These things looks amazing!
http://www.newyorkstorefronts.com/#a/9653
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foundmyself.com%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F25051%2Fnormal_Randy_Hage_-Photo_of_artist.jpg&hash=32eac43c1b5aa677078523fc6e7e75785d2ad09e)
These are great, he is an excellent artist. He has a Flickr account with some more things. A month or so back he had an exibition near me, but I only found out afterwards. Dang.
Was just there Chuck. Some excellent work.
Really liked the way you could look at the real thing next to the model.
Jerry
His work is excellent! (isn't he a set designer / special effects guy or so?)
It remarkable how well a Californian captures the East Coast.
He has examples of set design type work on Flickr.
Definitely very cool and well done. Not quite Chucks level, but definitely in the ballpark...especially character and observation wise.
Chuck,
The gallery show runs through tomorrow night here in Pasadena....you still have a day left. I think I may have to go by and have a look-see. Plus you can get a bite a King Taco in the next block over.
Thanks for posting this Tim.
M
I went to the exhibit (Image for proof attached)...and can now say in all honesty the following.
Overall, the pieces are wonderful, engaging, full of character and emotion,.... and seeing several of them displayed in one space is really great. The cohesivenes and continuity of character, theme, quality, and the emotions the pieces evoke are superb. As my wife noted, it's not easy to pull that off.
Where the artist excels, is in capturing the look and feel of the places, and in including all the numerous details that make the scene feel real and complete. He is very observant in how things exist in the world...he "sees" and incorporates many of the things that most people overlook (IE,. the way paper is taped to the window, or the small sticker or grafitti on things such as a parking meter, or the piece of cardboard behind an old mail slot, to keep people from seeing in, UPS lables on boxes, the variety and discoloration of cardboard, etc.) He is also very good at adapting and improvising in a scene , yet making it appear natural, as if it were in the real one (IE. to block sight lines, stacking cardboard boxes inside the window). He also excells in the area of "paper"...making stacks of newspaper, or old stained boxes look real...not an easy feat to do.
But, you can see that he has a set design background, because the scenes do photograph with a more realistic look, than when they are viewed in person......this is not a bad thing...it is merely a different approach in modeling; and this is where I feel critical about the pieces (especially at the scale he is working; 1/24)
I feel he lacks in many of the refined weathering and painting finishes. The rust at initial glance is believable...but on second observation, it is middling, at best they are often nothing more than a random dollop, or what looks like slapped on insta-rust (the type you get for home decorating projects). He seems to have a great ability to duplicate an image, but not always a full understanding of what caused something in the image, and how that reacted. (That said though...his peeling sectional galvanized sign over the hosiery store was outstanding....I doubt I could do as good or better)
His bricks were another issue....now, I understand that many of the brick facades on these old buildings were painted, however, where he tries to show/represent old natural brick, he fails, because it clearly looks like painted brick coloring, and painted grout (like on an HO building).....it lacks the matt-ness and lifelessness of real brick. He has the same problem in some of his concrete areas.
Lastly, in some areas, it would behoove him to use an airbrush, instead of a spray can or brush, on some of the painted surfaces.
There are other items such as this that I could list, but all in all these are trivial and unimportant issues, as what he delivers as an overall scene is what is important, as is the simple fact that this is "art" and not fine-scale model building as we try to practice.
There was a great moment in front of the doughnut shop piece that really drove one home the most important point of what the artist is doing...and that is engaging the public, and causing them to feel. Here was this group of four women, ooohing, chatting, laughing, and reminiscing stories of when they lived in New York and used to walk by or go to this place.....and for just a moment, they seemed to have completely forgotten about where they were, and gone to another time and place. What more could an artist ask for. (other than selling their work...which he had; from the red dots on the wall, they all seem to have sold.)
An interesting , and important (albeit maybe a bit sappy sounding...but admirable approach) point to make about the artist and his work, he clearly notes that he is not out there to compete with others, or try to out-do others, but he is merely trying to do better than his previous effort. That he is trying with each piece to challenge himself, advance his skills, and do better than he did the previous day.
