Is mini painting art ?
Beginner | Rating: 7.65 Votes: 48
Views: 9231 | By: frenchkid  |
| Category: General Subcategory: Misc | Date: 2006-12-09 06:19:00 |
|
|
|
In what sense can we say that mini painting is Art?
Is mini painting art? Are well-painted minis pieces of art? Are mini painters artists? Here are a few questions often seen of Forums on the subject of mini painting and art. It is of course impossible to answer these questions with one absolute, universally true, answer (here’s something that will warm Rev’s heart ). Yet we each end up with our own opinion and answer to the question. Considering this, my aim in writing this article is not to convert people to my point of view, but to offer new angles on a question that is often discussed in redundant terms and train of thoughts. And since the most likely outcome of this is people not agreeing on one or several point, this article will hopefully lead to some interesting discussions that steer a bit away from the questions that might have been addressed d in previous discussions. This article also has a second aim, and that is to get people interested in the philosophy of arts, and art history in general. Since I believe that mini painting is art, I think that a lot can be learned from the great artists out there, by taking a look at the different movements in art history and the philosophical meaning of art.
I am by no mean an expert on the subject; in fact I am just a simple student whose interest in art was stirred up by a teacher who knows how to communicate his passion for art. And over time this interest got mixed up with my favorite hobby to lead up to some of the thoughts that I’m about to share with you. In consequence I will ask you not to judge me too harshly if some arguments seem weak.
Most of the answers that I bring to the question are derived from various philosophy classes or art books, meaning that I will usually start out my reflection in a general term, considering arts as a whole, to then move on to see how it can be applied to mini painting.
I/How can we define art?
The most essential part to answering our questions is getting a clear a definition of what exactly we are talking about. No problem for mini painting, we all know what that is. But defining art is something entirely more difficult. In fact we probably all have a very different definition of it. Of course we most probably all agree on the fact that the Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is art, or that a sculpture by Rodin is Art, but every time we step out of this mutual agreement zone, we’ll find that we are either unable to give a clear definition of art, or unable to agree on its definition. For example do you consider Klein’s monochromes to be art? Do you consider manzzoni’s Mierda de Artista to be art? To the first question some of you probably answered no, and to the second I am quit ready to bet that the vast majority of you answered no. So lets address this difficulty head on, how do you define what is art and what isn’t?
 Art ??
1) Arts seeks beauty
When confronted with the question: “What is Art”, most people’s answers will make a reference to beauty. Art is what seeks to create beauty. And will this might at first seem like a good way to define art, it very quickly shows its limitations. Without going into specifics concerning the definition of beauty (don’t want to spend the whole night reading do you: P) we can all agree on the fact that beauty is something subjective. So where’s the problem? Art is also subjective after all: I don’t like most of Dali’s painting yet some people do. But can we really give a definition, an immutable way to say if something is art, solely based on our opinion? The answer is of course no, a definition as to be the same for everyone, and obviously if it based on subjectivity it won’t be. Besides, it is easy to see that one person finding a painting ‘beautiful’ isn’t enough to qualify that painting as a piece of art. And increasing the number of people in admiration in front of said painting won’t change a thing. Even in the unlikely event that we could all agree on the beauty of one thing we would still be faced with several problems.
First of all, not all things beautiful are Art. For example lets say we all agree that my girlfriend is beautiful (or yours if you prefer  ), would you agree to say that she is to be considered as art? Obviously not. Now I can ear some say, she’s not man made (well not directly anyway), so lets take another example. You just bought a house, naturally you find it beautiful, and after inviting all your friends over they feel the same way, are you going to say that your house is a piece of art? Still not, me thinks.
The second problem with beauty as a way to define art is that not all pieces of art are beautiful. For example lets take Mondrian, who is considered to be on of the fathers of impressionism. I seriously doubt that anyone can honestly say to find his paintings beautiful at first glance. Not that they don’t have certain qualities, but beauty is not amongst them. Yet, these painting are art, and widely recognized as such.
 Not exactly beautiful is it ?
And finally beauty is something conditioned by our social entourage and by our education. Levis Strauss explains this very well with the example of African masks he was known to collect. At the time, these mask weren’t considered to be art in Europe, as a matter of fact they were for most people not considered to be of any interest. Occidental culture didn’t have to cultural tool to understand the symbolic, and meaning of these mask. Still entirely absorbed in our vision of the human body inherited from the Greek, these masks were seen as only a grotesque attempt at reproducing the human face. With a nose completely squashed out on the face and a mouth that extended far too out by our standards. And yet, today these same masks are displayed in museum, and admired by many visitors who don’t hesitate to qualify them with adjective ‘beautiful’. That is because our understanding of the symbolic behind these masks as come a long way in 50 years. Now considering what we have just said, if we were to take beauty as criteria in the definition of art, we would find our self with a different definition in every culture and a definition that would change as time passed by. Which is contrary to the very notion of a definition.
So considering what we have just said, we are forced to one conclusion. Art can’t be defined by beauty. Which doesn’t mean that beauty doesn’t have anything to do with art. It would be stupid to deny that most great piece of arts are just that: beautiful. And if art isn’t defined by beauty, then we have to consider that beauty is a byproduct of the process of creation of art. Meaning that in the search of our definition of art, we got interested not in what made art, but in what resulted of art being created. So, let’s correct that and try and figure out, what makes art art. If we can’t define art by the final result, by what it creates, lets try to do it by taking a look at what gets us to that final result that we’ve come to call art.
2) The Meaning of Art.
First of all, let’s convince our self that there is indeed a reason behind the creation of art. Something that pushes human to create it and thus something that gives it a meaning, and in our case something that would allow us to formulate the idea of what art is, a sophisticated definition in a sort.
