“He must strive continually to think of, and use, form in its full spatial completeness. He gets the solid shape, as it were, inside his head - he thinks of it, whatever it’s size, as if he were holding it completely enclosed in the hollow of his hand. He mentally visualises a complex form from all round itself; he knows while he looks at one side what the other side is like; he identifies himself with its centre of gravity, its mass, its weight; he realises its volume, as the space that the shape displaces I the air.”
Henry Moore ‘Notes on Sculpture’ in Herbert Reads ‘Henry
Moore, sculpture and drawings’
It is a kind of invisible art.
Constraints shape thought. The mind is a little
like water. Any particular thought will usually choose the path of least
resistance to its assumed end. Total freedom often leads to general blandness.
See the melange of modern fantasy.
When constraints are introduced. (I think of them
as patterns of activation rather than constraints.) The thought is displaced
from its track. Like a river being dammed. It must find a new route through
usually untouched pastures of the mind and make unusual connections to be what
it needs to be.
The most powerful and creatively interesting
constraints are those of different kinds.
If a D&D character has to be a cleric but cannot worship any stated god in
a D&D book, that is two constraints from within a very similar field. If
the cleric has to be created in five minutes because a train was late, that introduces
a constraint from a different level. If it needs to fit into the poetic
formation of a sonnet, that is another, if it needs to be generated from a
memory of your real life then this is another. Constraints imposed from
different levels of reality are the
most powerful
I have been thinking about the overlapping
constraints under which big companies make popular sculpture and they fascinate
me.
How many?
The Fiction. Every mini is linked to and
feeds back into an overarching fiction, so each mini must encapsulate and even
move forward a bit of the story. It has to have continuity with what came
before.
One of my favourite things about 40k lore is the
backward technology. In the 40k verse older technology is always better and
most of it is lost. R&D is forbidden. To make something better you have to
actually find an archive and mine it for already existing designs. This makes sense
of the insane tech levels in 40k, especially in human culture. Old and new,
recently discovered and long forgotten all mixed together almost incoherently.
If game designers want to invent something new they just have something old
discovered. This means designers get to invent what they want, so long as it
makes artistic sense. It feeds back
into the power of the fiction because everything is old and decayed and no-one
understands it.
Stories need inherent technology to talk about the
future so that we understand it now. Star Trek has post-relativistic speeds,
gravity control, matte reorganisation and AI. A society with those things would
look and act like nothing we can recognise. So the tech is used but the
implications are ignored.
40k gets around this by inventing an incoherent
culture. It’s brokenness adds emotional and aesthetic power rather than taking
it.
Capital. If it’s made by a major
corporation then it will be affected by what the market wants. Space Marine
models outnumber Imperial Guard models because everyone wants to play Space Marines.
The company semi-accidently hit something that jams right in to the adolescent
male mind. It does so in an interesting way. It’s like a pop hit of popular
sculpture. Everything they do almost has to hang somewhere around the orbit of
Space Marines as they drive profits. If we look back at the fiction constraint,
they need to live inside a universe that justifies the existence of Space
Marines.
It will be affected by what the company thinks it
can persuade people to want and by what makes the most money. The company has
worked out it has a higher profit margin on very large very expensive kits. Now
every army has one. Would you like a giant multi-part GW kit? Buy two for your
apocalypse game. The creation of these mega-kits has been enabled by shifts in…
The Means of Production. It needs to be
mass produced. The materials and the techniques change. Generally you are
trying to fake a figure that occupies three dimensional space with a technology
that wants to make long thin things. Old models were usually arranged across a
single axis. So instead you make it in parts, the parts get snipped off the
sprue and attached a different way so it occupies 3d space in a more fluid way.
Computers can scan in complex shapes for mass production.
Materials. Lead holds differently to pewter
which holds differently to plastic which holds differently to finecast resin. Metals
are heavy and need special glues to make them stick so its hard to build big
multipart models without special skills. Plastic bends under heat and glues
super easy so that effects things for the consumer.
(Some of what we think of as an ancient style of
sculpture is based on how granite carries detail. Granite is a hard rock. It
survives when others wear. Its hard to cut so you have to use simple bold
designs. Those designs last so they
become symbolic of time. The material affects the form which affects the
culture.)
Architects of old large buildings would shift the
level of detail in the building depending on its distance from the viewer. Fine
detail in the distance is often bad detail because its fineness fades when seen
from a long distance away. Detail on a battlefield might work in the same way.
