Guys, I hit an existential miniatures-painter crisis.
Who is generally the greater artist? The painter? Or the sculptor?
Given that both arts contain a depth of complexity and a breadth of application so great that no human could ever completely master them, your question breaks down to "Is the average level of proficiency for one art form greater than the other's?". I have absolutely no statistical basis for what I'm about to say, but given that anyone else posting on this board probably doesn't know shit about this either, who cares.
Painting is more widespread as a hobby than sculpting, so sculpting will have the better artists because they aren't a bunch of dabbling, no-commitment types.
>Painting is more widespread as a hobby than sculpting, so you are more likely to meet a painter of a given level or proficiency than a sculptor.
Fixed that for you. Nothing worse than people who make correct observations and can't tell their ass from their elbow when trying to logic those observations into an opinion.
>art is nothing without an observer
>therefore, it is an observer who is the true artist
Well, that would explain why we find natural landscapes beautiful.
I've heard that a good sculptor and artist are both profecient at drawing, but this was in reference to the renaissance artist such as Leonardo da Vinci (who preferred painting) and Michelangelo (who preferred sculpting), who were both skilled at drawing, and did so before creating their art.
painting is primarily concerned with hue, shading, and painting within the lines.
Sculpting requires a sense of proportion, and depending on the sculpt, a sense of motion, balance, posture, anatomy, and fashion, or technology.
I'd say painting is easier to just sit down and do than sculpting. though generally where miniatures are concerned you find people who are either master painter, master sculptors, rarely merely master sculptors.
personally I find sculpting more rewarding as painting is more drudge work. but then again i don't have an airbrush... yet.
I'd say to make a truely great miniture you must master both.
You could say that generally there's a lot more low quality miniatures painters than there are miniatures sculptors, however, if you include crappy conversions as sculpting then it's about even.
Generally they're both shit.
All the things you claim are required for sculpting are also required for painting unless you're dealing with an expressionist or dadaist or some other group who never properly learned their crafts.
You aint got shit on sculptors
Imagine doing all this and not fucking up
not the guy you're replying and not really disagreeing with you, but do you think that applies to painting little plastic miniatures or are we beyond that point and talking about canvas painting now?
Painters were completely displaced by the digital medium and photography before it.
Sculptors will be completely displaced by 3d printing.
Nowadays painters are designers, who work with graphic software to make art. The physical act of painting to be carried out by machines.
In the future sculptors will be modelers who work with modelling software to make art. The physical act of sculpture to be carried out by machines.
Miniatures are basically just relying on being small, so technology in painting and modelling penetrates slower as it is refined for the scale involved.
At some point computers will automate both processes, and at that stage be the greater artists.
>pictured, good example of what 3d cad modelling can do with miniatures, plug and play options of items, weapons, gear, positions, postures.
Digital painting and digital sculpting require as much skill as the traditional form of either, digital medium is simply cleaner and cheaper.
You don't much about what you're talking about.
I don't think he implied that it doesn't take skill to paint or sculpt digitally.
Here's a fun fact about old sculptures like these >>44620538 >>44621027 : most sculptors of old only did the design and small prototype. The actual carving was usually done by the master's students, not credited. IIRC Michelangelo was unique in that he sculpted all his works himself.
Both goes hand in hand.
That question is like
"Who was first, the hen or the egg"
Such question is too vague to answer and can be different due persenal opinion.
>"Who was first, the hen or the egg"
The egg came first, anon. Reptiles laid egg before there were chickens.
If you're asking what came first, the Chicken or the Chicken Egg - then it would have to be the Chicken. The first chicken would have been born from a species that was slightly different.
Yes they do. Understanding the concepts of form, proportion, light, color, all exactly the same. The only difference is the medium is only as limited as your hard drive space and it's a lot easier to fix mistakes. An expert digital painter can almost certainly paint and draw competently in traditional medium.
And then you need to learn how to use photoshop and how to paint without looking at your hand.
But again, the differences in medium difficulty are minimal. Oil painting is harder than acrylic, but if your good at one you'll probably be fine at the other, because the fundamentals are the same. Fundamentals are 95% or more of the skill it takes to paint.