As far back as we can go in history, there has never been a single form of civilization without art in one form or another. ‘Primitive’ humans used to practice body art, through tattoos and piercing, art forms latter one appeared on walls and common objects, and it’s canvas kept diversifying up to today’s world where almost anything can be called upon to create a piece of art. In short, art was there when the human’s only preoccupation was to survive, it was there when we only focused on war, and it is still there today even though it goes against the logic of a capitalistic economy. When in the XXth century Levis Strauss discovered new civilization in the heart of south America, civilizations that had not been exposed to any other form of civilization outside the valley they had been living in for thousands of year, one of the first things he noticed was that these tribes where producing art. So it would seem safe to assume that the creation is a bit more then a passing fancy for us humans, it’s more then just a recreational activity. It is in fact one of the essential needs for humans to survive in this world. But why, or more precisely: how?
How does art work? Lets take one of Duchamp’s arrangements for example. He takes a urinal that used to have a utilitarian function in a bathroom and that he collected somewhere in a waste, an object with absolutely no esthetical value (unless you have weird tastes  ), and makes it into a piece of art. How? By placing it in such a way that we are forced to see, not a urinal, but a fountain (or anything ells you’d care to imagine). Simply by changing the presentation of the object he changes our whole perception of that object, he almost magically turns something that you are accustomed to seeing into something entirely different. By doing this Duchamp turns an every day object into a symbol. And it is there that the true genius of the artist is expressed. He managed to capture and render perfectly the way art works. Fountain was a symbol
of ambiguity in very ambiguous times; it is whatever the viewer’s
reaction makes it. That is the nature of found art.
 What do you see ?
Réné Huyghe explains this symbolic nature of art very well. Every art piece as a duality. It is always a representation of the world that surrounds us, but at the same time it also a representation of ‘us’. By using and representing our world through art we definitely tie art in with the world that surrounds us. But at the same time, it is not the world as it is that we represent, but merely the vision that we have of it, thus including our self in the art we create. And it is impossible for the artist to remove on of these two elements. Should he try and make a very realistic representation of nature as it presents itself to him, he’ll never be able to avoid doing so in a personal way (brush strokes, color choice, paint choice, which details should or should not be represented, ect… and thus including parts of him in his art. On the contrary, if the artists tries to remove all that could tie the work of art to our world, he’ll always end up creating something by borrowing from that very world he is trying to avoid, starting with the very material he uses, but extending much further. This interpretation of art sheds a bit of light on the two main streams of art that can be observed in history: Classic and Baroque. Both of theme resulting from an attempt at removing one side of the delicate balance between representation of the world has we see it and representation of our self. In classic man is obsessed with the ability to rule over nature, obsession that shows quite clearly in English gardens for example (such as Versailles) where nothing is left to chance. And this obsession also drives him to represent nature as accurately as possible, leaving no room for subjectivity or ‘human’ elements. If man can control nature he should also be able to represent it, representation is thus seen as a way of affirming the power of man over nature. Baroque on the other hand, is born in a civilization where nature is all-powerful, and it is actually interesting to note that it comes from countries where nature plays a dominant role. In the representation of such an overpowering nature man can grasp all and lets his imagination run wild. Leaving little room for actual representation, which he can only begin to understand.
Thus art allows man to bring together the two infinite fields that define him. The world by which he is surrounded and which he does not understand, and the himself in the form of his psyche to which he sees no limit. Art alone is able to close the gap between those two worlds and assure us of the possibility of coexistence of the two. Art alone is able to do in a durable way what love only manages sporadically. Art is part of us emotionally and yet has visibly nothing to do with us. It symbolizes our representation of the world. That is why a child who takes a stick from the ground to play with and consider it as something ells then a stick is in a sense creating art. He his including part of himself in that stick, giving it a new interpretation, and making it a symbol of that child’s representation of the world (quite a provocative example I’ll admit )
In short and to contract a bit what as just been said, we can give a quote from Klee, which is one of the fathers of abstraction with Kandinsky: “Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it makes visible.”. Art allows a different interpretation of the world by reuniting the two infants that make us human.
It would seem that we have reached a definition of art that seems convincing. Or that at least explains well enough what makes art. But before we move on and apply this to mini, lets do one final preliminary study and take a look at how art is created.
3) Creating art
This is the final step, which can allow us to identify art. Objects are not only defined by what they are but also by how they get to be what they are. One simple example would be to ask yourself if you would be ready to consider a man made body (clone) to be human. Same goes for art, something that is not created as art, can’t be art.
There are basically three things that guide the process of creation of art. I will try to go other them (A bit more quickly than for the definition ). Most of this is inspired by a small text from Alain’s Propos.
1) Art is never imagined before it is created. No artist ever goes in to the process of creation knowing fully where he will end up. The piece of art is imagined has it is created. That is not to say that the artist doesn’t have a general idea of where he is going, or even a very precise idea. The David wasn’t created without extensive research work on the human anatomy before hand. But there are always undecided elements that go into the process of creation. The artist will adjust and make changes as he goes along, his sensitivity calling out to him.
2) A piece of art is never really finished. Not physically, but in the meaning that it is meant to have. As it is exposed to the public art will always keep ‘working’. Calling out for different interpretation, taking on different meanings. There will never be one definite meaning to that piece of art. No final meaning can ever be attained in art. That is why artist are very often not satisfied with what they have created. They get a sense of un-accomplishment. And yet if they where to go one that feeling would never go away.
3) No piece of art is ever perfect. It is another paradox of man that he his always striving for perfection and yet hates everything that embodies it, same goes for art. Because in the end, perfection would be nothing. The best love poem that was ever written is a blank sheet of paper. And by the very definition that a cathedral takes, the most magnificent of cathedral would have to be made of nothingness. Art can strive for perfection as in the monochromes of Klein, but it can never truly achieve it. And as a matter of fact it doesn’t have the desire to do so because it would remove all human element and thus the very meaning of art.