He's an impressionist. It goes with the territory.
If he were a modeler in the same sense we are he might have completed only one or two projects.
Russ
(By the way, my cats are running around the house like maniacs. They almost simultaneously jumped on my music computer desk as they chased each other down the hall and into my office. Hilarious.)
"Art", should only be classed as such when it is viewed from outside of the cultural context from within which it was created*, at least that's always been my maxim, in this instance topographically it seems to work? Although much more usually it is chronologically measured.
I'm pleased that you had a good evening/time, a collective experience is all the more for heightening ones senses, and one gets to share, review and adjudge those same experiences through ever more "fresh eyes" as you hear and converse with other attendees - or even "overhear" their conversations!
I'm also not surprised to hear your "review", I can almost guarantee without question that mine would of concurred with it - although I suggest you're being ever so slightly euphemistic in your appraisal. This is one of the reasons why I REALLY struggle to acknowledge the general assumption that model making is in any way "Art". I see the notion bandied about on several forums sites and boards, and again I struggle to not get involved, mainly because I suspect it might be a one way discussion, as there would be just shouting coming the other way?
To me Model making is model making,................ these are "Assemblages". And it's the socio-statements contained here (see previous "Art" statement*) that bridge the gap between craft and Art.
His ends-piece proviso, is just that................. and a parry, or tip of the hat to crafts persons, artisans and [yes] model makers that may view his work with a critical eye.
As a sobering proviso of mine own .............. one must always bear in mind that perhaps the single most polished skill of the living and exhibiting artist ................ is that of self promotion!!!! - ambition is a very unattractive trait, and it's the devils own job to identify that black thread as it weaves its insidious way through any given scenario.
Given the skills levels that are evident on this site it's great to discuss the more rarefied aspects of what it is we try to emulate, although these conversations are much better with alcohol, wild eyed stares and theatrical gestures - "ah" - the student union bar!! I miss those arguments........ sophomoric bliss.
PS............ please excuse me for responding in "soundbites" ........... it's really way to early for intellectual insight and I haven't even had breakfast yet.
Andi,
Actually I not at all being euphemistic. I truly did enjoy the different constructions/pieces. I did however very clearly have to separate what this artist creates and what Chuck creates, and not to mentally compare/judge them in respect to each-other as I was looking at the exhibit.
What I found in this artist's pieces, and I personally find this a very good and important concept/approach to include in ones work; one I frequently use in presentations in my work, and often in my own model building; and that is what I call "the implied read"....it is when something in an image or a model represents or implies the piece/item/detail/etc. ...but it is not exact or super clear/detailed, and thus lets the eye fill in the rest...often interjecting the viewers own emotions, vision and ideas, (IE. his Master lock was there in shape and rough ribbing pattern....so we all know/read it as a Master lock, or his latch-plate is there square and gold toned, but it lacks the shine of brass, the beveled edges, and the screws holding it in place) I consider this "implied read approach" an "artistic" thing...along the lines of a painting , water-color, etching or highly detailed pencil sketch....you view the overall scene, or a part of the scene, while your mind subconsciously fills in the little nooks and crannies drawing from it's own experiences and ideas.
Where-as were this one of Chuck's pieces, the lock would be scale spot-on..probably even have the right serrated key opening turned at a jaunty angle, and the latch-plate would have just the correct sheen and wear, with some scratches, the screws turned at various angle, and one maybe missing or slightly coming out from the surface. ...even the screw slots would show wear from use. This is of course also art..but compared to the above it is at the ends of Vermeer, Photorealism, or actual photography. Your mind does not need to fill in any gaps....the entire scene is there for you to look deep into in awe, noticing all the fine details and being stunned by the replication of things that you have seen/experienced before, in real life.
It is actually very easy (and interesting) to do a compare-contrast of this artist and Chuck, and how they approach their assemblage; as both model in a similar scale(s), and both do sort of flat/façade shadow-box type scenes.
...it's late, so I don't know if I am making sense.
