Rick, Claude, Gary and all,

This thread has certainly taken an interesting direction.

You might find this essay, "The Art of Scale Model-Building," just published on our modeling club's newsletter interesting, too:

The Wildcat::V4N6 (scroll down to page three)

Some modeling works defy categorizing just the same as some other works of art - they cross the lines from one established sub-genre to another or they break new ground altogether. Also, we each have our own unique styles that we bring to our own work, so there is a great amount of room for individual imagination in what might seem to be "rigid realism."

Still, as a community, being able to categorize and organize our work is healthy - In this case what should the division be between those landscaped works that are intended to "tell a story" and other landscaped works that are created for other purposes, that is, what is the difference between dioramas and vignettes.

I totally agree that while we never want to stifle creativity by "fencing it in" with restrictive descriptions and rules, as an artist community, I do believe that we do need to have some language and definitions that we all, more or less, accept so that we can share our common views about aesthetics and what makes for "good" versus "bad" model art.

Being able to do that helps us to learn from each other and share ideas, techniques and new skills, and that sharing of our "how to" with other members of our community is essential to growing our art form and encouraging others to experience it. To be sure, there will always be masters in the model art form just as there are masters in other art forms. Their work is "defining" and "inspirational," though, and it and they do set "standards" of excellence that others can aspire to. Those exemplars of master-level work create definitions and rules simply because they exist, so it's too our benefit as a community to have some commonly accepted understanding of them.

In the end, I don't think that having clear ideas about our common aesthetic vision is necessarily being too rigid or stifling. After all, in order to "think outside the box," there must be some idea of what the box is.

Mike

One of the horrors of growing older in this age of low-no standards society is having to endure the "everybody wins" political correctness being pushed on us all. No grades in school? Everyone gets a trophy? No losers? This is not the world in reality, and those being raised in this nonsense are in for a hard life at best.
I can honestly say that scale modelling as a young boy prepared me for SO many things and was training for so much of what became my future. It taught me patience. Trained my hand eye coordination. Developed my dexterity. Taught me to study and follow directions. So many disciplines...fitting parts together, assembling things in exact order. Painting and finishing skills. This is valuable stuff.
We should be very upset and concerned that most of the young we encounter these days just aren't interested in this art. It bothers me.

Totally agree brother!! Many things are learned like this. I had to help my Dad with all kinds of projects when I was growing up. I always hated it but now I appreciate all that he taught me so much!
As far as patience goes,we are not born with patience. Has anyone every seen a baby patiently waiting for its' bottle when it's hungry? NO!! We are born ignorant winey little twits and it takes ADULTS to teach us the way to go,etc. Try explaining this to a 20 something though.
We are in big trouble when it's this bunches turn to take care of us when we are old.
J

Great article, Mike, the best I have read on the topic.

Everything human is ART in the sense of mere artifact. But the AESTHETIC is magical as it touches LIFE. It is a communion. This communion is the feedback we HEAR inside as we GROW in ability and skill. Yes, it is INTANGIBLE. We GROW by LISTENING-FEELING-MARKING. Reaching the AESTHETIC is a rigorous order of LISTENING and of GROWTH born of dedicated trial and error, and faith--faith that you can do what you see is possible. It is not hap-hazard and lawless. This communion with life's GROWTH process is where the term 'composition" comes from. Composition means: "all together into one." Composition is INTANGIBLE. What you admire in great work is INTANGIBLE. Sometimes it is just order itself we admire, without any particular meaning.

Gary, you are LISTENING to living feedback when you place the soldiers in expressive relation to each other. It is all very precise, and a mm to one side or the other would change things drastically. You are good at composing in space, and you have GROWN to be good by years of practice. This is obvious.

Maybe Shep Paine said that Dioramas must tell a story. I do not know who said it, but we ["...a community of like-minded individuals who share a common aesthetic understanding and appreciation...(Mike Roof)"] have GROWN past that. A story is way too narrative, and actually unrealistic with military artifacts. Soldiers often do not know the plan and predicament they are in. Military plans and equipment are actually designed to erase stories and cherished things, even meaning itself. Soldiers may cherish an ultimate meaning and purpose, but this is best SHOWN symbolically.

