First a few questions which have come in:


"I was curious how Tom sculpted the beard on the Joseph nativity figure"


With hair I use several techniques depending the texture. The important thing the remember is you can’t really recreate most kinds of hair in small epoxy sculpture so you have to depict it by the impression it gives. In the case of Joseph I didn’t really have to think about it since I was basing the style on Renaissance woodcuts where fine close set lines are juxtaposed with clear space to get textural effects. I represented this effect in sculpture by forming the mass of the beard while the putty was very soft and cutting lots of fine parallel lines with my blunt exacto palette knife. I pushed this mass around to the shape I wanted thus stretching and to some extent smoothing and blending the lines. Then before the epoxy set too much I went in with a pin (the hook end of one of my tools) and teased out tiny loops. Rather like the technique for making chain mail but as random extensions of the wavy parts of the beard.

"When you are doing
armor, after you have done your initial shaping and smoothing of the
surface, do you later go back and trim it when the epoxy-resin/putty
has set to a specific point, or do you wait for it to cure completely
before doing a final shaping and polishing?"

I have tried everything I can think of with plate armor and not yet found a quick or completely satisfactory way to make it. It’s a pain. I nearly always make the plates smooth then add details with a separate piece of epoxy. I try to avoid trimming and polishing as it opens pores in the epoxy surface, though this is a good thing if I want to stick something to it. The most important thing is to apply the final coat of epoxy thin for control.

"do you do one layer and let it cure
completely before moving to the next?"

It depends how separate they are to appear. I’d always apply a paldron separately and I apply the knee and elbow pieces after I’ve made the underlying plates but not the segments in an arm piece or around a knee which lie very flat to each other.

Then some news about the Fox WWII line:

I am currently slogging my way through the three machine guns required to complete the release. I’m not sure if this is the most tedious and frustrating work I’ve ever had to do, it’s my experience the mind is not reliable in such judgments, I do know it seems like it. For those of you who don’t sculpt I can only describe it as being like having to go through your normal daily activities with boxing gloves on while being shocked with a tazer at random intervals. Nevertheless I have managed to get the American .30 caliber more or less done to an acceptable standard, that’s my thumbnail in the background.

This entry was posted by Tom Meier on Friday, December 21. 2007 at 07:44. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own blog.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

    No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  1. James says:
    #1 2007-12-21 10:11 (Reply)

    That's a shame they're such a pain. Is it because the detail is a notch smaller than normally done on your sculpts or is it that the gun is just so delicate and hard to grip? I am one of those who doesn't sculpt but the detail doesn't seem any more fine than some of the freakishly small stuff on some of the other miniatures (the chin strap buckle on that one German, for example).

  2. Tom says:
    #1.1 2007-12-21 10:56 (Reply)

    There are several reasons; because the surfaces are so regular and must be in perfect alignment and plane to one another, because I’m working from photographs which are difficult to interpret (not that the photos are bad, the reference material is some of the best I’ve had. Pictures of complicated mechanical objects are just hard to conceptualize)and I don’t have the best tools and materials for the way many of the parts must be fabricated.

    The result is it takes a very long time and is emotionally draining since you get so little result for monumental effort. It’s also dispiriting that the final result is just good after all the work that went into it, though I have to say all the models of machine guns I have been supplied with, even in larger scales are poor.

  3. Randall says:
    #1.1.1 2007-12-21 16:56 (Reply)

    I'm sorry Tom, but I disagree. The results are not "just good". They are incredible! I can fully appreciate that mechanical objects are probably much harder to sculpt than more naturalistic forms and shapes, especially if you are not using the proper tools! Don't become dispirited, your work transcends and surpasses all your contemporaries. Many would give a child for your gift! Don't despair, just remember soon enough this will be done (and there will be more life to get you down...lol)! Who told you the path of an artist would ever be easy? Sincerely, this work is stunning! I can't wait to hold a copy in my hands, and knowing your sweat is in every piece just makes it that much more special. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family!

  4. Ming-Hua says:
    #1.1.2 2007-12-21 18:17 (Reply)

    In what way do you find those pictures hard to conceptualize? Would having scale drawing make it easier? Or is it something else that you find difficult to visualize.

