While I'm back and getting very close to finishing the current work in progress squad, I decided to write up something that's been on my mind for a while. This relates to how miniatures are painted and what the end goal is.
I've seen a good deal of talk about how to make something look realistic, how to make reflections behave as they would in real life, or how a particular highlight should be done. There's a certain element to that: a viewer will notice immediately if something doesn't "look right' - a blue reflection from a fiery battlefield would look peculiar for example. It's also somewhat untrue given the scale.
When painting miniatures then the viewer is probably going to see them under different lighting conditions to which they were painted, and under different lighting to the setting in which the model is placed. Already this is at odds with realism: the angle of lighting alone is going to differ depending upon where the model is facing, where any overhead lights are, etc. Size plays a role too: sunlight diffused through cloud layers will be noticeably different to direct overhead sunlight on a cloudless day. The sheer distances involved make volume interactions differ on a small miniature compared to an eight foot tall armour plated killing machine.
Ultimately, painting for realism is not the actual goal. Painting for the impression of realism is far more popular. Taking this further and instead it can be painting for an impression.
Early on the folks at the 'Eavy Metal team learned that contrast is key. The photography and magazine printing technologies of the time required a high level of contrast to make the miniatures show up properly in publications and showcase them to customers. The human visual system keys on contrast for object definition and recognition: contrast of colour, contrast of brightness, contrast of depth, it's the difference that matters. This is the entire concept behind edge highlighting: define the outline to make viewing a model easier.
Freeing the mind from the shackles of realism and focusing on painting to form an impression lets you play with the model and guide a viewer in many different ways. Cylindrical objects painted as panel modulation suggests height over shape, edge highlighting can accentuate OSL effects, or by their omission create an impression of shadow without actually needing to darken an area. Exaggeration of lighting can make a flat surface curved, or a curved surface flat. I typically don't align the direction of light with a helmet so that I can focus the viewer's attention on the head more easily - abandoning realism gives the flexibility to adjust perception of the model.
It's not just highlights and shadows, but the very colours used can do this too. Painting a specific vampire in moonlight allowed me create an impression of a night scene without making the model dark. It's quite high in value in places, and then the yellow eyes stand out extra against the blues and purples otherwise used. If the model was truly at night then barely anything would be visible.
Going beyond this to the very brush strokes used, the choice of blending or not, and there's still a world of artistic possibilities to explore. I saw a post once of a model that didn't win a competition, yet was undeniably one of the most visually striking models on display. It simply wasn't painted as what is normally expected. Miniature painting won't come into its own as a more widely accepted art genre until that range of expression is opened up.
What does this have to do with my own painting? When it comes to painting Marines then it impacts which colours I'm choosing, and other than Blood Angels it impacts how "far" I'll go. Does the model look like what I was going for? If so, I can leave it there. Blood Angels are the exception - I'm trying to be less exacting when I paint them, but their whole core ideal is artistry to tame the rage within, and I like to depict that with my approach.
Food for thought at any rate.
-- silly painter