(EDIT: Maybe the "implied read" aspect of the artist was my own interpretation, and not something he did intentionally...it could just be that he cant do a perfect lock, or a perfect door plate...or simply did not want to; regardles, what he created/fabricated has the same effect.)
Thanks Marc and Andi -
I think this is an interesting, relevant, and thought-provoking discussion.
This Forum is also the right place to have it.
It would be very interesting to see what the creator (artist/craftsman/whatever) himself
Would write in response to this. Any chance we could have this thread forwarded to him,
with a request for comment?... Russ?
Carlo
I didn't realize the show ran for a few weeks. Probably won't make it, but thanks for the nice eyewitness account Marc. I like Mr. Hagee's philosophy, it sounds like he is having fun with this. His work is somewhat similar to William Christenberry's models, or as he calls them, sculptures. Those are more impressionistic than these but I like both styles. I like how so many artists are using miniatures to tell their tales.
The art vs. craft debate is unwinnable to me since "art" is such a subjective thing. Still it is fun to discuss. All I can say is these are a lot more interesting and art-ish to me than a urinal hanging on a gallery wall. Well, unless I had to go!
I am more of a tree modeler than a forest one. Mostly like a still life but without the imaginative spin a more artistic person could put on it. Technical observation; replicating things I see but lacking "interpretation" (wish I had that ability). And like Russ brought up, the price is very little output. Still, fun in its own way.
I spend 20 minutes writing a reply, but everything has been said. I love the discussion. Now really just need Mr.Hage's point of view.
What happened ?
Go away for a few days and the forum gets all intellectual ............... just realised there may be a subtle message there!
Anyway I like his stuff, certainly has an eye for all the little bits that set the scene
Quote from: marc_reusser on June 20, 2012, 11:13:16 PM
An interesting , and important (albeit maybe a bit sappy sounding...but admirable approach) point to make about the artist and his work, he clearly notes that he is not out there to compete with others, or try to out-do others, but he is merely trying to do better than his previous effort. That he is trying with each piece to challenge himself, advance his skills, and do better than he did the previous day.
I keep trying/hoping to make some progress in that direction myself. Occasionally, Mr. Sappy ends up somewhat happy that way! ;D (By contrast, the comparison thing can lead to bouts of severe depression and discouragement.) :'( So, then you just sing the Tin Man's song and go on about things ....
Another sappy thing on this end ... you used the word "lifeless" to describe how brick should appear, which struck me as an extremely appropriate thought that never occurred to me and could actually prove quite useful. ;)
Meanwhile, these pieces are quite extraordinary ... straddling the line between modeling and art quite nicely.
Cheers,
Dallas
Quote from: gfadvance on June 21, 2012, 10:04:24 AM
Go away for a few days and the forum gets all intellectual ...............
It alternates ... this week it'll be intellectual ... next week there will be a thread that goes just a "wee" bit too far about using urine to age metal panels or some such.
Quote from: Malachi Constant on June 21, 2012, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: gfadvance on June 21, 2012, 10:04:24 AM
Go away for a few days and the forum gets all intellectual ...............
It alternates ... this week it'll be intellectual ... next week there will be a thread that goes just a "wee" bit too far about using urine to age metal panels or some such.
Either that or Marc will go on again about the party in his pants...
Paul
Forgot to mention, while at the gallery, I picked up a very cool book on New York store fronts; "Store Front: The Disappearing Face of New York"...it even has pics of almost all the shops that the models were based on. A great book if you like this kind of stuff.
http://www.jamesandkarlamurray.com/JamesandKarlaMurraySTOREFRONT.html (http://www.jamesandkarlamurray.com/JamesandKarlaMurraySTOREFRONT.html)
The price at the link shows it as costing $65; the gallery was selling them for $27.