USE! This is where popular sculpture is
really different to any other kind of art. The guy who designed Space Marines
gave them that unusual highly distinctive upper body profile because the player
is always looking down on them from above and they need to pop against a mixed
background. Warhammer fantasy minis need to click together next to each other
on square bases as a regiment while also forming a semi-realistic impression of
something going to war.
Movement and uniformity |
(Go and have a look at the 360 rotating images on the site)
It’s assumed that the user will and should want to
alter the product. Means are designed specifically for the end user to do that.
Is there any other form of art in which it is assumed that the consumer is also
a minor creator?
Painting is a whole other thing. So far as I know
the west hasn’t painted sculptures since Greece. Except we do.
Go here
and tell me if you think you are looking at an artform
Emotion? This may be a sub-constraint of
story. Most warhammer minis need to not look stupid when they are posed alone
away from a combat, but also no look stupid when rammed right up next to
another model in hand-to-hand. This often strands them in a kind of
strangulated emotional space. There are exceptions, sort of.
(The guy who designed this mini based it unconsciously
on his grandfather, he only realised when it was finished. You can’t see here
but the characters hand is held behind it’s back and clenched into a fist.
Which, ok, isn’t that subtle. But for 40k it is.)
I suppose where I am going with this is that it
makes more sense to think about minis as a form of popular art and to assess
them along with elite officially-art sculpture in a similar relation as that of
pop music to classical music.
Except if you brought in assessment of ALL the
things working on a model design and how they all knit together to make
something you are talking about it in a way I think no-one has before.
I can’t help but think that if you took some GW
sculpts, filed off the details, leaving them as abstract shapes, then grew them
is size and took them to a gallery, they would be regarded as art and possibly
as high art.
the rotating version of this is great |
Art has movements and markets and the mind of the
sculpture but it doesn’t have a fucking universe to draw from and account for.
And it isn’t for the people. It’s for some people. You can go and buy some
remarkable forms of art right now. And the creators assume you are capable and
willing to alter and adapt them to your will. You are invited to do so. You are
invited to use the art. You can hold
one in the palm of your hand.
Has anyone done this kind of criticism or analysis? It sounds like somebody should have I know nothing about
sculpture. If anyone does have anything interesting to add to this, or can direct me to anyone who has done original thinking on it then please
do let me know.
The only response High Art has to this (and they are lame, really) are crap. There are 2:
ReplyDelete-High Art does the basic R&D and then Low Art takes it and runs with it (which is allegedly easy, but isn't--and often produces better results).
So a High Artist like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle invents detective stories (budding off the tree of Literature) and then anyone after that writing a detective story is a Low Artist working in that person's footsteps.
Hieronymous Bosch and other early Christians invent the Hellish Grotesque and then the other people who draw them (unless they can plausibly merge their grotesques with the High Art fashion of the day) are Genre Artists working in a factory he built.
-The other fact is "art" is a category we only use when we can't think of any other way to sell a thing.
If you make a tiny sculpture, it's _automatically_ art. If you can use it as a bottle opener or chess piece or toy soldier or paperweight it has ascended to a commercially more secure but less prestigious place (in the market's mind) by suddenly no longer needing to justify itself on looks (or whatever) alone. It has a use!
The art world considers that cheating, basically. If it was honest _art_ it'd gamble on its ability to survive commercially on wits alone.
Folks also have vague notions of meaning being a prerequisite for art, but these all fall apart on even a cursory inspection or else disqualify many undeniably Fine Art objects because they're mutually contradictory.
So, in short: there are lots of reasons folks don't recognize these things as art but none of them are good.
If you don't know about Zhu's blog, you should take a look for some of his thinking on this subject: http://realmofzhu.blogspot.ca/search/label/80s%20games%20workshop
ReplyDeleteI was looking for a picture of Alan Perry's orc "irregular" with the Margaret Thatcher banner to crudely illustrate this, but...
When you say that art doesn't have a universe to draw from and account for - I take it that taking you're comparing (unaccountable) High Art to the closed feedback loop of GW and other popular fantasy IP's - which has to exist in reference to itself. I'd agree that this - or the appearance of this - internal coherence is a bit part of 40k's appeal.
But a good deal of the output from early GW's artists and writers was straight-up news parody, accomplished with whatever genre trappings would best support it. At that time, it wasn't really accounting for its universe so much as for ours - that's where the grimness first came in.