    I've heard from quite a number of sculptors they find mechanical work more difficult and I've always been a little puzzled about that.
    I'm in the middle that I can do both ok, but I have a technical background. I do know my working method is totally different when I do mechanical. With me it's more scale modeling than pure sculpting. Is it like that with you too?

    That .30 looks great by the way. Few scale modelers would be able to do that. I'm especially impressed by the regularity of the holes in the cooling mantle and the regularity of the hole shapes.

  5. Tom says:
    #1.1.2.1 2007-12-21 20:48 (Reply)

    Sufficiently detailed drawings would have been better, ideally with cut away and exploded views. The problem is I don’t understand why the gun is the way it is and unlike an organism it’s design seems to a large degree arbitrary. With photos of blued metal it’s hard to tell the exact relation of one plane to another and there is no reason I conceptualize why it should not be a number of different configurations. I just don’t get it the way I do organic shapes and it makes me feel a bit lost.

    This American .30 cal is by far the easiest, it’s basically a shoebox with a hinged lid and some stuff sticking off it, the two German machine guns are the ones I was really complaining about, they are mechanical sculptures.

  6. Ming-Hua says:
    #1.1.2.1.1 2007-12-23 12:05 (Reply)

    Interesting reply. Let's see if I understand it correctly. Is this what you mean:
    Most of the organic creatures we deal with in miniatures are variations on the same type of anatomy (mostly mamals) and all have the basic functions like movement, lifting, etc. So I guess if you know enough about one, it's easy to connect to another as it's a variation.
    Mechanical systems have such groups too but I suppose a problem is that there are many more common groups (cars, machineguns, hamers) so there is less of a common ground. Also, things have been designed and many do not grow from the same basic design. So that may be why it seems arbitrary. For instance, a MG34 and M1919 .30 are both made for shooting off bullets in an automatic cycle. So why does one look like a box and the other as a big rifle?


    I can see that. For me it works different since I'm a mechanical engineer and therefore trained to understand machines. the way I deal with the diversity is by dissecting a machine into main and subfunctions and then the parts needed for this.
    With sculpting I will split it up in the main basic shapes and then go from there (3D computer models can help). As you say, a .30 is a box with a barrel on it.

  7. Ming-Hua says:
    #1.1.2.1.1.1 2007-12-23 13:54 (Reply)

    Tom, in my original message there were a couple of links to documentation. Did you receive those? Or should I post them to you directly?

  8. Tom says:
    #1.1.2.1.1.1.1 2007-12-23 18:52 (Reply)

    Yes we got the links but the anti-spam software won’t allow them to be posted. If you make a post with too many links it gets re-routed to Carin (the site administrator) and she can post it without the links.

    The schematic on the American .30 cal had some useful information, particularly the mechanism for controlling the elevation which I have not yet done. Oddly though there are minor differences from the photos I have, the end of the barrel for example.

    I shall have to study the exploded views of the German machine guns to see if they help, many thanks.

    The problem is pretty much as you say, I look at an animal and can generally see why it must be as it is. There is a sort of grammar to animals and faces, they are always composed according to a rule which once you have got an understanding of you can compose, so to speak. While some design elements of machines also conform to rule it is not as exact and parts of the design are quite arbitrary.

  9. Ming-Hua says:
    #1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 2007-12-24 02:25 (Reply)

    You're welcome. If you need anything else, feel free to contact me.

    Don't be alarmed by the barrel end. There were several types of .30 Browning guns and variations within that. If you go to browningmgs.com and select "THE BROWNING MACHINE GUN" you will see two pictures of the M1919A4 which show one with a thick end and the other with the thin end you made. By the way, the M1919A4 is the most common WW2 variant of the gun, so I'd aim for that.
    If you want more info on the elevation mechanism, there are detail pictures on the same site. See (from the main menu):
    MOUNTS and
    M2 TRIPOD BUILD/RESOURCE SITE

  10. Kevin Chenevert says:
    #2 2007-12-22 22:41 (Reply)

    Tom, why don't you use machined brass or copper tubing and bars and add to them. Few sculptors seem to use all of the premade bits and forms from the products that we toss away every day. Is it cheating? I recall one sculptor making castings of piano wire to make cable for robot type figures. Why not just use the piano wire or wrap fine wire around a thicker core. I have done this with lots of success and it cast up no problem. I see a lot of sculptors doing a lot more work than they need to for some items. To me it would seem to make the most economic sense to use the item or material best suited for a quality and timely result. Is there some philosophical "purity" issue about sculpting something completely out of green stuff or do most sculptors not think about doing it another way? No tone or attitude is intended by this comment, just curious. What are your opinion and thoughts on this Tom?