This SHOWING is particularly challenging to our technocratic scale media...until we accept that sometimes it is just order itself we admire, without any particular meaning...yet, the INTANGIBLE GROWTH process always remains one with the order.

The grazing horse above SHOWS symbolic composition at the literal level. The process of eating grass is 'back-filling' the absurdity of a useless wheel…and will carry the soldier farther into what--fog, or, purpose???

Jojogy, your work is a magnificent and beautiful example of the STYLE of the Netherlandish-Belgian-Luxembourg masters ["...a community of like-minded individuals who share a common aesthetic understanding and appreciation...(Mike Roof)"] like Guy, Claude, and the widely publicized young man who made a busted Church diorama. Australians likewise have their uniquely earthy STYLE.

I have never ever heard that there is an Australian "style". Does that mean it could be possible to derive the nationality of the builder by looking at the work? I don't know if that's a good or bad thing, or just a thing. Either way its a comment that will make me look closer at defining styles.

I am always nervous about discussion that we have grown beyond particular definition. I like the idea we can grow, and believe we simply must think outside of the box (because seriously, how many combinations of composition can there be from a 5 year war ?). I worry because I believe some use that as an excuse to avoid doing the hard yards or too explain away obvious mistakes. It's like because they don't subscribe to a traditional approach, they can satisfy excuses in lazy steps in planning and production value. I agree that doing things that are different is needed to keep things interesting and alive, but the fine line is doing things that the so called masters would want to emulate, not cutting corners and calling it "post modernism" or some other artsy name.

The best dioramas in my opinion will always have common themes of precise planning in layout, balance and composition. I would respond positively to well thought out story line that makes sense, in interesting, understandable, even if it was with very ordinary painting / construction skills. I can understand we won't all paint figures likes the grand masters, and that not everyone has the 30 odd reference books needed to build an accurate Sherman with the kit stowed in the right way, Nor have the money to purchase all the pigments and washes and tools and airbrushes and other make life easy gadgets... Those things are forgivable and where we can grow and develop a style. But it costs nothing to stop and think about the audience, the story line, the positioning of figures, getting feedback from test shots, looking at pictures on the net of the situations you want to exploit, looking at successful model builders and looking at how they solved the problem of dead space over here or confusion over there, ask yourself why every part of the diorama has a purpose and if that part adds to the overall presentation or detracts.. I value that much more highly than than how accurized a tank is.. I don't really care when I look at a diorama if the correct helmet is being worn or if the surface texture of a turret is correct (Like most people I wouldnt have a clue anyway if it was right or wrong and certainly wouldnt challenge it), my first instinct is to how good the overall finish is, the details come later and its only on about the tenth or so look over a dio that I start to notice the efforts the builder went to in such details, if the story and layout are ordinary, I will not get that far to notice!

been trying to avoid this thread, but Mike and others have turned it into something else (so did we decide what a diodrama was anyway?)but you have drawn me in. I cant help but have strong opinions on something I feel quite passionate about.

Adam

I think for me what makes or breaks most dioramas - and what indeed (for me at least) is what adds "life" to a diorama - is the figures. I've seen so many really well done bases and vehicles that have been let down by mediocre figures. They don't need to be perfect, but some just jolt you out of the ability to forget you're looking at a model.

I don't think a diorama necessarily has to have "drama" to evoke feeling. If you traslate Warclouds art (great work by the way) into a diorama there wouldn't necessarily be a sense of immediate drama, but put the elements together, see what is working together there (german sniper on the phone to a hidden gun with an unwary US convoy in the sights) and you have a sense on impending action. It's a "just before" type scene.

But I suspect if you successfully pulled of the same scene in the "just after" (exploding armour, bailing infantry etc) then it would be considered much more dramatic and probably score more attaboys than the "just before" version.

There's no drama in the M113 scene, but it's an excellent piece of work with a clear story. Conversely the D-Day diorama has a lot of action but it just has too many "not quite right" points for me, and those detract.

The rolling thunder diorama is excellent, not perfect, for me, but bloody close. It's the sort of diorama you keep looking at for ages and still pick up new things in.

