Very nice !

And another masterpiece (probably by Bill Horan)



I am speechless...

Wojtek
MAKIETARIUM

I think the feel of a diorama (or diodrama, take your pick) is easy to overlook. I know I'll probably never(ever) reach the mastery of people like Shep Paine, but I really want to be able to catch the feel of the diorama. Like the anxiety, drama, action, etc, of the scene. Those are IMO the best dioramas.

Nothing against the vehicles with a few guys standing around it though, I like to think those are in their own separate field.

-Conor

Exactly,I think diodrama kinda fits the bill.

Hello.

If I may offer my opinion

you asked what is diordrama. I suggest that is a fanciful term for something which may not necesarilly fit neatly into the widely accepted understanding of a diorama. However, as such a fit is subjective to the viewer, calling it by any other name demonstrates ignorance by the viewer of their understanding of different peoples definition of excellence.

Does a Picasso move beyond a "painting" label because it is so good? No, it is always a painting. And its description of quality is subjective - as with all works of Art. Quality pieces of art are always argumentative in many ways and dioramas of that quality are certainly no exception to the rule.

If I could build anything as good as Shep or Francois, and present it here as an original piece, I am certain of the kudos and other commendable comments about how it surpasses others works or redefines excellence. BUT take it and show my mum and she will look for a minute then dismiss it as another army model kit toy thing with mud and smelly paint. beauty amongst other values , is in the eye of the beholder.

This thread has turned away from discussion of what is a Diodrama to a Shep, Francois and others hero worship thread. I dont mind as Im a massive fanboy of them both anyways. I would give my right bits to be half as good. What I find laughable is how some people put these guys on such high pedestals (and subsequently everyone else who is considered a master model builder who also credits these guys as their inspiration) , buy all their accessories read their books etc but don't follow their simple rules of building dioramas. I have frequently encountered vigourous debate about this issue. My arguement is when these guys are so widely renown as being so good, and regardless of the subject matter or era, build to the same core values (specifically layout, composition and design) why people think they can break those guidelines and replicate the brilliance and inspiration the fathers of our hobby are known for? Rarely will you see (if ever) tank barrels hanging over the edge of a Verlinden or Shep diorama for example.

OK off the soap box.

Diordrama is one of those catchy words that is nice and buzzy for describing out of the box ideas, much like diorette, or vigorama, when dioramas and vignettes collide by definition ( how many arguements at various IMPS and other competition commities have been posted about is limitless), a word which while has some descriptive merit, probably won,t find its way into a categorical description under competition scrutiny.

Adam

The points you have raised, Adam, are a good starting point for discussion. Books by notable modellers serve as guides for initiates who are looking for some tips, pointers and techniques in order to create visually aesthetic and realistic looking scenes. Looking through the books by the professionals is a way to learn what the standards are for dioramas among those who work at them for a living. However, no-one is obligated to follow the advice in these books. After looking through works on diorama arrangement and scenery layout, I decided that John Constable's "The Hay Wain", which I had studied for a course assignment, was the model I would use for how I approached a diorama.

I suspect one of the reasons the examples of diodramas posted here by the Masters draw so many expressons of praise is that they are larger (i.e., involving more subjects) and so are not the types of dioramas commonly made by the casual hobbyist-the time and expense is a mitigating factor.


Here are some examples of dioramas inspired by how Constable arranges things on his canvas:

Quiet Contemplation in the south of France:




Not the best photo, but it illustrates the point that when constructing a diorama, think about the focus of attention: both of the figures and the viewer. Here, the medic is looking at the crushed Citroen, while the seated figure is in a pensive mood, contemplating the "what ifs" had not a chunk of masonry severed the Goliath's guide wire. The soldier strolling by has had his attention momentarily caught by the Michelin poster on the wall.

In this one, the T-34 crew is taking a respite from repairs to talk about the poster column:





The viewer's attention is directed towards what is of interest to the crew members.


This is a simple one. The grazing horse attracts the attention away from the figure and the tank:









And so, that is my hypothesis of diorama construction.

Sorry mate but constable must be very ordinary at telling stories because that first diorama is a confusing mess of 3 stories that are in no way linked beyond uniform and the rubble is inconsistent with the buildings- good example of the difference between 2d and comprehensive 3d composition and storytelling. The second diorama that draws my attention to the figures actually draws my attention to the large open space that looks like something's missing and the rest of it bothers me why Russians in Berlin are relaxing while changing tracks? Surely something that requires haste at the front lines ( suggested by the wire ) and I could go on. I haven't read many constable diorama books and don't know what his principles are for modeling for an audience, but I like the Shep Paine school much better.

When models are judged they are measured against a standard either in competition or in the mind of the audience ( like on here) and unless you have truely remarkable skills , models that bend or break convention more often than not will look awkward or amatuer.

