Lego Twin Towers shock visitors Brickfair 2011
Art?
Taboo/Poor taste?
Just an arrangement of Lego bricks?
Summary
Does that make it art because I have an emotion reaction - that it is in poor taste for the brickshow in 2010?
2 Likes
Perhaps some examples are in order of dioramas with socially controversial subjects rather than broad, general and hypothetical subject areas.
The question is, should these subjects be “off limits”? What about the value or significance of the stories or the messages that have been told? I’d certainly say that each of these is conveying an emotive message from the artist to the viewer…
Rick Lawler’s “Burden of Sorrow”
Daniel Buchmeier’s “Black Rain”
Daniel Buchmeir’s “Comfort Woman” (working title, WIP)
Bob Tavis’ “Strange Fruit”
Bob Tavis’s “Zoot Suit Riots”
We could, of course, find more, but the topics and emotions of these, I think, make up a fair representation.
Finding examples of scale model works that are what I would certainly call “beautiful” for no reason other than their aesthetic appeal is easy. However, since the discussion has taken a turn in back to the direction of what some might consider “off limits” topics, perhaps these examples might give us some “food for thought.”
1 Like
@SdAufKla Mike, let’s say all of the images you posted have artist merit and are works of art for the purpose of the question below.
Would they still be works of art if they were badly painted with mold seams, gaps, a few finger prints and spots of super glue showing? In other words, had poor basic construction?
Art is art, because someone is not a master craftsman doesn’t make the project any less a form of art, it only changes level of your appreciation of it. While I agree that would qualify as poor quality, too many folks wouldn’t know the difference and think it is pretty good, a new wave of Picasso art so to speak.
add a tacky horror movie name sign to the diorama and it’s all set to go down the wrong road …
1 Like
Thinking about this…
OK to accept beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc. Likewise what I like others may not like and vice versa.
Personally, for a model or diorama to be art all of the following questions have to have a YES answer.
- Is the piece well done?
- Are the faults minor and not too obvious?
- Harmony of color scheme and layout?
- Bling-bling factor, is it eye catching?
- Does it make me feel something?
One “NO” and a model or dio isn’t art in Wade’s World. Others of course may see it differently.
Likewise, I tend to dislike work that
- is quickly made
- ignores rules of perspective
- Ignores composition
- inaccurately depicts subject matter
- has poor technical execution
- is incoherent
- lack of sincerity in the art or the artist(s)
- lacks originality
If the answer is YES to an item in the second list it’s kitsch at best but likely dreck…in my humble opinion.
4 Likes
Wade, I agree with you 100%.
1 Like
FWIW, I think you have to separate the discussion of the craft from the discussion of the true nature of the art.
When the critics focus on the technique, method, style and skill and then use those aspects to discredit the nature of the work in order to declare that it is not art, they fall victim to the same fundamental mistakes the judges and critics of the Salon (aka “Paris Salon”) made. These critics vehemently disliked the work of the Impressionists (among other artists over the life of the Salon) based almost entirely on the technique and method. (And these formed the basis for their harshly critical assessments about the skill of the artists concerned.)
So, while I agree that there can be valid criticisms of the degree of skill and craftsmanship exhibited in any given piece of work, I would still argue that its true nature as art (or not) lies in its capacity to express and communicate the emotive message of the creator. The effectiveness of the work to make that expression or communication understood may well depend on elements of the skill and craft used to create it. Those elements might well be enough to validly critique the work as “good” art or “bad” art, but in the end, it is still fundamentally art.
When we’re discussing scale modeling as art, I think we can address elements like detail, composition, and the skill with which the work has been done (its construction and finishing), because those elements are the “language and grammar” that the artist uses to convey his message. The comprehension of that message is certainly dependent on the viewer being convinced that what he or she is perceiving is “true” and “believable,” that the message is “authentic.” Convincing the viewer of this truth and authenticity is made easier if the work has been created with a high degree of skill and craft. Comprehension and understanding are both enabled by skillful execution. However, the artist’s message exists within the work independent of the skill with which he used to create the work.
