That's a terribly offensive diorama and would not be proud to show it- because the event it shows has no opinion. It is built in such a way as it does not make comment and leaves it to the viewer to decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing . The maker is passing the buck and I thing that's insulting and generally unacceptable . Here come the holocaust models next which also deplore. That diorama should tell the story and be obvious to even the most hardened racist that it is showing a terrible thing , but instead, that could be interpreted as a pro slavery diorama. There is no evidence beyond the viewers discretion which way to go. This diorama would sit comfortably on a kkk members study desk as much as a museum for persecution. That's makes this worse than holocaust dioramas because very few of them would sit well on a neo nazi desk. They at least take a side.

Further more if we encourage people to make these dioramas, then we have to accept some people will make them that take a pro slavery or pro holocaust position. In the art world free speech is almost protected by law(unless you draw the prophet Mohammed ) and I know art is supposed to evoke emotion and reaction and all that but I think this does it at the expense of other people's sufference - the model builder doesn't have an exclusive discussion with the audience. He abuses a terrible event as an opportunity to get people upset.

Not nice subject and certainly not adding to this thread again .

I would probably avoid this website if the consensus is this kind of diorama is acceptable.

I think exactly the opposite.
There is no responsibility upon the artist to steer his work in a direction positive or negative. To create a work based on a particular agenda reduces it to mere propaganda. It is with the viewer alone to make such determinations, as it should be. I personally think more stark brutal realist art needs to be introduced...here in Europe, especially the former Communist countries, they have no idea these things went on in America. I'd like for all of them to get a good look.

I disagree. If I look at the diorama itself and the inscribed tag underneath I personally would rate this as a very negative view on slavery and Klan activity. Thats at least what I think about the builders intention. I may be wrong, of course...





I disagree. Even if it would have been build in a way that nobody would be able to clearly see the builders intention, than it would still not make this work insulting. I, again, personally, don`t mind making my own mind about what I see. Perhaps this is the intention? I don`t know. But I don`t see a duty for modellers, artists, what ever, to show their intentions as clear as possible, nor do I see a duty for the modeler to take a side. Why should he?




I disagree. I think it is much stronger to look at this and come to a conclusion yourself than simply being told "This is bad".




How do you know his intentions?





To be honest I not only think this is acceptable, I also would like to see more dioramas telling a real story, even if I feel perhaps uncomfortable seeing them sometimes. The 2134th "King Tiger commander pointing into a certain direction" is unfortunately not going to stimulate my imagination anymore, I have to admit.

Best regards

Dennis

On about this date 134 years ago, William Tecumseh Sherman addressed the graduating class of the Michigan Military Academy as follows:

"I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here. Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, War is Hell!"

If you're looking for pretty pictures, look elsewhere. If you are offended by life 'tween decks, the corpse in the cornfield, the moans of the stinking slaves held at gunpoint for their trip to the lash of the cruel taskmaster, the horror of the negro lynched by murderously hateful bigots --- then you are having the right reaction.

One way of comparing the work in question, is to compare it a painting, there are a lot of paintings, that depicted the cruel themes of real events, but still they are considered work of art.

Personally I think that to ignore the unpleasant aspects of History leads to a tendancy to forget them. Sometimes a stark reminder of man's base nature can be a reminder to always be vigilant against letting that base nature ever come to the forefront again.

Whilst dioramas such as that can be interpreted either way the hope (for myself at least) would be that such a scene would evoke sufficient revulsion in people that they would be more inclined to feel that "nothing like this would ever happen on my watch".

Those who celebrate such scenes are generally uniformed and usually merely looking for something to shock people with to somehow make themselves feel important - young neo-nazis for example who deface Jewish graves just to get a reaction from the society they feel somehow they need to be apart from.

They are luckily though the minority. I would never want to remove History's reminders from the view of the majority just for want of denying the scant minority some whacking material.

Adam,

the event it shows has no opinion???

does not make comment???

and leaves it to the viewer to decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing???

and what good thing could it possibly convey???

This is a harsh diorama that reminds us of a dark period in
history where black people were hung for just being black
and the arrogance of some white men!

I think the message is clear and as much as it may be
disturbing, it is HISTORY....definitely a piece for a
museum on the atrocities of mankind!

Joe

For those unaware the plaque is the first stanza from an anti slavery/racism protest poem/song.

