"Minature Wargames 398 - Arthur Harman article" Topic

I know that Arthur Harman's article has provoked/inspired a couple of comments here and there (see link and link ). I wan't going to comment on this directly, but rather ask: has anyone done a project in the simplified style he discusses? I don't mean block painting and dip, but even simpler than that. Maybe dominant colour spray plus flesh tones only (as an example)? I think it would have been helpful in the article to have perhaps an actual example – figures and terrain – of how this kind of project would work, in terms of time taken and final look.

For those who haven't read the article, the very basic gist is that gamers chould consider adopting deliberately simplistic painting styles, perhaps in the style of some of the art of the period, in order to get troops on the table and gaming in the shortest time possible.

I've always painted that way. And I don't think Arthur is advocating NO detail. Just not doing all the fancy shading and fiddly detail that you wouldn't see on real people at a distance.

Not really going to reiterate what I said on my Blog – which is one of Whirlwinds links but I simply don;' accept that being good at something puts others off- whch was one of the premises of the article

Well, some people are definitely put off, for the painting element (amongst others): link and IIRC (from an old Mike Siggins' column in WI?) that GW briefly dropped (or considered dropping?) 'Eavy Metal from WD because its customer feedback was that the images were more intimidating than inspiring! In the latter case however the people who did find it inspiring won the argument.

Whether more people find very high quality paint jobs inspiring or intimidating would be pretty hard to say. I'd imagine that those of us who are gamers currently don't find it that intimdating, but you'd have to ask a much wider sample of people (those who bought a few Space Marines then ditched them; those who looked at a couple of games and then thought "too pricey, too much work" to know what the overall effect was. But I suppose it might be a good thing for someone to write an article for those people – although they might have found it more useful if there had been more specific examples. Which sort of takes me back to the OP…

I think Harman has a point – the article has illustrations of some 'Old School' figures and painting/basing styles. They are no more or less valid than modern preferences. But they are probably a lot quicker to get on the table which I think is part of his point.

It all depends on the aesthetic you want. When I started in the late 70s as a teenager that kind of look seemed perfectly acceptable as did terraced hills etc.

Personally I can never understand the aesthetic acceptability of beautifully painted, individualized miniatures on realistic terrain which is then covered in plastic casualty markers, and labels depicting the names of regiments. To me this destroys the 'realistic' non 'old school' aesthetic of these games. A bright coloured plastic ring or gem on such a set up looks absurd.It might look OK when the figures themselves are bright and shiny and the terrain representative rather than realistic.

I doubt whether really good painting puts people off the hobby though. Gilder's efforts shown in 'Military Modelling' in the late 70s inspired me. I worked hard with 3 colour shading even then.

In a way I'd like to to be able to justify really simple paint jobs. It would certainly speed things up, and I'm one of those who plays DBA or Neil Thomas because I don't have the time for anything else. However, many of the lovely figures around to day would just look silly painted in block colours and gloss varnished. Maybe I should get a bunch of Minifigs and see what I can come up with…

OPPS my r previos not should have read "except" rather than "accept" .
Of course the photos of minis in Mr Harmans article were placed ther by Henry the Editor- the pictures of the Prints were,I assume, Mr Harmans.

I also think it is nonsense …

I used to paint that way when I was ten … it was very good but I have moved on – I see no reason why I should still paint like a ten-year-old and I see no reason why my wargame collection should not also be a 'collectors standard' collection.

I was always inspired, not put off, by the fine collections of the long time collectors and enthusiasts.

Phil

I never suggested that anyone should deliberately paint to a lower standard than that of which they were capable, provided they enjoyed doing so. That would, indeed, be ridiculous. If someone gets pleasure from painting and playing with 'collectors' standard' toy soldiers, that's their choice and I have nothing but respect for their skill – though I do question their wisdom in subjecting their workmanship to the hazards of the tabletop.