One might, I think, successfully argue that some work that is very poorly and unskillfully executed cannot actually communicate the artist’s emotive message. The result is that the message is not actually comprehended or understood. That being the case, the work is certainly “bad” art. I suppose if it is so “badly” done that it cannot communicate with the viewer at all one might say with some credibility that it has failed to meet the definition of art. But it would have to be so incredibly poorly done that I can’t imagine even a hypothetical example. Still possible, I suppose.
However, the critic should be true to himself and acknowledge his or her own stylistic and subject biases and preferences. He should then modulate his critique by controlling for these biased traits of his own personality. The critic might not like some particular artistic genre, sub-genre or style and finishing technique or method, but his like or dislike alone is not enough to discredit the true artistic nature of the work.
Poorly done or badly done it might be, but art it still is.
2 Likes
So if I don’t “get the message” supposedly hidden in a creation I would be allowed to declare that the work in question is not art or at least not art to me?
Ummm, let me think … Didn’t make it to the lavatory in time??
Nah, can’t be right, should be more brownish tones in there.
Polluted river somewhere?
Maybe this is a statement about polluted rivers?
3 Likes
I may be a “burned child” here coming from fotography. There a lot of “young fotographers” do not bother to learn the basics of composition etc. and if it is suggested they should read up on it to make better pictures (say one where the lake is not useabel for waterskiing without a boat or a person does not look like William Wallace after he screamed FREEEDOOOM the last time) they declare their snapshot as “ART” and claim that “ART has no rules”. Sorry it has and you need to know them before you can break them in a way that creates repeatable and controlled results
The Impressionist painters that SdAufKla mentioned are a good example of Art following the rules. While their painting style is an aquired taste (and not mine) they DO follow the rules of composition (Rule of Thirds, Golden Ratio etc). Many of the painters in that style where classic trained and could/did paint in the older styles. Picasso (yes, different school) is another example. He was trained and experienced in the “old ways” before breaking rules.
1 Like
Certainly one has to understand and apply the rules, such as they might be, to communicate with the viewer.
As I suggested, these could be thought of as the “vocabulary and grammar” of the medium, and their effective use is the difference between “good” and “bad” art. The corollary being that “effectiveness” is synonymous with the ability of the viewer to comprehend and understand the work. Incomprehensible work is at the very least an ineffective effort by its creator to communicate his emotive message, and calling it “bad” art is justifiable. “Bad” in the sense of poor craftsmanship, technique and, ultimately, its result.
However, we can only take the discussion so far with general hypothetical examples, such as, “Is it a brown skid mark in my under ware or message about the environment?”
I submit, that before we can delve into the “rules,” “principles,” and “concepts” of things like composition as applied to, say, dioramas or vignettes, we have to be in some sort of agreement that the creator of the work is deliberately trying to communicate some unspoken, emotive message or subtext with the viewer.
If there’s no deliberate purpose to the creation of the work, then there’s no point in trying to discover or apply any sort of rules to the effort. What’s more, any divining of these “rules” or assessment of the skill with which the work has been created (or lack of skill, as the case may be) must be done in accord with the (understood) intended purpose for that creation.
1 Like
@SdAufKla Mike, I think I follow with what you’re saying.
Let’s toss this into the arena…
The model shown below is not art in my opinion, not even close. If the same model was well posed outside in correct lighting and photographed in black and white and so forth one might say the picture was art of some sort…but the model not seeing it as art…not even bad art.
2 Likes
That’s what critics have always done! There was a run of adverts in the UK for Fosters beer with Paul Hogan (of Crocodile Dundee fame) that had one in an art gallery. The attendant points to an abstract painting and says “That’s Jackson Pollock’s”, to which Hogan replies “Too right it is…” I’ll leave you to work out the rhyming slang… 
2 Likes
This is Art:
(https://www.kuksi.com/)
This is Wargaming:
https://twitter.com/40Ktoday/status/1245745695060938753/photo/1
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/23/d4/32/23d432863ec6a7d6e95599f556d62843.jpg
This is some brickhead taking the p…
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8299/7933964466_5cce05fdff_z.jpg
See the difference?