II/ Is Mini Painting art?
Well Now that we’ve finished our ‘small’ preparatory work, we can move on to the heart of the subject. This part I almost didn’t write, as it will mostly be me expressing my opinion on the matter. But I feel that after all, this being my article I am allowed to do so (6), and knowing the CMON community I’m pretty sure this is not going to become a dogma But, still I will keep it short to leave room for your interpretation of things.
1) Considering the definition?
First of all, beauty being out of the way we can get ride of any argument that would go along the line of: “I find minis ugly so they’re not art”. Or the opposite as a matter of fact. Now considering what we have said minis should include two elements to be considered has art. First they should be linked to our world. I think that’s an obvious thing for all minis. No process of creation is ever free of the world that surrounds us, and even the most foreign of aliens borrows from our world in terms of representation. Second minis should hold part of us. Now that’s not obvious, and in fact is not the case for most minis. But let’s say I show you this mini:
Did you guess whom it was from? If you’re into minis, most probably, you can put a name on the artist without to much problem. How is that? Well in the mini world we call that having a distinctive style, many artists have it: Cyril, Allan, Ritual, EricJ to name a few. The fact that these artist have a distinctive style means that they poor part of themselves into these minis. Without any sign linking them to there mini you are still able to identify it as their work, and by doing so you give credit to the idea that they gave a very personal interpretation of the mini. of the world in which the mini is set…..our world. And actually I find it interesting to find in the style of some mini painters similarities with canvas painters. Whether it is work on accentuating contrasts, or trying to get a very pure result (almost monochrome for some mini painters), it can all be compared to the work of some of the great artists.
So in the end, I do feel that according to the definition, mini can be considered as art. By showing us his mini, the mini painters is giving us a personal representation that he as of that mini.
2) Considering the Process of Creation?
1) I am not at a point where I can consider my self an artist (much like a lot of oil painters are not artist). But from discussions that I have with some mini painters I do consider to be artists, and by the article I have read, it is my guess that most painters do not have the final idea in mind when they start on their mini. In fact I dare any mini painter out there to write out how he his going to paint a mini before doing so, and of course to be satisfied with the result. Most artist change tones, had different hues and glazes as they work on their mini, based on what their sensibility tells them.
2) Well I have yet to see one mini on which everybody sees the same thing. Imagines the same story. And gets the same feeling. It would seem minis affect all of us differently, all of them drawing out different interpretations from each of us. And it is not uncommon for mini paints to feel a sense of un-achievement about their work.
3) Ever seen a perfect mini? And more to the point, would you think a technically perfect mini (made by a computer for example) to be nice? I know I wouldn’t.
So, it is my conclusion and personal opinion that mini is art. Feel free to disagree with me, that’s what reflection is all about. But I do hope that you found some thoughts in this article interesting and that it will lead to some renewal in that eternal debate of asking our self if mini is art. And hopefully it will get some of the truly talented ones out there to take a deeper interest in classic arts to see how it can be used to bring some new ideas into our hobby.
If there is a positive response to this article I will latter on include a second part that considers the question from a different angle. That of what makes an artist. But time being a rare commodity I’ll to stop there for the time beeing. Cheers.
Frenchkid
|
|
|
Dedwrekka
01 January 09 |  |
Rating: 10
As opposed to the "Fantasy Art" which derives from the same subject matter, images, and background as the miniatures? Or the self indulgence of many modern artists? Or the hedonism of many classical artists?
Face it, the subject matter doesn't make it art or not. Not that I can say what is, just that a painting of someone as 10 years younger, more virile, and without flaws or blemishes makes some classical examples as "masterbatory" as miniatures.
Besides, painting figures with a broad brush misses many of the details.
|
noob PKer
24 January 08 |  |
Rating: 1
Miniatures are generally kitsch and immature. There is a good reason why the hobby has generally stayed out of popular culture and is instead adored by ignorant Philistines, following some delusional ideas of "cool" and "dark" images, that are simply masturbatory and insulting to good taste.
|
Thomulas
21 January 08 |  |
Rating: 8
I think something your missing is instead of trying to difine art as a whole, defining it in its areas. For example conceptual art is firstly interested in the concept and the point it is trying to put across and the physical manifestation of that has only the concern of putting this point across beauty and asthetics shouldnt come into it. Then there is a police sketch artist, the title defining them as an artist. There main concern is the acuracy of there "art" with no concept other than to produce an image of a suspect. Art is extreemly subjective and as you say almost impossible to define.
You wouldnt expect to see a mini in the tate but that is not to say some of the mini painters are extreemly artisticly talented altho what kind of art if it is at all art they produce remains almost impossible to define. I agree with Dragonsreach in that it is art and it is not art.
There is also scultping and painting to consider, it could be argued that the painting side of it is nothing more than glorified painting by numbers but that the sculpting side is worthy of the same acclaim of david. This is not my view but it is something to consider i feel when trying to define mini painting as an art in such a closed context.
|
Jike Ichi
20 November 07 |  |
Rating: 10
The Question is: Is it important to be art?
I paint on canvas and painting minis is freetime for me. And I enjoy it.
I had to think about this question at another area. I do graffitti and there's the same question going on. Is graffitti art? So this is what I think:
For me Art is something that falls into some (or more) of this criteria:
+ Gives the Viewer some kind of feeling/emotion (most important I think)
+ Gets the viewer to discuss about it (f.e. the above mentioned "Fountain")
+ makes a statement (political, social,...)
So considering this its not important on which base this is achieved (sculpting, painting, graffitti, dancing, singing,...).
