Realistic paintjob or artistic license?

[Roc]

I do try to paint my figures as realistic as possible; buy I must admit I do enjoy painting fantasy and Sci-Fi, where your not bound by reality.

Cheers
Roc

 

[yeo_64]

My Vote

I chose (a) as I like to be as accurate as possible (within reason of course ), with a dash of creativity to "spice-up" the final "product" ! My 2 cents worth. Cheers !
Kenneth .

 

[Glen]

I opted for 'no preference'. I would agree with Mike Good that the question (at least as currently phrased) is fatally flawed. Jay's comment that this is a hobby rings true as well - when all else is stripped away, you paint what you want, when you want, to the degree of satisfaction you want. This is probably one of the few cases in this world where it is all about you.

There is a point in modeling where the 'objective' - that which is technically correct, begins to take a back seat to the 'subjective' - that which is pleasing to the eye. In the historical context, you can argue for accuracy in terms of human proportions, size, shape, location, and color of equipment. (Not so much for fantasy figures, though.) The artistic elements come into play during the painting, shading, highlighting, and weathering process. There are a myriad painting techniques/styles and beauty, as they say, will be in the eye of the beholder. So, in my mind, accuracy and artistry are irrevocably linked. Only the degree or emphasis of one versus the other changes.

Our aircraft and armor modeling bretheren face the same issues...

Cheers,

Glen

 

[Jeff]

Well over all I would have to agree with Mike. But I do have some personal preferences. In my world no common crossbowman would have clothes made entirely of brocade fabric's and carry a shield painted by a great master. Even a well healed Captain would be hard pressed to dress like that on campaign and really well off if had clothes like that for parades. Many great masters painted shields these were for the most part for high nobility or the very rich, and not for common Captains. I guess I would call this the St Petersburg effect. Figures like this are for me high fantasy. We do know that nobility did have rich fabrics, and that they even used some of these fabrics for clothes like padded coats but on general campaign they did not wear them and we have written records to to show that they had special clothes for campaigns and that they were of more common and hard wearing fabrics. I will now step off my soap box. If you want to paint your figures like that that is fine. I just do not have to like them.

 

[Jeff]

Just as a little extra point to my soap box rant above. Most places had Sumptuary laws that prevented people form dressing above their station. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law
We know they did not work very well but some were enforced.

 

[blaster]

I voted for 1. I try to depict the correct costume, setting to the best of my abilities, using referencing. The artistic license is in working within those known parameters. But he philosophical truth of the matter is that no model is ever 100% accurate. So actually, all of us are using artistic license in modelling.

Rgds Victor

 

[Chevalier de Malte]

Everyone has his thaughts on the matter and seems that many enjoy realistic more then free paintwork. Each painted figure is a subject of artistic licence initself, if you are not doing an identical portarit which still is problematic as we do 3D art not 2D. So I am not nit picking that that red should be madder or of a different spectrum BUT in shows how many crusaders we see hiphoped from a decade to another and on the other hand post Napoleonic is more historical accurate ...

On the other hand still there is freedom for artistic licence, playing with chiaro scuro, weathering, effects etc ...

So let us talk about commertial 2D art, there is realistic and modernism. Both are good and both have their share of market. Realism cannot be painted I read here, might not understood the term well but artists like David, K.Rocco and Don Troiani do not paint and depict their soldiers in realistic attire, colour scheme and pose ... so I think the same can be acheived by figurinist if you like that kind of art!

Happy Painting!

Ivan

 

[PeteC]

Mike,

That was my point exactly! These types of debates always crop up in our miniature world and I think it's because we are somewhere between being artists and IPMS paint chip matchers. As for me, give me creativity!

Also, someone brought up the historical artists, Rocco and Trioani. I've been to seminars and spoken to both of them. Now, they are both equally committed to historical authenticity in their work. There's no question about that. However, it seems like (to me anyway) one of them gets a bigger kick out of doing the research for a piece than doing the actual painting, while the other is happiest at the easel. I'll bet that just by looking at their work, you can tell which is which.

Pete

 

[Einion]

Thanks for the input guys, interesting to see the numbers develop on this; initially artistic license was in the lead.

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!?

Excellent point and something I think we should discuss further in another thread, since this is largely a sculpting issue rather than about painting only.

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??

Agreed. It used to be that way in figure modelling more generally (perhaps to a fault) but it's slowly been diluted over the years for various reasons.

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.

Excellent point.

It all depends on what you mean by 'realistic' and 'artistic license'.

Indeed. That's for each of us to decide for ourselves up to a point of course and while there's definitely some grey areas I think there's a fair consensus of what would fall firmly into each category.

Surely if you are aintingfor yourself - it's what ever floats your boat.

Yep, that's what the poll is for - to see the numbers on what floats our boats.

...there is still a certain amount of latitude since uniforms are generally not uniform, so accurate as possible.

We have to leave room for that, agreed.

With regard to uniforms/clothing I would mostly be concerned with colours that would clearly be the product of modern dyes rather than vegetable sources, that kind of thing. And beyond solid colours, fanciful patterns that, even if accurate representations of something, might be anachronistic by a century or more.

I think the question itself is fatally flawed.

While I take your point the wording on the actual question was, What's your preference? and the thread title gave the context (paintwork). I don't think that asking which we prefer - realistic or artistic license - can be fatally flawed, since it does seem that most posters have no problems determining how they distinguish between the two.

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.
...
Afterall, it isn't very realistic if the figure cannot swallow.

Let's not get too philosophical here

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?

Well given that fabric texture would be impossible to see at 1/32 scale (easy to check with scale distance) I think a good painted representation actually does do a pretty good job - if the colour is handled right, which includes how it's highlighted and shaded (since shifts in hue generally aren't seen in nature and good painting that reproduces this tends to strike viewers as 'realistic').