Then that's all in the eye of the beholder too. A while back someone on here was doing a large diorama of a village or town somewhere in Germany (I think) with castles, rivers, the whole nine yards, based on historical photos. It got much praise for the work, and indeed the building construction was admirable, but personally I found it no different to a dozen railway dioramas I see in person all the time (including one I grew up with that filled half our house), many built over ten or more years by men now well into their retirement years. Aethetically nice, very skillful, but overall still very mundane (to me). It's just buildings and a base, no life, not even a train going around it. A diorama yes, but no story.

Per Olav Lund and Yoshitaka Hirano are two other modellers I hugely admire (there's plenty of others, I often post links to work I like on my blog - http://militarymodels.co.nz/category/model-gallery/builds-on-other-sites/). There was also that Aussies in Iraq diorama on here a while back (who did that?). Amazing work, great skill, great stories, seldom any "drama", but impressive none the less.

I actually prefer to be critiqued rather than applauded as I figure that's the only way I'll ever keep moving forward and progressing until I finally reach that point where I build something I'm finally 100% happy with.

I believe THIS is "diodrama"

Yeah, that's pretty dramatic..thanks for the compliment Gremlinz!

Having lived the "art life" for half a century now, and being a musician, an illustrator, and miniature builder, I find myself still deep in the learning curve. I don't think it's possible to know everything, or even correctly define the questions..Some dimwit scientist at the turn of the 20th century lamented that everything had been discovered in science and further effort would be pointless..kinda like the guy who declared that machines would never fly, just a couple of weeks before Orville and Wilbur took off..
I intend to keep learning and keep an open mind, as long as I'm still upright and able to see and have the gift of some talent to create with, I will create. I am finding myself now inspired by this thread...there is always a higher level to strive for, always an improvement to be learned.

That is perhaps because you never took the time to read the text this modeller wrote about the dio. It is set in Luxembourg by the way.

Claude

I read it, read it quite thoroughly actually. But knowing the story because I'm told what it is isn't the same as "seeing a story" just by looking. The techniques certainly display skill, and I do understand where it's heading and that it's not finished. Just saying that for me whilst it stands out within the armour modelling community it just came across as just another "hills with buildings" layout that I see all the time in the railroad modelling fraternity.

That isn't to say it isn't impressive, it is, as I said the skill is clearly evident, and I reserve final judgement until it's complete as once the "life" goes into it then that may well transform it for me. Just saying that as it stood when I read the parts of it that I followed on here when I hung out here more regularly didn't really "do it" for me for want of a better turn of phrase. It just didn't stand out from the crowd so to speak. But then that just could be that coming from a very early immersion in RR modelling I've seen a lot more "hills and houses" dioramas than anything else.

As I said, it's often just a case of the eye of the beholder. I don't find Cameron Diaz attractive, but many seem to. Doesn't make either party right, just different view on the same subject.

Part of my art career has included film, which I spent a good 20 odd years engaged in full time. One of the principles we used to hold dear was kinda like this: If you have to resort to a voice over or narration, or shove some huge piece of dialog into your script, so the viewer understands the pictures he's seeing on the screen, then you have failed. If your pictures do not work unless some voice is spoon feeding the scene to you, you have failed as a filmmaker to tell your story visually.

Adam, I will show you exactly how to discern the Australian style in the following three steps:

1) Spend a half hour perusing across the gamut of Japanese composition here: http://www.google.com/search?q=Japanese+diorama&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=kRu8UbaoMqLCyQHHsIHACA&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1874&bih=1023#imgrc=_

2) Now return to view these Australian examples:





Be sure to include this nook on Phil Walden: http://gator905-lisalee-testing.hgsitebuilder.com/military-figures-120mm

3) Now go look up the work of Guy van Ginnikin, Claude, Jojogy, and Marian van gils (?)...and return again to the Australian examples.

The difference is phenomenally striking. Raw.

Thankyou for the explanation Heine(Rick). I see you useour war memorials renowned dioramas as examples. Interesting as I was quite bored with them when I saw them- they all looked the same to me and without reading the explanation cards would not be discernible from each other... They were commissioned by an artist not a model builder, and the result proves a good artist does not make for a good model builder .....

Anyways, do I fit the Australian style? Rolling Thunder, Big cat sturmtiger and that Aussies in Iraq dio are 3 posted on armorama .. I did not conciously build to an Australian style and would suggest my biggest influence was Verlinden style .. Curious for your take on how well I fit the style ?