If a mini gets you to think, feel something besides that its beautiful/ugly painted...then I imagine its art. But as said in the start, is it really important? So have fun!
|
maddhatter
07 October 07 |  |
Rating: 1
how dare you even question weather anything is art you have no right to do this. You put fascist parameters on what art is. I was insulted by the article that you even questioned this fact ANYTHING can be art so please keep your books out of it and your ridiculous writing to your self no matter how well written and philosophical you think it is (its not)
|
IronWorker
15 September 07 |  |
Rating: 6
I sculpt, I paint on canvas, I went to school, yada yada. Considering all that I ask you. What's so great about art? Art is largely useless except for decoration and much of modern "fine" art fails even at that and becomes little more than static philosophy. I think you can call it art but you can also call it craft and I use craft here as something that can take years to develope the proper skill for and can achieve as much and sometimes greater levels of beauty as any art. Sometimes minis do become art but those minis are more related to assemblage sculpture than game pieces and are no longer usable for their intended design so I'm not sure you can even consider them the same type of object as a game miniature.
I'd say minis rank closest to Kustom Kulture in the art world and like those works they usually don't cross over to art until they become impractical for their intended use so they are no longer truely the objects they started out as. So I guess I'm saying that painted gameing miniatures are not art but you can make art out of them but then they are no longer gameing miniatures.
|
Spee007
06 April 07 |  |
Rating: 10
Art is a matter of perspective. It is something that with form and shape that appeals to a person’s senses. Who cares what Weber’s or any of those pompous, self proclaimed egg-headed, so called artists have to say. They can go to the Denver Bronco’s locker room and sniff week old gym jocks.
If a painted mini is appealing to someone, then it is Art because at least one person found it entertaining to paint and view. Minis are Art since some one sculpted it and someone liked it enough to paint the damn thing. Even that silly fountain is Art because someone put it together and some like it enough to put it on display.
In my opinion, Minis are Art when it was sculpted. Mini’s painted can be Art if painted well. Terribly painted ones are not. They are multicolored melted army men meant for your 2 year old baby sister to munch on. Also, most paintings and sculptures (the ones put together by household crap) are not Art. Anyone can wipe their butt on a canvas and call it Art. Heck even I can do it if I have enough Mexican food. Junk, like that fountain up there, are things I use when I have too much coffee or tea. I could really use it when I’ve had too much beer and the room spins.
I don’t care about who’s for or against Mini Art. You’re all full of it! It’s all a matter of perspective. So that means by definition! You all are eh…. your all uh .... right and not full of it and uh… well…. Whatever, I just like to paint those dumb things! And they are Pretty too. OOOH Pretty. Especial when the female painters paint them too OHH YA.
|
rextalon
22 March 07 |  |
Rating: 8
While I agree with some of your views and appreciate the time and effort it took to research and write this article from different points of view, I don't agree that mini painting is art. I see Javi Metal's point of view.
I realize I'm being really picky, but I would have really liked it if you had someone edit your article before posting it. There are a lot of glaring errors that I had to stop and re-read several times. Please consider this when something is being posted for posterity.
|
nightmarehaunter
06 March 07 |  |
Rating: 8
In my opinion, miniature painting is most definatly an art. I also paint on canvas and other media and it takes the same amount of skill to put brush to mini as it does brush to canvas, so to say the painter isnt an artist would be unfair and also an insult. Would michaelangelo have been happy if some chump had come along and said "Hey dude...youre the best decorator ive seen...can you wall-paper?"...i think not.
|
Nicolay
03 March 07 |  |
Rating: 10
I'm being interviewed by a local magazine in a short while and have prepared a reply, in the case they might ask me this exact question. I'm not going to just repeat it here, but I would like to nevertheless give my answer to this article. You have done a good attempt at posing the question and your attempt to answer it is also very well done. I consider mini-painting to be similar to fine art. We use traditional artist tools like paint and brushes and pencil and paper to plan out what we intend to do (ie freehand patterns, etc.). When painting the minis, we have to practice the age-old lessons of fine art, in terms of lighting, texture, volume and form. The difference is that its a three-dimensional canvas. Also, the collaboration work between the artist who sculpted the mini and the painter I feel just strengthens this argument. All this does not make it art per se, but its the road that many an artist has to walk to create art. I'm a traditional artist and I feel the same appreciation for a completed mini than a finished painting. Yeah! Its art!
|
VitalisPL
28 February 07 |  |
Rating: 10
Brilliant! IMO art is not about skills or effect but about giving the heart to your creation. And ,well spending a couple of hours at one mini is definitely giving a heart to it, so yes i consider mini painting as an art. And beside this all those freehands, blendings, shades and all that stuff is really nice to an eye and can be liked even by someone who think that minis are just toys.
|
darklord
27 February 07 |  |
Rating: 10
interessting article. To me however it is slightly irrevlevant, if you enjoy doing it then who cares. Is a carpenter that makes a high quality piece of furniture an artist? mini painter may not have a truely blank canvas as they start with a mini but there are plenty of examples on here where the mini has evolved into something that makes us go wow. Surely art is the idea of creating something as much as the work itself.
|
henry1967beer1
16 February 07 |  |
Rating: 10
hi there two all my fellow artists i just became a member of this coolminisornot and i love it . now about if mini painting is art or not i dont really no all i no is that when i get time i look at a miniature and see how i can convert it , imagine what colours it needs and craft it in my mind now i dont no how painters or sculptures do it but i think its the same ?or do you need a studio , hang out at coffee shops, go to art shows i think not !
|
NerdyOgre254
11 February 07 |  |
Rating: 10
I'm actually doing art in year 12 at school in Australia at the moment, and this is the question that i have been thinking about at the moment a lot. The way i'm looking at it at the moment is in terms of how the Board of Studies defines art. they say that it needs to have numerous layers of meaning which can be communicated to the audience (at least that's how you get the marks). My personal belief is that if it's just out of the box, then it wouldn't be art. but if you convert it, change it, make it into something personal,with meaning, then it is art.