>fuck how do I get good looking blends
>What the fuck are all these fucking layer modes
>How do I change brush angle
>Jesus fuck trying to make a line without looking where I'm drawing is impossible
Every medium has challenges mato
You realize you can just paint over mistakes on a canvas, too, right? You will never see an actual artist that's tried both make such a stupid argument. It doesn't match with reality.
the chicken, obviously
you are right, i meant chicken egg, but only wrote egg.
>The first chicken
and thats the crux of naming.
Can you name chicken egg, because its from a chicken or because in it is a chicken?
Nobody ever gave a shit if your thing was made in a trickier way if it didn't look better than the others.
Digital art is a much more convenient and yes, easy medium to work with than say, oils or acrylics or fucking cave-painting, that's why professionals use it so much. But the thing that makes the difference is not the method, it's the knowledge and skill of the person using it.
Would you ever argue that the major difference between great and a poor athlete is what kind of shoes they wear? Or that one book is better than another book because it was written by hand and not in a word processor?
Photoshop or whatever program you use is TONS easier than painting with oils or acrylics or whatever, jesus, there's no contest. It's faster, easier to make on the fly changes, and you can finish an entire painting and go "You know, this could really use a couple more % contrast and blue" and you just fix it with a few clicks instead of having repaint the whole thing. But it doesn't teach you anatomy, it doesn't teach you lighting, it doesn't give you better hand-eye coordination, it's never going to make you have better ideas or taste or visual communication skills. It's just a tool.
Digital sculpting is going to replace traditional for a lot of /tg/ purposes, especially now that 3d printing is really picking up, and yes, sculpting in Zbrush or whatever is sure as hell easier than doing it with a chisel and a block of marble, but at the end of the day who fucking cares as long as it looks good? Like, would any of you pay more for models that were sculpted traditionally than for digitally sculpted ones, as long as they looked as good? The tool is only a way of realizing the artists idea, if the idea is shitty it's gonna come out looking shitty no matter what method you use, and if the idea is great, the only thing you should be concerned with is choosing the method that lets you realize the idea.
the chuken lays the first egg-containing-a-chicken then the first chicken is hatched and it goes on to lay the first chicken-laid egg.
I honestly don't know why this is difficult you should have this nailed down when you're doing evolution in biology
There's something I kinda waited for to happen, but it never came. Painters painting miniatures in artsy ways. Transcend the medium. Get really fucking creative, warhol style.
I'm not talking about some crazy Eldar Harlequin Wraithlord paintjob who has the fucking Galaxy painted on his head or something.
I talk expressionist colors. Or some artsy way to show Tabletop- miniatures in A new light. Like make some sculpt out of grey snapfit Space Marines glued together, or melt them and recast them to something symbolic for how fucking much there are already, a fucking miniatures Inflation, and pronounce how fucking pointless the huge stupid luxury pricetag is. Sculpt a lifesize starving african out of fucking GW models. Fuck "and here's a great recipe to really pronounce the leather on the"fuck that shit, TRANSCEND that shit, someone tear down the walls now PLEASE.
I'm an oil painter with a good amount of experience with sculpture and wood/stone/metal working. I've had this discussion with my figurative sculpture professor before and this is essentially what we have come up with.
I would place painting and sculpting at an equal level. Sculpting is difficult and there are many facets to being an excellent sculptor, but as a painter I find that translating life into a 2D medium has its own extreme challenges. As far as painting being replaced by photography, the only thing that was actually replaced was the necessity of paint to represent an actual existing object or idea. I'm sure we all know that painting can actually go beyond that need and that is where the concept of fine art comes in. I will say that the hands on aspect of sculpting is very appealing and creates its own level of difficulty, but being able to either add or subtract as a method of problem solving simplifies things immensely. The real challenge is when you take away a sculptor's ability to step back. I think a lot of people find sculpture intimidating to work with because of its more physical presence, but it's the physical presence itself that removes the need to translate between dimensions. For example the use of value in representational painting is entirely planned and executed with reason and forethought, whereas value on a sculpture exists as the sculpture is exposed to a light and creates shadow. That being said, despite value being present itself, a sculptor can still manipulate value.
Public perception of painting versus sculpture as superior art forms is skewed as painting is more prolific than sculpture and the reason for that is that paintings are essentially bought to cover walls. Not everyone has room for a sculpture in their home. Traditionally, painting is regarded higher than sculpture, but contemporary sculpture is steadily becoming more impressive than contemporary painting.