Do you put glass eyes in your minatures so that they eyes actually have the same kind of visual depth as real people?

No, but there are levels of realism - some of us gloss eyeballs all the way down to below 1/35 scale. And while we do seem to see it less today, modellers can make an attempt to match the varied surface finish for different materials as well as poss.

While acknowledging that we don't have the ability to perfectly match how something might look shrunk down - since we are simulating with paint something that isn't painted in reality - that doesn't mean we have to abandon the pursuit entirely surely, any more than we do when sculpting facial features, drapery, fur or hair textures at a very small scale?

...I must admit I do enjoy painting fantasy and Sci-Fi, where your not bound by reality.

That's a key issue I think - where the subject and its handling could be a perfect fit.

...

The second option isn't about some license taken here or there, it's when the entire figure essentially becomes painted from imagination; IMB that's fine if you're doing fantasy but not for historical modelling, especially when there's an attempt to pass the former off as the latter as we're seeing far too often in recent years!

For me, interest in period and how things might have looked - because of what they were made of, handled, aged etc. - are now inextricably linked (they weren't early on, when I didn't have too much concern for research). So any good-faith attempt to depict a figure should automatically be as accurate as skills and references allow, leaving outright invention for those doing a different genre.

Einion

 

[bonehead]

While I take your point the wording on the actual question was, What's your preference? and the thread title gave the context (paintwork). I don't think that asking which we prefer - realistic or artistic license - can be fatally flawed, since it does seem that most posters have no problems determining how they distinguish between the two.

Let's not get too philosophical here

Hello Einion,

Thanks for an interesting discussion. But I do not think you can ask all and sundry a question about "realistic" painting without getting very subjective and philosophical answers. You can ask one individual, and try to figure out where his tolerance level lays, in order to figure out what the word "realistic" means to him. But you cannot ask everybody and expect a consistent answer.

For instance, I remember a discussion years ago by old Bob Marrion, the king of pedants. He insisted that shading and highlighting figures was terribly unrealistic. So, all of his figures were simply painted with flat unmodulated colors. They did not look in the least realistic, frankly they looked terrible. But that was "realistic" to him. Honestly, I think it was a thin rationalisation for not expending too much time and effort on his models. Subjective is, as subjective does.

I don't think anybody here would go to this extreme, but my point should be clear.

Well given that fabric texture would be impossible to see at 1/32 scale (easy to check with scale distance) I think a good painted representation actually does do a pretty good job - if the colour is handled right, which includes how it's highlighted and shaded (since shifts in hue generally aren't seen in nature and good painting that reproduces this tends to strike viewers as 'realistic').

Isn't that being subjective and "philosophical"?

No, but there are levels of realism - some of us gloss eyeballs all the way down to below 1/35 scale. And while we do seem to see it less today, modellers can make an attempt to match the varied surface finish for different materials as well as poss.

Einion, I have always strived to do this. Surface textures and relative finishes of differing items, e.g.: flesh, leather, cloth, wood, metal are very important to creating the "illusion" of reality. But this style of painting only applies to a small minority of painters.

Many painters are content to just get some highlighting and shading on there, while the surface finish is ignored altogether and the oil paint sheen is allowed to provide the major visual appearance of the figure. Others even extend this relative lack of discernment to rendering garish colors, unmodulated, with no regard to their final appearance, which often result in an electrically vibrating "clash" of eye-searing colors. Yet, if asked, these people will tell you that they are working toward "realism"!

Is it their subjective "realism" you are after, or some other subjective interpretation which only you posess? You cannot draw any lines or conclusions here because the question is asking a subjective opinion and not an objective, established paradigm.....

One man's realism is another man's "are you freakin' kiddin' me?"

For me, interest in period and how things might have looked - because of what they were made of, handled, aged etc. - are now inextricably linked (they weren't early on, when I didn't have too much concern for research). So any good-faith attempt to depict a figure should automatically be as accurate as skills and references allow, leaving outright invention for those doing a different genre.

Einion

Now you are talking about historical accuracy. This is an entirely different question than "realism".

If you want to discuss historical accuracy then I think the idea that we are "historical miniaturists" really says it all. It is an honest attempt to depict something accurately, or it isn't. But even here there are degrees: It is easier to do a common and modern subject because reference material, in fact the very objects being depicted, are plentiful and easily studied.

The further back in time you go, and the more obscure the subject, the more "interpretation" fits into the mix. I have done some figures where only a single illustration had to do for complete research from beginning to end. I did my best to depict it faithfully, but there was no way I could make it anything but a best guess interpretation. Am I guilty of historical blasphemy because of this?

Again, a subjective question. But, an entirely different subject....!

Mike

 

[blaster]

Hi All,

Perhaps a direct comparison on "realism" with earlier generation of modellers and their models is unfair. We have at our disposal nowadays "Magic sculpt, duro, numerous special water effects gels etc to get our realism right.
They (earlier generation) had none of these.

Besides Subjectivity and philosophical threads, what about appeal and aesthetics? I can point to numerous creative earlier generations of figure makers who make figures which are more appealing than some of the current range. I can mention the pictures of models by Roger Berdou, Mlle DesFontaine. Unique and creative. Is it nostalgia?

I also like oil painted sheen (Bill Ottinger) as well as matt realistic finish (Bill Horan) figures. When I look at pictures of extant Napoleonic artefacts, I really prefer the "reality" of an Ottinger model.

So there you have it. 4 past and present masters for direct comparison. I love their work, all with different capabilities and different philosophies.

rgds Victor