You can see some of the storefronts shown in the book, at this porfoloio link, and by clicking on the other portfolio page links in the lower left corner.
http://www.jamesandkarlamurray.com/JamesandKarlaMurrayPortfolioStorefronts.html (http://www.jamesandkarlamurray.com/JamesandKarlaMurrayPortfolioStorefronts.html)
Marc
I want to say something about Andi's comment: Sometimes a real artist seems almost oblivious to the fact he creates art. Perhaps one reason is that, in the past half century or so, the idea of "art" (not real art) has descended into "who slings bulls--t" in the most popular way. In other words, if I were to put a small end table against the wall, toss a small tablecloth over it, overturn a bottle of bourbon, cordon it off, and post a "description" next to it (maybe something like "Culmination of a bad and drunken evening") people would think it were art.
If, on the other hand, I were to put one of the finest examples of modeling from this forum on display without such a "description" the artsy crowd might dismiss it as "merely a model" or simply uninteresting or perhaps too realistic to be "art".
In reality the first example requires neither skill nor imagination but the salesmanship of the description vaunts it into the realm of "art" to those nincompoops who fall for such garbage. The second example requires observational skills, creativity, vision, manual dexterity, and genuine artistry (whether precisely realistic or impressionistic). But it has no pretentious words to propel it beyond what it is.
Form versus substance.
In today's art world, the former always wins. It's all about contemporary fashion and talk and reputation and pretense. In today's real world, much true art never finds a receptive audience.
Rembrandt, were he alive and painting today, would be dismissed as irrelevant because, after all, we have cameras. And some jackass who paints a yellow dot on a field of gray might be heralded as an artistic genius if he can sling the right line of bull.
Andi, you sell yourself short, along with many of your colleagues here. But I admire your modesty.
Russ
Quote from: finescalerr on June 22, 2012, 01:14:11 AM
... Perhaps one reason is that, in the past half century or so, the idea of "art" (not real art) has descended into "who slings bulls--t" in the most popular way. In other words, if I were to put a small end table against the wall, toss a small tablecloth over it, overturn a bottle of bourbon, cordon it off, and post a "description" next to it (maybe something like "Culmination of a bad and drunken evening") people would think it were art.
... reminds me of an exhibit I came across at a vernissage happening in a local art gallery: an empty picture frame hanging on the wall, entitled "framed nothing", raising a lot of interest and exaltation ... :P
To quote Pablo Picasso: I needed a lifetime, enabling me to paint like a child ... ;)
Cheers
Russ,
I see your point, but the humbleness is what I love about this place. It's pure modesty here!
I doesn't matter if we call ourselves artists, craftsmen or miniaturists. (as long as I don't end up in the "toy train" category)
Not to change directions of the thread, but since this seems to be an "Arty" discussion it might be an appropriate time
to mention that I've been invited to have a show of dioramas at a gallery in Philadelphia this September. Pieces will include
the "Playland Arcade", "The Rainbow Motel", "Home Sweet Home" (the camper). and a couple of others. I'll post details
as the show gets closer if anyone's interested.
Should be an interesting experience..........
Wow, Congrats Ken! Very cool. Right next to the Barnes collection I imagine?
Congratulations Ken, your work is more than worthy of a gallery space. And should provoke much discussion, along with copious amounts of admiration too I would suggest - You already of course - have mine.
Having said that once you are "exhibited", you can never use the term "Arty" again; you see it's such a derogatory term, dismissive at its most benign - spiteful and naive at best.
Just being all temperamental and defensive you understand............. ;)
Congrat's again............... well done.
Quote from: Chuck Doan on June 22, 2012, 10:48:28 AM
Right next to the Barnes collection I imagine?
Ha! That's been causing quite a stir arond here. Barnes never wanted the collection moved,
but its new home is in a building build to duplicate the original gallery space. Haven't seen it yet.....
Congrats! That's quite an honor!
Congrats Ken!
Funny about this thread.
I was at the Hirshhorn gallery yesterday.
Im sorry but most of the "art" looked like it was created by
a brain damaged 7 year old.
Quite the contrast to what I saw at the National Gallery.
The "masters" really were just that!
Marty
That's cool Ken. I'll be looking forward to seeing the exhibit. I'm close by in Trenton. Geoff
Geoff....just sent you a PM.
KH
Congrats Ken. Keep us updated.