The words on the plaque are from a song "strange fruit" by Billie Holiday and I think that dio is quite fitting. While it might be disturbing and upsetting it is well, pardon the expression, executed. The story is obvious if you see past the gruesomeness of the subject matter. The strange fruit hanging from the tree is a powerful image and pays homage to not oly the song but to those that suffered and died.

I think that the point has been well made that a good dio should at its best have drama and a well formed idea and at its least be well thought out and executed. While I do not consider what I do "art" (I have never taken myself too seriously) there are certainly others who do consider this art and there are plenty of people that build thatbimwould never hesitate to call artists, Adam included. But rather than argue the point on wether what we do is or is not art, why not work to create a criteria that is recognized within the greater community as a "standard" on which to judge. If wine spectator can create a 100 point scale then why can't we? Create a set of basic criteria for model building as well as diorama building and use it for all competitions bth AMPS, IPMS and others.
While some would argue that what we do as well as what wine makers do is quite subjective and open to interpretation I think that both are easily understood with some basic knowledge and understanding of the process. I am sure many of you have had the experience of showing your work to a friend or colegue only to hav ether say something entirely nonplused. I have found that this is usually because they do not understand how or what we do, I have also found this true with wine. Most people do not understand the process or the subtlety involved in either. Once people understand the process or the idea it is easier to form an educated and insightful opinion.
I think, that despite the sometimes ambiguous nature of what we do, a standardized set of criteria and scale would help eliminate some of the frustration that many feel when trying to create a well executed model and or diorama. Wile I have mentioned it to Adam before, and he is too humble to believe this, we have achieved a new set of "masters" now and these masters need to be published and studied for future generations. Shep Paine and other have helped lay the ground work, or foundation as did some of the early renaissance masters only for the impressionists to build upon their techniques and move forward the paradigm. The best way forward is to create a set of guidelines, hopefully designed in part by some of our new masters (Mig, Rinaldi, Adam and many others), that define the technique, the process and finally the scale upon which things should be judged against or with.
Wordy, but just my two cents. Cheers.

It is what it is American history.

Does a picture have an opinion ?
I think of dioramas as pictures or stills. A moment frozen in time.
This subject is a perfect example of that. Kudos to the maker.
I would avoid this website if such a diorama would be banned or become unacceptable.

AMEN

If my son built this and took it to school as a project I doubt it would not belong before I got phone call about a lack of sensitivity being demonstrated and other lectures.

If I had this in my collection and invited some work collegues over (one of whom was a minority) I would feel very much on soft ground when it comes to showing it off with my other dioramas.

If this diorama was acceptable then having ten of them in a collection would be just as acceptable and a minority would not find it bothersom at all if they were to view them as a collection? Out of curiousity how many African Americans have commented on this diorama?

some subjects just because they can be built doesnt mean they should be built. for example - a rape scene of US soldiers and a vietnamese girl - show it to a community and see if they see it as a great work of art that there should be more of it.. OR the "prison" Abu Gray? and someone being waterboarded - or tied up naked and lead around like a dog, show that to an audience and wait for the kudos of how we need more of this and not worry about what is insensitive? what about a 9/11 diorama with a building being hit by a plane? Australian Aboriginies being shot and hearded up for no reason - even if we wanted to show one! Or even a model depicting of the prophet Mohommed? I am sure the Muslim community that feels strongly about their figurehead being shown will gladly understand your arguements about it is a part of history and should be shown no matter what and encouraged. Arrogance of that level is breathtaking.

Art has a responsibility that goes with that freedom of expression. And it cannot just circumvent the insensitive arguement just because it can be done.

If John's intent was to toss out an example of "drama" in diorama form, then he certainly succeeded, but I wish he had offered up some commentary with this example… at least credit the artist that built it. I think simply dropping it into the thread like the proverbial "excrement in the punch bowl" while offering no comment of his own was a bit of a cheap shot.

Be that as it may…

While I agree with Adam that the subject is shocking and horrible (especially just laid out here with no comment or context), I don't agree that the work has no merit or is not an excellent example of the model building art form. Subject matter aside, as model building art, it exhibits very high standards of technical craftsmanship and the composition is generally very well done.

Personally, I think the artist tried to fit too many sub-plots into it, perhaps trying to illustrate the entire panoply of racial atrocity and bias, and this dilutes some of the horror of what I think should be the main subject – the hanging. To me it almost seems that the hanging has been placed on equal par with the rest of sub-plots.