What I do deny is the implication that people who wish to wargame are obliged to possess or develop such skill in order to enjoy the hobby. As I pointed out, many of the figures illustrated in books by Featherstone, Wise et al. were not particularly well painted, but that obviously did not prevent them creating enjoyable wargames that inspired many of my generation.

In my career as a teacher, I came across many youngsters who were attracted to Warhammer by the expertly painted figures in White Dwarf and GW shops, but rapidly became frustrated by their inability to achieve a similar standard within a reasonable time and gave up. I myself abandoned wargaming with figures for kriegsspiel and other map games for several years because I realised I could never paint as well as the toy soldiers I saw in magazines and at shows.

I do, of course, appreciate that there are others who are not intimidated but inspired by expert painting and high quality modelling, attempt to achieve the same standard, succeed and become very happy wargamers. Good luck to them!

But I hope they will accept that I and others may feel differently and that we have the right to express our opinion and wargame as we please, too.

What I find strange is how outraged some people have been, when I made no suggestion that anyone should stop doing what they enjoy, but merely offered an alternative approach that might appeal to newcomers and people like me who cannot paint so well, but would like to play figure wargames without undue expense and effort.

I think the skills people should be mastering are accuracy and neatness, and colour appreciation. These are foundational to anything more sophisticated. You need to be able to first, get the paint where it's supposed to go, and second, be able to recognise adequate consistency of tone and opacity. If you want to then leave it at a neatly finished block painted effect at least it will be a competent block paint job; but in this day and age, with the advent of dip/stain painting, for a only a minimal additional expenditure of time and effort you can achieve a superior graduated effect. The only adjustment required to your block painting is to use much lighter and brighter shades.

Hi Arthur,
Can I first preface my response to your message by saying how much I appreciate all the great articles and writing you have produced over the years and the inspiration they have provided for me in the hobby.

I guess my position is that I fundamentally disagree with the premise in the article that aesthetics dominate our enjoyment of wargaming, deterring us from getting stuck in and the suggestion that the roving photographer or blogger is to blame.

I have to say as I stated in my piece on my blog that I was surprised and I have to say somewhat disappointed that you feel this is the state of the hobby. I should add that there is no outrage on my part and I absolutely agree that everyone has a right to express their opinion and those opinions should be treated with respect.

I do accept that some people, I think a minority, might feel like that, but that should not be used as a justification for adopting a "can't paint, won't paint" style of thinking very often designed to mask a frustration at not feeling able to produce figures and games to some predetermined standard set by others. That of course does not mean that if you are happy to play the kind of games played by Featherstone, Wise et al, that is not alright also. Whatever gets you through the night is alright as the late great John Lennon would say and I would just want to encourage people to play wargames in whatever style, as that only helps build the hobby for all of us and we can all find fun in whatever games we choose to play.

I am a parent of two boys who went through the Warhammer phase of their introduction to the hobby and have experienced firsthand the frustration you describe. I could have adopted the approach suggested and by implication reinforced their feelings of inability and inadequacy and left them to try and relieve the frustration by playing board games, or go off and do something else.

Instead because I love this hobby and was passionate that the boys should be encouraged to find that passion themselves, if they wanted to; I preferred an approach of patient supportive encouragement together with a few pointers in developing their technique through small incremental steps, and looking at and finding inspiration from the techniques of others. There were gaps in this progression as interests, like girls, hove into view, but both lads have developed their skills and enjoy the feeling of having got to a level with their hobby through effort and application. At no time do they, or I for that matter, allow others to determine the style of games we play and the standard of figures we put on the table. We are free thinking adults perfectly able to set those standards ourselves and we don't give that right to anyone else. More importantly we encourage others to adopt a similar approach and I hope the spirit of "JJ's Wargames" reflects that.

You state you are merely offering a low cost minimalist approach to newcomers and people like yourself that cannot paint well. That is fine, however I feel it is equally valid to encourage those others who strive to produce the figures and games they want and to offer help and support to overcome any limitations they may feel they want to improve upon, whilst also celebrating the incredible skills and great games around that help to showcase our hobby to the wider public and, I feel, attract more people into it.