That's why I dropped out of art school. Had I stayed, my senior show would have been titled, "How I Faked My Way Through Art School." I just made whatever I thought looked "cool" or gave me enjoyment, and then made up the meaning afterwards to get the grade. Had I known better going in, I would have looked for a commercial art/illustration program, which would have been much closer to what I wanted to learn. (To be fair, though, the experience eventually did point me in the direction I went, which eventually led to what I do now, so it's not like it was completely useless.)
Quote from: Andi Little on June 22, 2012, 11:01:49 AM
. . ... ... Having said that once you are "exhibited",
you can never use the term "Arty" again;
you see it's such a derogatory term, dismissive at its most benign - spiteful and naive at best.
Just being all temperamental and defensive you understand............. ;)
Congrat's again............... well done.
Interesting
to
my mind, "Arty" doesent apply to an artist, its more "Arty Crafty" with the emphasis on the crafty bit, like the tongue in cheek aproach to assemblages that are called art, but in fact appear to be chances to cash in on the moneyed people with more money than taste.
Ask yourself why living artists got so little from their work while alive?
And their works only appreciated after their death?
Take the Mona Lisa, in an Art Dealers eyes, while still alive if Leonardo had decided to do 5 or 6 duplicates in their eyes they could not so easily have sold it as a "one off" or
Valuable "Collectors piece".
Having worked on the fringes of the collecable diecast market, can I observe that it is wonderful to observe two collectors trying to out do each other if you have a collection of "rare pieces" that they just have to have as the only example of in their collection
Quote from: granitechops on June 24, 2012, 11:40:54 PM"Arty" doesent apply to an artist, its more "Arty Crafty" with the emphasis on the crafty bit,
......................Ta-dah! And therein lies my premise. In truth the initial statement was made really quite tongue-in-cheek, and also to introduce an element of levity into an otherwise (highly) volatile subject. But the truth is as you quote it. "Arty" is usually understood to be a pretty low-brow designation, and when applied to a Fine Art circumstance really does come across as basically - "a smack in the chops".
Art is an intensely subjective area of appreciation and understanding. Personally I think Art is something that should be understood instinctively, I honestly don't think it should have to be explained: and on this level those store-fronts pieces work .... BUT, as I mentioned they will only take on their true value when they are viewed from outside of the cultural and social context within which they were created. At the present time the greatest impact is from the comparison to the photographs, and the artistic strength comes from the recreation of that scene, and the subsequent placement of that reality into a galleried environment: thus making the assemblage simply a pastiche of reality - but in effect it actually becomes [intellectually] "a found object".
As time passes and we lose contact with the social conventions of the period, the greater the value {intrinsic} of the piece, simply because of the change of viewpoint. remember at its base level the "Mona Lisa" was nothing but a portrait - by today's standards a photo! Only with the passage of time has it accrued a value beyond its net worth, and if you're unsure? Explain the glee with which we all paw over period sepia images, photos of down town Detroit during the Motown years [et-al] - this is the essence of Fine Art over Craft, no matter how sublime that craft may be!
Apologies to all for the clumsy explanation - as I must dash: I've got class in 10min's....... oo-er!
:)
Quote from: Andi Little on June 25, 2012, 01:53:03 AM
Quote from: granitechops on June 24, 2012, 11:40:54 PM"Arty" doesent apply to an artist, its more "Arty Crafty" with the emphasis on the crafty bit,
...................... Explain the glee with which we all paw over period sepia images, photos of down town Detroit during the Motown years [et-al] - this is the essence of Fine Art over Craft, no matter how sublime that craft may be!
- as I must dash: I've got class in 10min's....... oo-er!
Well in my case the pleasure comes from seeing the historic scene as it actually was,( unless photo staged of course) as opposed to some modern dramatist portraying it as an authentic scene, which they did not see as an eye witness.
I love the questions such photos raise, such as why is that urban scene deserted, what time of day was it taken? early before the crowds were about?, or a holiday? why were changes made to that building for example etc., etc.Hope your class went well!