|
JakeSh
10 February 07 |  |
Rating: 7
Interesting article, though I don't feel mini painting is art. It is more of a "craft", though not in the popsickle stick house kind of craft. I mean as in the "craftsmanship" vein. Much like a fine hot rod. Is it art? Probably not, though it takes an artistic flair and eye for detail to create. I really agree with Javi Metal's and Wideen's points of view. Minis are like a glorified paint by number. To each his own, I just find the word "art" to be pretentious in the first place. Though I'd be more willing to call a hand-sculpted mini painted by the sculptor art. The bottom line is it is all in the eye of the beholder. The argument is moot.
|
Aramoro
31 January 07 |  |
Rating: 10
I agree, mini painting is an art, however, in my opinion only above a certain level. If you paint some of your figures TTQ (actually just color them) you're just an exigent player. But if you are willing to spend days, weeks on one mini or some diorama, thats where the art part starts since you give all your abilities into it (it may still end up as a 6pts mini on this site, I dont mean it like art starts from X pts) u know what Im sayin?
|
Geminii
27 January 07 |  |
Rating: 8
I am an artist, studied from high school all the way through college (but I have been at it since I was a kid). I have heard this many times in studios and shows with other artists. How they don't think certain things are art. I guess there feeling is, if you were not trained or stidied the subject, then you don't qualify. I tend to disagree. I think art is what I though it was when I was small, my way of using something physical to show my emotions or express something I could not find any other way of expressing. Even with a mini, you choose the colors, the shading, maybe even the mod to change it up a bit. Things that are done to express your idea of what that mini should be when its done. People may never agree what art is, but on that same note, they will never agree what it isn't either  . As long as your having fun and other people enjoy what you have done, does it really matter??
|
Ulthran
13 January 07 |  |
Rating: 10
10
|
Pishkin
02 January 07 |  |
Rating: 10
To those of you who think that mini painting isn't art because you are limited by the sculpture, I have two reproaches for you. One is that 'artists' are often as limited in terms of what other people want from them as a mini painter is limited by their mini. Many great paintings of the Renaissance (for example) were created to a patron's specifications, with subject matter, symbolism, meaning, design and even colours specified by someone else; does this make the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel any less of art? Even artists have to eat; does this mean that any piece that they sell is not art?
The other is that perhaps the painters are not limited by the sculpture, but rather inspired by it. Taking something that someone else has created and interpreting it is an entirely acceptable process of creating art - as mentioned in the article, all art is influenced by culture, although some more obviously than others. Would you consider the mini sculptor an artist and the painter not one? Will you limit the label of art or artist to only those who both sculpt and paint? Or further still, to those who only paint what they themselves have sculpted?
|
Wideen
01 January 07 |  |
Rating: 5
Interesting but I must say that most minis are not art. I paint paintings and create stuff out of nothing, an idea in my head. I have a million ways of creating a painting. WHen it comes to painting miniatures for me it feels like adding makeup on it. Rendering whats allready there. When i paint i can choose to make something ugly..unfinished.. raw. To get a feeling in the picture. If I do this on a mini it would look pretty crappy and wouldnt get a good score at all here or win a golden demon. Miniature painting is to me like high fantasy painting. Not art. More like a way of describing a setting for the viewer. But thats just my own point of view.
|
killkroozer
30 December 06 |  |
Rating: 1
"What is Art" Definition - George Dickie (yes it's his real name)
Here is what art is, no exceptions no opinions, just a straight forward answer...
"The work of art is an artifact upon which some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution [i.e. the artworld] has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation."
With this said minis aren’t art unless say they are appreciated by winning an award in the Golden Daemon awards GW holds, or other like "institutions".
Just because you think something isn't a work of art, like Marcel Duchamp "fountain" up above doesn't mean you are right, so no art isn’t what you think it is, sorry folks! You have little to no say in what art is unless you are an educated art historian affiliated with a social institution pertaining to the artworld!
Disagree with me if you want, your still wrong! ;-) peace!
-killkroozer
|
ikim
29 December 06 |  |
Rating: 6
someone once said: "art is what we decide art is" and another anonymous said "art is what everybody knows is art". So, according to these "famous" phrases, anything could be art.
I like to add to these phrases that art, to be art, needs some sort of technique and know-how, and the product has to give some sort of feeling or emotion (not necesseraly a good feeling or emotion).
Does Fontana's "artit's shit" give an emotion? and what about his cuts on canvas? I personally feel so.
Is miniature painting an art? how could it not be? since when the media on which a painter paints, determines if the piece is art or not? If painting on canvas or painting on wood is art, why should painting on a 3 dimensional figurine not be art.
The article is well structured, yet, for space reasons, it is lacking some major info, from the history of art and history of philosophy, that would explain even better what art is.
cheers
|
aftermath
24 December 06 |  |
Rating: 7
AS a professional mini painter I have painted tens of thousands of minis. Almost all of these have been 'massed produced' that is painted quickly to a standard dictated by the price. Every now and then I paint a mini with the intention of producing something special. Something as perfect as my conception skill and technique can produce regardless of how long it takes me. Such a mini is never finished there is always some way that I feel it could be improved. However I gotta eat so eventually it gets a couple of coats of dullcoat, a few photos and I say it is finished. The mass produced figures I say are craft and the individual special ones I say are art even though the massed produced figures I paint now are better than the special figures I painted in the past. If in producing a mini or anything for that matter one strives for perfection stretching one skill and technique, being innovative etc then I would say that that is art. If one churns out a masterpiece comfortably easily just like one has done many times before then no matter how good this appears it is not art. It is interesting to note that Picasso didn't think his abstract paintings were art because he 'knocked them out' for the money. That's my definition of course it's subjective and you probably don't agree....Richard (Aftermathminiatures.com)
|
Alex P.