I also think that there's some incongruity or anachronistic illogic in the dress and appearance of the figures which all suggest to me oppressive heat and humidity and the bare brown nature of the tree and underbrush which set the scene in winter and creates, in my mind, a conflict. Again, perhaps the artist was trying to emphasize death and dead things with the brown, winter-looking tree and the hanging in it. However, I think perhaps he missed an opportunity here to emphasize the death of the victim by contrasting it against life by showing the tree in full flower. This might have also connected the tree with the lyrics cited on the plaque.

I'll leave it to others to make tangential comments on the subject matter or their political views about it, but again, as model art, in my opinion, this piece rates right up there with some of the best. As a subject, it's certainly no more shocking and horrible than, say, Rick Lawler's "Burden of Sorrow."

PLastic Garden::Burden of Sorrow

This post is getting too long already, but to close, I'd like to say that I also agree with Damon's comments about the need for our community to have clearer standards and ideas about what makes for good model art and the reasons why that's necessary and beneficial. There are practical issues involved with creating such standards, especially standards to be used in judging exhibitions, but those can be worked out. For another discussion or post, though...

Happy modeling!

I will never submit to political correctness. Freedom of Expression goes with Freedom of Choice. if you don't like the music, turn the channel.
I have already been the victim of misuse of anti terrorist laws to censor and remove artworks from the internet and restrain my right to legal business and trade. anyone who wants the details should contact me off boards. I'm no bible thumper, but the line goes "If thy right eye offends you, pluck it out."
in my OPINION, intent is everything. if this were made to glorify and endorse lynchings of blacks and clearly says so, then it IS horribly offensive...and the community will police that issue.It's not the job of any authority to do so.

I'm with Gary on that one. I know it's a hackneyed old saying but censorship is a thin edged wedge and I fully believe that society as a whole will "vote with it's feet" on what is and isn't acceptable, and we have to be careful never to get into the "If it were up to me" type of censorship.

There are those who would purge the world of works such as Bodyworlds but they aren't the voice of the undeniable majority. I think the dross Nickelodeon delivers up for children to watch is moraly detestable, but that's just my opinion and I wouldn't demand an end to all children's programming just to please me.

Society has to determine between what is unpleasant and what is offensive and unacceptable and it usually does - child pornography has no redeeming value, racism to incite violence likewise. But we don't hang people for making Jesus jokes.

I get where Adam is coming from, and I agree with Mike about the way in which that diorama was dropped into this thread sans commentary. The build "could" be taken either way if it were just the build on its own. But the plaque makes it clear that it takes a "lest we forget" type approach.

But like a lot of art we can only take our own interpretation from it, and that's what art frequently is all about. We seldom know the builders exact intent unless he spells it out for us so we draw our own conclusions from our own interpretations.

And that brings us right back to the whole "Diorama story" concept. When you look at your build does it clearly tell the story you want it to tell and does it also do that for people who don't know what story you wanted to tell? Is it able to be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and if so are they all acceptable ways?

Whenever we post up a diorama we built we usually invariably tell the viewer what it was we were trying to acheive. Maybe it would be an interesting exercise to post up a photo with no story and ask people to tell us what they think the story is is. I bet you'd get many differing theories and I suspect it would also help in fine tuning elements of a build to tell the story YOU want it to tell if from that you could see how and why some people see it differently to how you see it yourself.

Even in the realm of the most disturbing and fringe subjects, art must be unrestricted. Child pornography? Universally repulsive, agreed. But, who determines what is art and what is pornography? Once you assign such power to already dubious authoritarians with title and office, you open the doors to hell and begin the persecutions. There's a woman in Florida still trying to get cleared of sexual offender status for having pics of her own daughters in a swimming pool on her computer. Charge: Possession, production of child pornography. I have recently been informed by bank representatives that if in any of my adult comics or artwork online I draw any picture of any space alien in direct contact with an unclothed human male or female, my business will be arbitrarily shut down and bank account seized. According to the US Justice Department, it is bestiality and linked to terrorist activity. You can't make this stuff up guys.
Censorship is a steep and slippery slope. It's not a very long walk at all between removing a book from a school library for being politically incorrect, to the gates of Dachau. That always tends to happen rather quickly once it begins, and I will always be the sworn mortal enemy of such ideas.

I probably should have offered an explanation of my criticism of the way John posted the work. I really didn't want to gratuitously bust his chops, and it is his thread, which I don't want to hijack. I appreciate that he started it.