  11. Tom says:
    #2.1 2007-12-23 11:35 (Reply)

    I’d gladly use anything which would help me to make the shape I want - provided of course I know what the shape is supposed to be. The problem is the thing is just too small. The smallest drill bit I’ve ever owned cut a hole only a bit smaller than the vents in the barrel cowling and simply drilling into a brass or plastic rod would not give the correct effect as the bottom of the hole would not conform to the barrel shape underneath. I can imagine there are tools and techniques for cutting something this small out of plastic or brass, but I don’t have them and buying and learning how to use them for this one project seemed counter-productive.

  12. Ming-Hua says:
    #2.1.1 2007-12-23 18:14 (Reply)

    So, how did you make the vents?

  13. Tom says:
    #2.1.1.1 2007-12-23 18:57 (Reply)

    I made the barrel then coated it with epoxy to make the cowling, first applying a bit of silicone to make sure the outer coating didn’t stick too well. Then I punched the holes with a circle cutter. When the epoxy had set I picked off the centers of the circles with a sharpened pin.

  14. Sandy White says:
    #3 2008-02-05 12:45 (Reply)

    Off topic:

    Do you have, or are you planning on recording your sculpting, so that we could see how you actually do this stuff?

    If I didn't see the photos, I would swear it was all computers!

    Any thoughts on getting your technique on film?

    Lastly, you have mentioned some times on how long it takes to sculpt but on average you find that it is about 1 week per miniature?

    Sorry, but I could not find an FAQ section...

    Sandy

  15. Tom says:
    #3.1 2008-02-05 18:28 (Reply)

    I could try to take a series of photos as I work but I’m so busy right now it’s not on the top of my to do list.

    No, it depends on the figure, I don’t think I’ve ever spent a whole work week (40 hours) on one 30mm sized figure. Generally a portrait figure (one with a special face or other special features) takes about 20 hours. A figure with something particularly difficult like plate decorated armor might take 25 or even 30 hours. A standard troop figure 10 to 15.

  16. Sandy White says:
    #3.1.1 2008-02-07 11:38 (Reply)

    Well that is astonishing that you can complete these in such a short time. I honestly can’t get my head around it really. I have seen a photo of you once but it only “showed” two arms and two hands – did I miss something, or can you sculpt with your feet as well???

    From where I sit in this craft, looking up at just about everyone, I can tell you that if you would take just one figure and perform the labor around capturing your technique - it would surely change how many of us even approach the art.

    I like to write, and know that: a picture paints a thousand words, but if you had just one detailed set of photos – or just turned on the video recorder – it would speak volumes.

    If you turn on the recorder – I could get others to edit the raw video and give back to you for posting.

    Would a petition help? I could get signatures…

    Thanks again for responding,
    Sandy
    SandyWhite90@hotmail.com
    http://SandyWhite90.spaces.live.com

  17. Ming-Hua says:
    #3.1.1.1 2008-02-07 18:43 (Reply)

    A photoseries would be interesting, but I don't think it will help you as much as you think.

    I've attended Tom's classes and studied his work. And in my opinion what makes Tom special is not his 'technique'. If it comes to manipulating putty his methods are similar to other sculptors. It's only in details that it may sometimes be different but it's not the key reason he can do what he does.
    What is special is his brain. The way it has been trained over the years makes that Tom has an extraordinary manual dexterity in sculpting, a perfect understanding of putty and a very deep knowledge of subjects like anatomy and drapery. And this is what it will take anybody to get to his level.
    A picture series will shows the result of this but I don't think you'll get to understand Tom's skills. It can even be misleading for beginners since they often have the tendency to concentrate on technique and tools (and may think they have found the holy grail), instead of understanding and learning.