22 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
Je crois qu'avant de me traiter de nombriliste effectivement tu aurais pu m'envoyer un MP. Quant à ma supposé frustration... si tu le dis.
|
Guillaume.L
22 December 06 |  |
Rating: 2
@Alex P. :
La frustration d’égare mon ami ! Faudrait-il encore ne pas tout confondre et juger de manière trop hâtive et passionnée…
Les mp sont fait pour ces messages...
|
Alex P.
22 December 06 | |
Rating: 10
A Guillaume L.
Je ne sais pas qui est celui qui se regarde le nombril ici, celui qui se pique d'érudition en étalant une culture et des références qu'implicitement il dénie à ses interlocuteurs ou celui qui essaye de ramener la figurine non pas à l'art comme dans cette article mais à l'artisanat (ton serviteur en l'occurence qui essaye de le faire en douceur).
Liste de philosophes extrèmement réductrice puisque uniquement composés d'idéalistes, des manieurs de concepts (l'apothéose de la suffisance étant l'esthétique d'Hegel).
A entourer l'art de concept on se retrouve précisement sans émotion autre que celle du pédant qui pense avoir saisi le sens de "l'oeuvre".
Je suis un peu énervé, mais la doxa, le terrorisme qui voudrait que tout l'art contemporain soit valable parcequ'entouré d'explications amphigouriques me révulse. Il y a d'authentiques escrocs qui s'abritent précisément derrière tout ça pour vendre grassement leurs oeuvres défiscalisés à des riches qui ne veulent pas payer l'ISF (l'amour de l'art vient après).
Je te conseil par exemple de parcourir cette merveilleuse galerie de Pierre Ardouvin qui illustre mes propos.
http://www.galeriechezvalentin.com/fr/artistes/pierre_ardouvin/works/
|
snowball99
21 December 06 |  |
Rating: 9
Im with Queen! This medium is by its very nature "art". Skill level is irrelevant.
|
Pyrrhus from FeuWeu
21 December 06 |  |
Rating: 2
L'effort est louable, mais l'art est une notion bien plus compliquée que ce que tu sembles penser, quant à tes exemples d'art contemporain, ils sont choisis de manière bien partiale et peu rigoureuse face au sérieux voulu de ton discours, d'où cette note pour le moins salée... peu de figurineux ont l'univers d'un Allan ou d'un Gloubi (au passage, les as-tu contacté pour utiliser la photo de leur création?...) Et avant de t'attaquer à Mondrian tu aurais sans doute dû un peu plus te documenter sur l'auteur, sa vision, le pourquoi de ses créations et son évolution... il est facile de comparer la peinture sur figurine à la création contemporaine mais nous n'avons fondamentalement pas le recul pour savoir ce qui sera encore de l'art dans 200 ans... et étonnament, tu n'as pas été comparer les figurines à une création d'un maître plus ancien, sans doute car le parallèle avec un Véronèse ou un Géricault te semble à toi-même ridicule, pourtant, la démarche de ta démonstration est celle-ci... l'art ne se résume pas à la création ou à la technique, il ne faut surtout pas oublier les bases de la création artistique : l'émotion et le message qu'il dispense (même et surtout en art contemporain), le lien social, la rareté, l'importance du temps ou encore de la tradition... Enfin la figurine est encore très loin de l'art de par son format qui est tout de même dans 99.9 % des cas la mise en couleurs de modèles produits à des milliers d'exemplaires. généraliser à partir de quelques exceptions, c'est là fort dangereux et bien loin d'une réelle réflexion historique et sociologique. désolé, l'art ne se décrète pas...
|
brushmistress
20 December 06 |  |
Rating: 9
"Maybe my definition here is: "if something -that isn't your skill- limits your creativity, what you are doing is not art." And here you are tied to the sculpt." -Javi Metal
This is a subject often debated, and I'm on the "yes it's art" side of the coin. We are not as painters limited by the sculpt of the model. How many times have we seen a figure that was intended as a High Elf by the sculpter interpreted and reborn as a Dark Elf by the painter? It could be said that DaVinci was limited by the flat plain canvas or Michaelangelo by a piece of granite, and still they are considered artists. Many of us on this site pour our souls onto these models, not just our skill or style. And now that I've made myself sound like a crazy artist...this was a thoughful and informative article. Thank you!
|
Guillaume.L
19 December 06 | |
Rating: 10
Oups! So sorry for the triple message. Shame on me!
Moderators please help me
|
Guillaume.L
19 December 06 | |
Rating: 2
J'ai pas pu m'empêcher: "Je suis désolé de te mettre une telle note (2) mais je suis au regret de te dire que ton argumentaire est bancal et surtout très mal documenté. Si tu veux penser la figurine comme un art par référence à la philosophie de l'art et à l'histoire de l'art, je te conseille de commencer par une lecture attentive des grands philosophes de l'histoire de l'Humanité qui avant toi ont écrit ou pensé le sujet. Aristote, Platon, Pit de la Mirandole, Kant (surtout Kant: par exemple "Est beau ce qui plait universellement sans concept") te sont indispensables pour bien penser ce sujet. Où sont-ils dans ton exposé? Commencer tes références intellectuelles par Lévi-Strauss (plus sociologue que philosophe) revient à montrer ton manque d'érudition.
Certains ici parlent d'humilité....ne faudrait-il pas commencer par là plutôt que de se regarder le nombril? Cela évitera de parler à tord et à travers des notions de beau, d'art, d'esthétisme...
Je ne voudrais pas être trop long, ni pris pour méchant garçon (au contraire d'ailleurs ) alors je m'arrête là mais maintes choses sont encore à dire et t'invite à revoir ta copie!
