract. It's just a matter of HOW abstract. I think that's a pretty good analogy...or at the very least, something to think about

Pete

 

[bonehead]

I am with Quang on this one. "Realistic" is a relative term. In fact, in the context of model figures, I would say that it has very little meaning at all.

How many of you paint your figures so that their clothing looks like "real" fabric? What would it take to get such an effect in scale? I have never seen a figure that even remotely achieved this. Even the 1/6 scale GI Joe type figures, which use real cloth for their uniforms, fail to be realistic because the cloth has not been scaled down accordingly. It is too coarse and thus, far from "realistic".

Do you put glass eyes in your minatures so that they eyes actually have the same kind of visual depth as real people? Do you model the inside of the figure's mouth and tongue right down to the esophagus? Afterall, it isn't very realistic if the figure cannot swallow.

The whole idea of "painting" figures is an abstraction in the first place. "Real" people aren't painted. (Well, most of us anyway.) Our clothing and skin are "naturally" colored. By this definition, you can never make a "realistic" figure by painting it. The figure would be most realistic if it was made of flesh and blood. Metal and resin figures are for whimps who take "too much artistic license"!

Folks, there is no real place to draw the line here. Miniatures are only a vague representation of "reality" in miniature. Let's call a spade a spade and admit that what we do is an abstraction. It is not, nor cannot be "realistic" because it is only a representation in the first place. You already are taking "artistic license" by choosing to represent people in miniature in the first place. Little tiny people cannot be realistic because they are too small.

I think the question itself is fatally flawed.

 

[Steve]

Within the context of "historical" modeling, that word defines the main effort of the painting job, namely the attempt to be as accurate as is possible. The same word makes it a sure bet that very little will be documentably so depending of course on the subject. Licence fills the gaps where documentation and research fail, but in my opinion, cannot be an independent practice FOR ME; just modeling what looks good at the time is an option for anyone who spends the money to do it. I prefer to do everything I can to get it as right as I can with the resources available and have to admit that rampant licence puts me off of otherwise well done work.