The latter dioramas you post look very well considered and much more conventional

Adam

Edit why would you do all the hard work of blowing a tank up and throwing a track and then drawing attention away from it with a horse ? And the guy s looking at the mess drawing attention back ? That's confusing at the least! The horse could be a subplot rather than a distraction- maybe the horse could be nosing into some dead soldiers webbing for an apple that's spilled out of it -The dead soldier being linked to the tank in the uniform of a crewman - then the developed story has interest and each element has a reason to be there ..... That's shep pains books method of developing the plot

Agreed with Adam...

Quiet Contemplation has what appears to be rubble sitting precariously on the roof of the car. There's no evidence of damage from it, as if it had been gently placed there. There's no interaction among the figures and each draws the viewer's attention to different spots. The Goliath is pointed away from the seated figure. It was controlled by a wired remote, thus a randomly placed piece of masonry would not be an impediment.

In the second, it would take more than two guys to repair those tracks given the weight of the links. Also, the lower run on the right side of the tank has its last link pointed upwards. The bent sign looks to have been pulled over from the top, not from contact with the tank. Having both tracks fail simultaneously seems like horribly bad luck, given the cleanliness of the street.

In the last one, I'm assuming the tank hit a mine, but the effluence looks more like a berm and doesn't take into account the effects of wheels and treads in the dispersal of the debris. There seems no reason why the soldier is dismounted and alone. he could have just as easily contemplated the scene from the saddle. The hatch presents a problem in that it is neither fully open nor closed. and there appears to be nothing holding it in place. The posters appear to be early war propaganda items but this is supposed to be April 1945.

These might take awards in a 1-2-3 event where there was little competition, but as one who's been judging for 30 years, I can say they would not fare well in an open style show, such as AMPS.

Hi Al

You have hit the point...
"There's no interaction among the figures and each draws the viewer's attention to different spots."
I love such dioramas where I can hear noise of the battle or battle screams. Interaction among figures, equipment and terrain its crucial. Diodrama this is not a collection of coincidental tanks, buildings and figures, its rather 3D painting.



Photo of Mariusz Filipiuk diorama

Wojtek
MAKIETARIUM

I don't do diodramas myself but I am sure that I know one when I see it.

Well said !

Duly noted Al, but please allow me to post this pic just to show that the rubble is not precariously perched on the roof. The roof and hood of the car were heated and the rubble pressed into it. Part of my diorama composition is using products that can be purchased and featuring them (rather than making them myself, and so the rubble is what was supplied with the building ruins)

(Also note this is an older picture and the join of the seated figures right arm to shoulder has been fixed).

Here is an extreme example of what I mean,I have a hard time getting this image out of my head.

Me too! I sometimes wonder what makes people choose these subjects. Just as the KZ scene posted here a couple of weeks ago!
If you want to make the world aware of the atrocities committed by the nazis, show them photos or contemp film material.

Well, that's just my opinion of course!

To me there is the need of a clear story combined with credibility and high modelling skills producing realism and atmosphere. Difficult to achieve all that in the same scene I admit, but if successful...!! Shep and Bill did it, Verlinden did not (f.ex.). He littered the scene with (discarded?) equipment, but that did nothing to ensure credibility. Nobody drops a 107mm mortar just like that....! at least not without a valid reason, but such a reason was not evident from the "dio" (if you want to call it that).
Compare this to the small scenes Shep did for Monogram back then. One AA halftrack with 2 figures pointing/firing up into the sky...and you have more "story" or "drama" than Verlinden ever produced in his years, The use of photos as a backdrop was great however!

Cheers

Romain

Sorry Glen, but there are several weak points in the dio that spoil everything in my eyes!

The ruined buildings look like cheap movie set decos, not like the real thing.

The car, the Goliath and the figures are all in more or less the same colour.

Look at photos of real damage by debris to cars...and you will see where the impression comes from that the bebris rest precariously on the car.

The ground to the front is too flat and featureless, or else, the transition from the debris zone to no debris is not realistic.

Please do not assume that I'm just being nasty, I'm rather trying to help avoiding simple mistakes and thus improve the results.

Cheers

Romain

On 2nd thought I did do a diodrama of HMS Victory in 1/72 scale about the life of the sailors on board from that era.

There is not a lot of drama in this piece but I guess it would qualify.

I have to agree with that scene. it lacks any story at all. to be honest, if you removed any 2 figures out of it, it would make there an actual plot rather than the viewer having to decide what it truly is.
although the builder had pressed the rubble into the car to make the car look dented, you have to understnadn that even though that may have been done, it is still "placed" if the dents werent there, it wouldnt change the way it looks.

to me, it is an unfinished diorama and will explain why.
rubble will cause dust. there is a huge lack of it on the most important place....the car. the type of rubble is inconsistent with its placement. everything within this looks placed and looks too new, including the car that has had an attempt to be look as if it is severely damaged by the rubble.

with the 3 figures that tell no story, and the inconsistencies, i would not use it, or any of the other two as examples of a diodrama

The intent is that the car is belonged to an officer, very well-kept and therefore not weathered, and parked, not moving when it was crushed, It is loosely based on pics such as this one.



http://www.dogfacesoldiers.org/strasbourg/xxxx-31.htm

Stunning...just mind blowing stunning...I am truly an amateur.