It's just that this has been (actually, still is) a very interesting discussion, but posting models of these kinds of controversial subjects always results in the same tangents to whatever the main topic was –

One or two posters always express politically correct offense to which an equal or larger number counter with the "historical argument," and finally the discussion devolves into political theory about freedom of expression and censorship. All very good topics in and of themselves, all topics that I don't normally shy away from, but in the case of this thread, I thought perhaps we were going in a different direction.

I just thought (perhaps hoped) that John had some intent and purpose besides the shock value and inciting the usual and predictable reactions (and I think the artist still deserves credit for his work).

The builder's intent with the "Strange Fruit" diorama seemed to be pretty clear social criticism (on many different levels), but as with all art (except perhaps the performing arts where audience feedback becomes part of the performance itself), the communication is usually a monologue from the artist to the audience. We, the audience, are always free to form our own interpretations based on how we experienced the art, and those interpretations often say more about the audience member than the artist or the art.

However, Dean makes some good points that bring the discussion back to the diorama and the story-line (or John's idea of drama). The artist might have intend to shock and offend, but if we the audience come away with feelings of ambiguity, then the artist has likely failed in communicating his message and evoking the emotional reaction he desired.

But before we can get to any kind of emotional connection between the "dioramist" and the audience, the viewer has to be able to visually understand what's going on. If the model builder cannot craft and compose his work clearly enough for the viewer to intuitively understand, then any emotional reaction that the builder is trying to elicit cannot be created.

The sense of realism we usually try to impart in scale-modeling is essential for the viewer to suspend his senses and see and accept the work as an illustration of real life. Without out high degrees of craftsmanship and a keen eye for the artistic values of light, shadow, form, color, shade, details and scale, the viewer will not perceive the work as "real." The basic imperfections attract his senses and prevent the viewer from accepting the story and experiencing what ever emotion was intended.

By the same token, without good composition, the model artist cannot "tell" his story because the arrangement of the elements is confusing and do not work together in a way that the viewer can easily understand or that "looks" realistic and natural.

In short, models have to be constructed and finished to the highest technical and artistic standards so that they "look real," and then those model elements must be composed well enough to convey the intended story which would then evoke any emotion desired.

So, as we look for standards that we, as the model artist community, can generally accept as common, craftsmanship and artistic values as well as composition are, in my opinion, all equally important in deciding if a diorama achieves the purpose of conveying the intended story which is itself essential in creating or evoking any desired emotional reaction in the viewer.

However, not all models on landscaped displays are intended to "tell" stories or evoke strong emotions, so the intention of the model artist should also be considered as we construct our definitions of categories and genres.

Several years ago, I purchased a van with low mileage for a cheap price, then spent two days cleaning dust from everywhere in the engine compartment. Dust like I have never seen ever before. An invoice was uncovered indicating that this was a utility van in Kansas, before arriving in my neighborhood. Thank-you to all service men who defend True liberty.

I am not for censorship, but that fruit tree is poor work because the story does not have a clear MAGNITUDE OF INTUITION. The tree itself is approaching a MAGNITUDE...but, the rest of the clutter about just detracts from the impetus. So, we insist that a diorama is about a story, whereas a vignette is about showing technical skill, history, or environmental features (thanks, Mike Roof). O.K. I will accept that--but, for those who invoke claims to art and aesthetics, as I have said…mastery is GROWN, and should SHOW a MAGNITUDE OF INTUITION--OF GRASPING ORDER. For a diorama, this means that the story should be clear and loud, and clever enough to equal NON-VERBAL INTUITION itself…like they said above--you should not need a plaque to explain it. When the story becomes an involved narrative, it detracts from the "WOW" factor. Shep Paine was actually very clever at composing this WOW factor--what I believe would rightly be called a "Dio-drama."

THE MORE THIS TOPIC IS PUSHED, THE MORE INCLINED I AM TO RELEGATE THE TERM "DIORAMA" TO THE PEDANTIC-NARRATIVE KIND OF FEEBLE DISPLAYS LIKE THE FRUIT TREE ABOVE, AND ELEVATE THE TERM "DIO-DRAMA" FOR THOSE WITH A STORY BORN OF A MAGNITUDE OF INTUITION--WITH AN AESTHETIC "WOW" FACTOR.