Thank you for a very thought provoking article and the debate it has generated.

Jonathan – "JJ's Wargames"
link

Jonathan,
Firstly, thank you for your kind remarks about my articles.

Secondly, I am pleased to read a thoughtful, reasoned and civil response to my recent article.

You write 'but that should not be used as a justification for adopting a "can't paint, won't paint" style of thinking very often designed to mask a frustration at not feeling able to produce figures and games to some predetermined standard set by others.'

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but if I appreciate that I can never achieve a certain standard of painting, why shouldn't I decide either not to paint at all or to adopt a different aesthetic that I can produce?

I'm never hid the fact I am not a good painter of figures, and I've never advocated that anyone should deliberately adopt a lower standard than whatever gives them personal pleasure.

Big Andy misrepresents my position when he writes 'Let's all be c**p to get the kiddies in' – my article was aimed not at people like him and you for whom painting beautiful figures is an important, if not the major part of their hobby, but at others: some who simply can't paint to those standards, or can't/don't want to spend a long time developing such skills, and those for whom, perhaps, – like me – painting is a chore, not a pleasure or at all therapeutic.

To say that it is not necessary to achieve/copy a particular aesthetic style is not, ipso facto, to denigrate those who have, or to discourage others from emulating them – if that is what they really want. My point is that – unless you want to – you don't have to go down that route.

I would contend that the mainstream wargame magazines and numerous blogs already 'encourage those others who strive to produce the figures and games they want and to offer help and support to overcome any limitations they may feel they want to improve upon, whilst also celebrating the incredible skills' – my article merely dared to suggest there are other approaches.

You'll notice I omitted 'great games' – IMHO the quality of a wargame, as opposed to a diorama, is determined by other things than the – largely invisible during play – detail &c of the figures.

Having read your blog, I feel that, fundamentally, we have different views of what we want from wargaming, and how we go about achieving those goals. You say 'Painting and modelling is an important aspect of our hobby' – well, sorry it isn't for me! Perhaps we can simply agree to differ.

A question for you Arthur – which methods/standards have you adopted in practice? And which armies do you yourself use now?

I agree with Arthur. I don't have the time, patience, ability, or eyesight to paint figures (if indeed I play a wargame that uses figures), and I'm quite happy to pay someone to paint them, or not paint them at all.

Whirlwind,
The last figures I painted were Revell plastic 95th Rifles for a skirmish game – years ago now – in the same, simple block colour style I have used since I first began wargaming with Airfix figures.

I'm about to embark upon pseudo-Napoleonic Imagi-Nations Red and Blue (and possibly Green for allies) armies, using 10mm figures. I'm seriously considering paying a painting service, rather than enduring the eye straining, time consuming task of doing so myself, in which case I will have the cheapest, simplest standard they offer. I may paint the odd general or staff officer figure myself…

@arthur1815

I have sent you an email (if you are still using the same email address as you were about five years ago).

I don't understand what all the boo hooing is about. If you are talented enough and enjoy painting your figures to a museum standard go do it. But don't label other peoples work as that of ten year olds. That's pretty weak.

Painting is part of the hobby, but it isn't all of it. We all do the bits we like and ignore the bits we don't. The point is we do what we do because it is enjoyable FOR US. That doesn't mean it has to be enjoyable for others. If we want our hobby to prosper we need to make sure that others are not ridiculed if their work isn't the same standard as ours. Just stop and think back to when you started to paint if someone had ridiculed your first paint jobs how would you have reacted?

I like to paint but my work isn't top notch never was never will be. As long as my figures are painted and can be recognised at game distance I'm good. If I had the time I'd paint to a better standard because painting is a skill that has to be practised regularly. Not everyone has the time to do that. Just be happy when players at least try. It's the game that counts in the long run.