J'attends donc la Version2 "
|
Guillaume.L
19 December 06 | |
Rating: 2
Je suis désolé de te mettre une telle note mais je suis au regret de te dire que ton argumentaire est bancal et surtout très mal documenté. Si tu veux penser la figurine comme un art par référence à la philosophie de l'art et à l'histoire de l'art, je te conseille de commencer par une lecture attentive des grands philosophes de l'histoire de l'Humanité qui avant toi ont écrit ou pensé le sujet. Aristote, Platon, Pit de la Mirandole, Kant (surtout Kant: par exemple "Est beau ce qui plait universellement sans concept") te sont indispensables pour bien penser ce sujet. Où sont-ils dans ton exposé? Commencer tes références intellectuelles par Lévi-Strauss (plus sociologue que philosophe) revient à montrer ton manque d'érudition.
Certains ici parlent d'humilité....ne faudrait-il pas commencer par là plutôt que de se regarder le nombril? Cela évitera de parler à tord et à travers des notions de beau, d'art, d'esthétime...
Je ne voudrais pas être trop long, ni pris pour méchant garçon (au contraire d'ailleurs ) alors je m'arrête là mais maintes choses sont encore à dire et t'invite à revoir ta copie!
J'attends donc la Version2
|
Guillaume.L
19 December 06 | |
Rating: 2
Je suis désolé de te mettre une telle note mais je suis au regret de te dire que ton argumentaire est bancal et surtout très mal documenté. Si tu veux penser la figurine comme un art par référence à la philosophie de l'art et à l'histoire de l'art, je te conseille de commencer par une lecture attentive des grands philosophes de l'histoire de l'Humanité qui avant toi ont écrit ou pensé le sujet. Aristote, Platon, Pit de la Mirandole, Kant (surtout Kant: par exemple "Est beau ce qui plait universellement sans concept") te sont indispensables pour bien penser ce sujet. Où sont-ils dans ton exposé? Commencer tes références intellectuelles par Lévi-Strauss (plus sociologue que philosophe) revient à montrer ton manque d'érudition.
Certains ici parlent d'humilité....ne faudrait-il pas commencer par là plutôt que de se regarder le nombril? Cela évitera de parler à tord et à travers des notions de beau, d'art, d'esthétime...
Je ne voudrais pas être trop long, ni pris pour méchant garçon (au contraire d'ailleurs ) alors je m'arrête là mais maintes choses sont encore à dire et t'invite à revoir ta copie!
J'attends donc la Version2
|
Javi Metal
18 December 06 |  |
Rating: 9
Re-reading it several tings came to my mind.
I'd add that something showing in a museum hasn't to be art (the masks you mention) but historical-cultural stuff. Like mammoth bones. Also, art might be A PLASTIC WAY OF EXPRESSION. Art is created when the artist meant to express something with what he did. sure there is a mini culture and personal styles, but I think it's no way like art movements wich were and are influenced by the moment the artists lived: mini painting just go straight forward to seek more sophisticated and impressive techniques (sourcelighting, NMME, etc.). Under that point of view few mini painters shall be considered artists... me thinks not, cause no matter how much I like their work I still think they seek PERFECTION, a visually stunning result, not CREATION.
No mini is ugly on purpose: I dare to say 100% of ugly minis are due to lack of skill, not inspiration.
Hope someone will think about it in that way or at least give a counterpoint to it... I feel like there's a lot of people who claims to be sportsmen cause they play monopoly, since they consider it a sport :/ speaking of wich, this art thing is pretty much like considering golf a sport but not considering pool (that damn 8 ball) as a sport. Pretty subjective if you ask.
|
Ebonbuddha
17 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
Brilliant. I feel the same way. Excellent work.
|
Javi Metal
17 December 06 | |
Rating: 6
Maybe I'll be the only one swimming against the river's flow but, I think mini painting IS NOT art. It IS just CREATIVE (to some extent). You choose colors, apply them as good as you can excel, and even do some freehand. That's far more creative than playing videogames (wich I do love too) but you are just "creating" a color scheme or just doing it in an excellent way.
I see it as those "paint by numbers kids ilustrations" but the numbers ain't obligative. I'm sure you can do a mind blowing paintjob on it, but still you are subdued to the model. Just cause you do it with your hands isn't art IMHO. Maybe my definition here is: "if something -that isn't your skill- limits your creativity, what you are doing is not art." And here you are tied to the sculpt.
It's like some people need to label a top noch painter to artist status (or the hobby itself) to create a step beyond 10 score (or justify they are doing something cooler than actually it is), cooler than cool. Converting minis is also the same, just like tuning a car. If you actually sculpt from scratch,itself is a piece of art but not the paintjob you give it, no matter how good it is.
So a carpenteer, a shoemaker (outfashioned jobs that I love indeed), etc. are to be considered artists ? some do really good pieces and take a lot of effort.Nah. Railroad modelist, RC tuning guys, garage kits and lead soldier freaks are just hobby enthusiasts, some achieve better results as others. Artist and artisan aren't the same thing. I do paint for fun, not fo gaming nor selling not even to displaying a 11/10 mini (maybe my best is a 8) and it doesn't make me an artist. I do sculpt and conceptualice my own minis... and it kinda make me feel like an artisan. Well that is just my opinion. Ah, the joys of handmaking things at the workbench
Just had to let it go out
|
finn17
15 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
A well-written piece Arthur. You wont find me arguing with any of your points. Interestingly, IMO, I feel it is the Europeans who have more readily accepted mini painting as an art-form than the Americans or United Kingdom. Yes, yes..I know the UK is technically a part of Europe
|
YoungOlo
14 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
Thanks for a very interesting article - you managed to present the subject from multiple directions, inspiring us (well... me at least ) to take into consideration many new aspects.
Yes, I believe mini paining CAN be art - as well as any other thing in the world. In my opinion we can speak of art when someone (called artist) achieves enough skill in what he does to express himself and impress someone else. It includes creativity-, skill- and emotion-aspect of your definition, but - as you can see - very important is the intention of activity.