The pictures below show the kind of clear MAGNITUDE [just MAGNITUDE itself--not a story yet] I am talking about. I believe they would be more "Vignette" than "Dio-drama," as there is not a story equal to the MAGNITUDE OF INTUITION. They come from Euromilitaire 2006, and from MAKIETARIUM. The trees and the terrain features are not just a blob of green, or a display format for trains to work through. There is a MAGNITUDE OF INTUITION which "Wows" the viewer. The story in a diorama--er, Dio-drama--must have this same MAGNITUDE. Otherwise, it is just pitiful, and you end up with: "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." (Adam).

In addition to Rick's post I think I might have another example as "Clervaux" was also already mentioned as having no immediate visible story to some viewers
( this is no attempt to divert the discussion and talk about my dio, but I believe it fit exactly somewhere in here)(it is also during such discussions that I really notice that english is only my 4th language).

Anyway, just a short word about the supposed lack of story.
IMO, ( I am biased :-)) you may percieve it like that because of the size of the dio and your unability online to see everything. I can probably post you a picture where you can only distinguish a couple of figures but yet there are nearly a 100 on the dio. So it is impossible to understand it withouth making at least one tour of the 3x2.8 meter dio as you can not even see it all even if you are there (height differences).

To concur with Rick I will tell you what I experience during expositions. (The last 2-3 years approx. 50000 visitors watched my dio)

No one, ever, talked or asked about the story! And I have a lot of talks!
So either the story is clear if you have the chance to see it live :-) or they do not care about the story if the visual impact they experience trumps all other thinking.

I notice a hell of a lot of people standing at a distance of a meter or two of the dio, arms crossed, absorbing the athmosphere quietly during many minutes and leaving mostly with a slight approving nod in my direction. Many come back for another look. The general athmosphere makes the difference! I get special praise for that athmosphere.
The tiny details and all the sub stories only come later.

Lately I am often invited to rail road modeling expo's where I am the only outsider among 50 tracks and people thank me for coming as it allows them to se something different for once.
This lack of talk about the story is also noticeable during pure military modeling expos.

To go back to the discussion you might ask this question

Who cares at all about the story told in the dio or vignette?

If I watch a beautiful painting in a museum, a big one with a lot of action, I do not remember anytime looking for the story behind it. I appreciate the technique and all, but the story? (Bruegel's big market scenes come to mind)

When I reread my post and try to bring back some memorable dioramas where I might have looked at the story there are two sorts coming to mind.
The one attracting immediately the eye, usually bigger dios, and immediately recognizable as well executed.

I am interested in it for the techniques used and look more in detail and only then the details of the story are eventually emerging and visible. That's me, but the normal viewer, the family on the expo visit, what do they see?

The other sort are the rare master pieces, the one's who win big competitions. But then, those telling a story are few.

Look at this page showing a few of the last Euromilitaire winners
http://www.euromilitaire.co.uk/editorial/page.asp?p=631

The only one with a real story is the 2009 winner. That's supposed to be a Ex-Nazi who see his victims in dreams (for info, the ghost effect in the back is done using mirrors).

I wanted to say a word about the Hiroshima girl (winner 2007, i saw it live), but this is not a diorama, so it is not fitting here.

Aren't we making to much out of this story telling precondition to make a good dio?

Have a nice day

Claude

I don't put any requirement on a diorama at all. My comments are more in defense of free expression..in fact, exclusively in defense of free expression. I think a diorama is whatever the creator makes it to be, and whatever the viewer thinks of it, no more, no less.

To put that in perspective from my point of view. A couple of years ago while helping to run a largish modelling competition we had one diorama entry which was to be quite frank, very amateurish (I'd like to be polite but really I can't understate just how poorly construced it was, OOB figures painted seams and all, no joins filled, it looked like a large wargaming scene). And the public vote overwhelmingly chose it as best of show. Why? Simple, it was BIG.

I will take one plaudit from someone who's work I admire over 10,000 from the man in the street because quite frankly the man in the street is easily impressed when it's something outside their own sphere of experience.

Which again isn't to say that diorama doesn't have merit. That's not even close to what I said. There is a clear skill involved and it is a very good piece of work.

But I, me personally, the opinion of one, is that whilst interesting to look at from a technical "what techniques were used" point of view over-all it doesn't "move" me. Do I like it? Yes, but no more than any other and it wouldn't make my top ten. But I am very fussy too.