Cheers,
M
Edit: Given the original Sisters of Battle Exorcist tank appeared around 2003, it looks like the wargamers can claim primacy…
6 Likes
@MoramarthT Tom,
Agreed
So can this heap of garbage become art by becoming something larger than itself?
-
Add model of the Eiffel Tower (represents snobby high ground or high horse) on the rear engine deck
-
Add an idiot politically correct misguided celebrity of choice bobble head preaching some of the recent anti-semetic anti-Israeli nonsense that recently cycled in the news on top of Eiffel Tower model
-
Jadgpanther represents the misguided morally bankrupt world trying to grinding forward despite being saddled with a high horse idiot bobble head like the attractive Gigi and being mechanically some what unreliable
-
have little dinosaurs in a UFO land on the fighting compartment roof to represent our only salvation must come outside the broken system by embracing alternatives
-
Add some rats, skeletons and skulls to set tone
-
use three colors black, gray & ivory to paint
Summary
Striving to think in this inspirational mode
A postindustrial Rococo master, Kris Kuksi obsessively arranges characters and architecture
with an exquisite sense of drama. Instead of stones and shells he uses screaming plastic soldiers, miniature engine blocks, towering spires and assorted debris to form his land scapes. The political, spiritual, and material conflict within these shrines is enacted under the calm gaze of remote deities and august statuary. Kuksi manages to evoke, at once, a sanctum
and a mausoleum for our suffocated spirit."
– Guillermo del Toro
3 Likes
If it’s one thing I’ve learned from building Sci-Fi from recycled scrap is you need one basic bland shade to tie the bits together visually, and if you add a little colour it must not conform to the outline of any one component. Artists don’t seem to have realised you can use colour modulation, filters, etc. on the basic colour yet.
This one looks as if someone came home drunk and emptied all their spares boxes into the middle of the table. To link with the “What do you do with your leftover parts” thread the answer appears to be “Keep everything, one day you might have some sort of episode and end up making a fortune…”:
https://www.kuksi.com/sculpture-2007?lightbox=image_1m2e
Looks like two rattle cans of primer and a big (dry) brush to me.
Cheers,
M
1 Like
Tom, excellent point on color modulation.
I should use six colors black, panzer gray, gunship gray, sea gray, and light gray & ivory to paint
Revised “artistic vision”
Wink
1 Like
For me what it comes down to is intent. What is the person trying to do/create/invoke?
For example, Wades panther above is not art because its just a recreation/copy of something that exists. If, as he humorously states, it is incorporated into something else to invoke some kind of message or the artist is letting their imagination run wild then it “may” become art.
I don’t think that the quality of the piece or its construction makes any difference on whether its art of not. A stick figure drawn with love and adoration by your 3 year old hold as much merit to me as a Picasso. Is the skill and quality the same? No, but the intent was there. They both wanted to create something and let their imagination fly free.
So yes, I believe Scale modelling as art is definitely a thing and is as viable as any other art medium.
Just my 2 cents.
3 Likes
Alternatively, you could just take the basic Jagdpanther wreck, spray it pink and cover it with those under-dressed MasterBox ladies and entitle it “The Irresistible Advance of Awakened Feminism”. The big gun has already been broken off, thereby symbolising the coming emasculation of the Right, all you would need to add is some empowering graffiti and a picture of Andrea Dworkin (the side of the casemate is probably large enough to accommodate one).
Otherwise, you might form the Masterbox and ICM Confederate Infantry into a line facing the oncoming JP, now sprayed black and with the letters “BLM” prominently displayed, there’s bound to be some idiot willing to pay a fortune for that if you think up an appropriate title.
Cheers,
M
Tom, both are excellent artistic 
ideas…I need to dig out additional trash to cycle into “fine art”. Did a little brainstorming…
Not quite sure the casement of a JagdPanther is big enough to fit a painting of this…person…may have to add skirtzen to fit all the…details.
A quote like this on the opposite side of casement.
The crowing touch the pink PC Jadgpanther on Tiananmen Square style base with “tankman” holding up a sign saying a NSFW - not PC rejoiner
Summary
“Weight Watchers Bitch - Try It!”
Probably need a JagdTiger for BLM vs Confederates
3 Likes