To keep things simple: If one paints minis for gaming (ie, just to make them colourfull) it is not art. If one paints minis to sell them, or as a comission (just sticking strictly to customer's directives, with no his = painter's vision) it is not art. But if one paints minis to make his vision a real, material beeing (no matter: for himself, for gaming or for sale) it is art.
Well, in my opinion at least
Sorry for not beeing brief
|
SkyDancer
12 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
I disagree with you on one of your main points. I don't believe that art seeks beauty. Art, to me, is a creative process producing a tangible outcome that evokes an emotional response in the people experiencing it. I know that sounds very John Cage-ish (music = sound + silence), but that's my interpretation. Most of the visual images you show I would indeed consider art. As far as whether miniature painting is art, well, I believe it is, because even though a person starts with a fixed sculpture in most cases, they apply the creative process in painting it. So it's art.
|
Vlasiy
11 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
ìíîãà áóêàô íå ôñå àñèëèë, à ÷òî îñèëèë ñèëüíî ïîíðàâèëîñü, ñàì ñ÷èòàþ ìèíè èñêóññòâîì, æàëü ÷òî íå âñå ñ ýòèì ñîãëàøàþòñÿ 
|
Queen of Credits
10 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
Oh for crying out loud, .... it is OBVIOUSLY art ! I am not the only "patron" of this art form either. Perhaps one of the noisiest (...that is as in "noisy", not "nosey", you guys). See my rant on the Hawaii game forum for more of my self-appointed patron saint of mini painters and sculptors "poetic waxings" on this topic, located at: http://www.hawaiigamers.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=821
|
Micha
10 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
Well first of all thank you very much for this informative and well-structured paper. You considred the question from several sides which is very good and your conclusion is not without sense. I have to admit I have my thoughts on the subject as well although I surely do not have the right background what knowlwdge is concerned. Here my opinion: For me something being called art needs several points. The createion of art (for me) includes one thing you forgot: SKILL - creating art is always an expression of one´s skills - without skills there can bo no art. Furthermore, art is creative, that is you always make something new, something of your own, if you make art. Third - peices of art must have at least one aspct that goes beyound practical use, as a tool is no piece of art although it needs both both skill&creativity to devise one, but the guideline would be only ther consideration of practical usage. An example - does a weaponsmith devise a piece of art when forging a sword ? - It depends! The skills of a weaponsmith are out of quiestion, but as long as the sword remains a simple tool (one of war in this exmple) it is no art. but many sword had a aesthetic component to them, where the right ornament and form was at least as important as the practical aspect (is it good to wield, does it cut well etc.), or even more so. In this case, and only in this case does the sword become art.
Now about mini painting: as long as you paint minis simple to make the usable for gaming (you know, like GW prohibiting unpainted stuff in their shops) you do not create art regrdless of skill and creativity - your minis become tools of gaming. But as soon as your personal asthetic considerations play into the process of painting the outcome will be art regardless of the actul level of skill you posess (as you always display some skill in painting).
Just my opinion. Sorry it is so long. Micha.
|
Dragonsreach
09 December 06 |  |
Rating: 10
Translated Alex P Comments:
For me the miniature perpetuates what the contemporary art forgot, the long period of aprentiship of his art (within the meaning of the artisanal gesture) one hard period which requires an initiation, a copy etc. until finally having the technical ability and being able to start with exprimertation. Ceci known as, I like also the futility of the thing, with dimensions "the mandala" of a figurine which is a small fragile thing, a little ridiculous, to paint it is also a form of meditation, one moment spent to try to arrive to a form of beauty (even on a wormeaten demon. ). In some means it is the antidote with consumption way "zapping" and the antithesis of the contemporary art, that requires to be with dimensions esthetics, that claims time, patience and humility... the Gods preserves us to take to us for artists if is to resemble to the swindlers subsidized with the disproportionate ego.
I hope that this helps
|
charley1968
09 December 06 |  |
Rating: 7
,rated for relevancy.For me, mini-painting is art when you do it,but not when i do it.So, for me it's a question of ability,not intent.Do i enjoy it, without being an artist?Yea, godammit!regards C.
|
Alex P.
09 December 06 | |
Rating: 10
Pour moi la miniature perpétue ce que l'art contemporain a oublié, la longue période d'aprentissage de son art (au sens du geste artisanal) une période laborieuse qui demande une initiation, une copie etc.. jusqu'à enfin posséder la maitrise technique et pouvoir commencer à s'exprimer.
Ceci dit, j'aime aussi la futilité de la chose, le coté "mandala" d'une figurine qui est une petite chose fragile, un peu dérisoire, peindre c'est aussi une forme de méditation, un moment passé à essayer de parvenir à une forme de beauté (même sur un démon vermoulu.. si si ).
En quelque sorte c'est l'antidote à la consommation façon "zapping" et l'antithèse de l'art contemporain, ça demande d'être du coté de l'esthétique, ça réclame du temps, de la patience et de l'humilité... les dieus nous préserve de nous prendre pour des artistes si c'est pour ressembler aux escrocs subventionnés à l'ego démesuré.
|
Dragonsreach
09 December 06 | |
Rating: 10
A highly complex subject and one which has a dichotomy of opinions often discussed at length on the forums. Personally I hold that Mini painting is, and at the same time is not, Art.
Does art reside in the intent of the artist, the production of the art, the explanation of the art or in the end result? Undoubtedly the jury will remain in argument on that.
One issue of accuracy, although in his early career as a painter Peit Mondrian did paint in an imperssionistic style he is most remember and lauded as one of the premier painter of the Abstract Movement.
|
|
You are not logged in. |
If you would like to leave a comment and don't have an account, please signup.
You'll get access to Vote tracking so you will never see the same miniature twice (unless you want to) and many other enhancements to your browsing experience.
|
|
|