Again, that's my view only and it does come down to different strokes for different folks (I appeciate that there's the artists own ego involved and no-one likes to hear criticism so I do stress that this is solely my own opinion). It could also be that I grew up around railroad modellers and I've seen a lot of these, usually built by solitary men who never go to exhibitions because the only way you'll ever get it out of their house it to pull it apart once they die.

So possibly it's familiarity. I constantly hear people saying how beautiful New Zealand is. All I see are bloody sheep and ten shades of green. I've seen a LOT of large railroad layouts with years of work in them (I live ten minutes from one actually that has more like 20 years work in it).

As for "story". Does a diorama need a story? No, definitely not.

But the subject at hand isn't "Diorama" but rather "dio-drama". A diorama with an element of drama. And to me that definitely has to "say" something. It either has to tell a story or make a statement. For me to qualify as a diodrama there has to be something that makes a conection with the viewer. And that's a very very hard thing to do in scale, and in a static medium.

I'm not even saying that qualifying as a diodrama makes it better than any other, nor even that qualifying makes it good. Adam's "Rolling Thunder", dramatic? Not really, good? Most definitely. "Strange Fruit". Dramatic? Yes. Good? In my opinion so-so. "The End Of Fun". Dramatic, oh hell yes. Good? In my opinion yes. Ditto "Burden Of Sorrow".

"The Burden of Sorrow" is a perfect example of a diorama-become-dio-drama. Even with just one figure--just like the Nazi with phantoms from Euromilitaire--the absence of others is somehow a kind of presence. The introductory remarks are dead-on, regarding the challenge of elevating a diorama into something artistic:

"Something extraordinary:
Modelling is a demonstration of skills. It's very rare to go beyond this. Modeling with skill is already an achievement for very few.
Attaching "feelings" to that is an almost impossible task.
But it happens. And it happened with a diorama by Rick Lawler and Markus Lack – Burden of Sorrow."


O.K., I am getting this all sorted out with the help of such fine commentary going on around here. I am inclined to agree with gremlinz, artistically, that no story is necessary for a diorama, whereas something more dramatic and overt is necessary for a dio-drama. But, I also agree with Mike Roof who claims the importance of a story in dioramas. There is no discrepancy in this. There is no contradiction so long as a MAGNITUDE of non-verbal INTUITION composes order into a FORM of expression--even a non-literal, non-narrative expression as seen in terrain displays--this still stands as a story. It is a form of order. It is a clear form of organization of non-verbal INTUITION. It may be more emotional or spiritual, or even just the love [feed-back] of technique, than narrative and literal. I hope this makes sense. This is what I have been trying to say all along.

For those who do not aspire to the artistic, I guess anything random goes.

I discovered the Aussie style [which would include New Zealanders] back in 2001 when viewing the figurative work of Geoff Barnes, Craig Clark, Phil Walden, John Belcher, Antony McMullen, and Chris Walden, among others, in the magazine called: "Historical Miniatures." Recently, Honeycut and Ian Fanges, have emerged here on Kitmaker's Historicus Forma, and Adam and gremlinz appear in this topic above. Please forgive me for overlooking other fine Aussies here, as my seasonal work schedule constrains availability to the internet during most of the year. I by no means have a comprehensive hold on the active modelers, and I am not a professional researcher. I regret being so late in discovering Gremlinz' and Adam's phenomenal work.

The Aussie style is INTANGIBLE and lives in the viewer just as much as it lives in the maker. The Aussie style, the Japanese style, the Russian style, etc., are each in the process of leveling into the International style which checks itself across forums such as Armorama, and other media publications. Cultural traditions and style are particularly challenged as model and figure kits from other countries are utilized.

The best way to appreciate the Aussie style, is to immerse oneself in Chinese and Japanese work for half an hour before turning to Australian work. What you will then see are two prominent traits:

1) Aussies have an earthy connection which spreads and clings to everything around. They model clothing like a landscape, with nuance and texture as expressive and as human as the character's face and gesture.



Example below [Geoff Barnes] from Historical Miniatures magazine [Issue No. 32 (Sep/Oct 2001)], and appearing below for discussion and research purposes only.





2) Agility and prowess are innate to the body language.


Example below from Historical Miniatures magazine [Issue No. 7 (Jul/Aug 1997)], and appearing below for discussion and research purposes only.



More examples of the Aussie style below:


http://gator905-lisalee-testing.hgsitebuilder.com/military-figures-120mm

http://hfmodeling.kitmaker.net/forums/178887&page=1