Adam

I would say that Australia has it's own style in most everything...I'm also a musician, and it takes me about 1 bar listening to tell an Australian guitar rock band..the use of the instrument in australia evolved completely different from American rock guitar, and it's an obvious philosophical break away..chord combinations, tones, structure all quite unique..
that there is a bit of that in the art of diorama is not a surprise to me at all. just like Midnight Oil or Men at Work or Outfield don't sound anything remotely related to Van Halen or Aerosmith..

Well,if those last two are illustrative of the Australian style then I am all aboard! Those are brilliant works imho.
That last one is one of the best in this genre I've ever seen. I get pretty tired of looking at all of the overdone shading and"modulation" and "filters",etc etc that we see lately. They are wonderful examples of technique but do not look like a real life subject. To me,the art we deal in is supposed to be all about reducing real life to miniature. I challenge you to show me in real life examples of the current style of model painting for vehicles or people? How many people do you see with every seem in their clothing outlined in black for example?
Having been in some pretty muddy invirons at Graf and Hohenfels I can feel the misery of the soldier in that last dio shown even without knowing all of the other aweful things he has gone through. That last piec my friends,is a wonderful realistic work of 3 dimensional artistry and this old soldier renders a hand salute to the creator of it!
J

yup, pretty bleak in the mud. Now imagine being crew in an M60A1 and having that stuff so caked into the works you can't see the wheels. And it's your job to make it inspection ready. Love tank pool duty...

Joh OUTSTANDING NAM DIORAMA Gary Thank you for bringing back motor pool partys. The M60A1 was hell getting that Kansas and Korean Mud Off

Ah yes,the good old wash rack. How many hours of my adult life did I spend at those wonderful garden spots? Maybe not as large as a M60 but our M113s could take some time,especially before an IG inspection when we took out the floorboards and had to make sure the bottom of the hull was spotless!
The dirt in Graf and Hohenfels and Baumholder has been churned up and driven on by tracked vehicles since the mid 1930s and so it is a fine fine powder when dry which turns into a pasty mess several inches deep when it rains. If it is left to dry on your running gear it turns into something very close to concrete! Good times! But I digress,sorry.
J

Ha! You too eh? Allow me...sp4 Roberts, 2/63 Armor, 1st Inf. Div., Ft Riley Ks. and for a couple weeks a year, the Woods of Germany..M60A1, oh yeah!
I had to clean one that got sunk in a mud pit once..inside and out...that was a merry little trip to hell!

Me to Gary B co.2/63 Custer Hill 1972-1974. Korea B co.1/72 Camp Casey 1974 Sgt/E-5. A DAT forever

I was an E-2 through an E-6 in MechInf so I was in a lot of Garden spots with my tracks. After I went to the 82nd Abn I saw a scene take place that I always thought would make a cool dio,which is why I stayed on this topic now. When we dropped in on Noriega in '89 our heavy drop put the attached platoon of Sheridan tanks into the swampy area to the right of the LZ. Four could be driven out luckily but the last one was hopelessly stuck and they tried unplugging it by hooking up a Chinook to pull it out. The helo did it's best until a stray used parachute started to get sucked up by the propwash into the blades and so the helo had to abort the mission or go down! I always thought that scene would be very cool.
Sorry guys,but least it was dio involved?
J

Morning Sarge.
Didn't get Korea. but ReforGer, oh yeah.. 80-81-82

Reforger 1973 Burrrr. I had the only tank with heat. It was hell for the other guys had ice on there turret walls.

The only tank with heat??? Weren't you driving M60's? They all have that wicked diesel fuel fired heater up front right in hull..you know, that curled the polish off the toes of the driver's boots?

None of out heaters worked either. The guys were stealing the coils and selling them to other crews for drug money. I just used to pull the cover off the engine compartment next to my driver seat and get the engine heat when we stopped. Ahhh the good old 70s. Good thing the ruskies never attacked,they would have cleaned our clocks.
It was nice to see the army get cleaned up later in the 80s and get back to being competent again.
I loved being a SFC/PSG in the 82nd because if we had a slacker in that unit we could just boot him out,not so in MechInf.they were happy with any warm bodies.
J