    While I would be all in favour of showing a series I think that you need to go beyond that. Try to learn to understand what Tom is doing and what makes it possible for him to do so. Read his comments here and at other forums. Aks questions, ahve discussions, etc. If you can, follow his course and talk to him. If you want to ask about technique, don't concentrate on the how but the why. Why is it that Tom can make good faces: he understands anatomy, has seen many examples and has made great many already. Etc. Which of these prerequisites are you still missing - find out and work on those.

    Or at least that's the way I see it. Hope I managed to get it across. This is a tad on the abstract level and more difficult to explain really. Hope it helps though.

    Tom, do you want the pics I made at the course?

  18. Tom says:
    #3.1.1.1.1 2008-02-08 11:55 (Reply)

    Well I don’t think my idea of using play-dough to make the demonstration more visible worked very well but if you want to post them it’s OK by me.

    The only observation I have about what you have written is you rather make it sound like it’s deep and diligent study of anatomy and cloth that develops a complete, accurate conceptualization. I’d have said it’s more recognizing and discriminating between what matters and what doesn’t.

    There is infinite information in a face or a garment, the mind can’t conceive it as it is. What you must do is recognize what about the subject is important to another mind and work with that. You are really using sculpture to communicate about perception to another mind.

  19. Sandy White says:
    #4 2008-02-11 14:35 (Reply)

    I really don't want to a make a "tempest in a teacup", but I would love to see how you determine: "what matters and what does not". See? Just more questions on questions!

    I think that can only happen as you are creating, and could be captured almost as a stream of consciousness. I agree with Ming that without a ton of verbiage surrounding a single photo - we are still on the outside looking in...but I am sure many would still love to see the Play-dough Photos. I have found some gems in Ming’s set that she continues to put out on her site.

    All this still revolves around you and your time, so I will let this lie, but hope that if you want to take this on – I am sure we can find a way.

    Thanks,
    Sandy

  20. Ming-Hua says:
    #4.1 2008-02-11 17:23 (Reply)

    I think the play-dough demo went ok for me. It was a central line through the story that was well used by you to give pointers throughout the process (like the way folds behave around the elbow). And we could see the general way you work.

    At the course I offered to make all the pics so the others could instead easier concentrate on what was being told. Here is a link to them if you want to see them:
    http://www.kodakgallery.nl/I.jsp?c=7c5tetph.a3ej0vmt&x=0&y=-1h5yo4
    Don't worry about registring. Just go straight to the presentation.

    As to "what matters and what does not", I suppose I should have made that clear as well. This is a challenge in any type of creative work. As you said during the course, the sculpt is your means of communicating with the public. So, it has to be clear to understand.
    One example you gave was about drapery. This is a subject where you will should create an impression of drapery instead of recreating reality. The movement of it can be used to give the figure and impression and with heroic figures we need something more spectacular than what drapery looks like in real life.

    Hmm, past midnight again. Need to go to sleep. One last thing; Sandy, it's "he", not "she". Glad you found some of the stuff on my site useful.

  21. Tom says:
    #4.2 2008-02-11 17:25 (Reply)

    Not at all, I don’t mind you asking as long as you are reasonable about what you can expect.

    The what ‘matters and what does not’ is indeed the interesting part, not least because it somewhat different for each artist and every person experiencing the art. What you choose to matter is the most important part of what makes your style.

    I don’t know about ‘stream of consciousness’ my choices are partly habit and partly adjusted for the project, I’m pretty flexible, as a commercial artist has to be. I could try to explain most of it on any given piece (I’m not the best communicator) but it would take a lot of writing and I don’t have any appropriate projects lined up for some time.

    The work I have for the next six months at least is all contract and copyrighted and I don’t know if they’d like me using it as an example. When I get back to work on my Nativity set this summer I’ll see what I can do.

  22. Sandy White says:
    #5 2008-02-11 17:52 (Reply)

    Thanks for posting the images and all is appreicated.

    LOL - me of all people! I am an "he" as well and get crossed-up all the time.

    Thanks for the clarification and I look forward to your notes back on the listgroup.

    Best of luck Tom over the next 6 months.

    Sandy

  23. Nils says:
    #6 2008-02-22 12:06 (Reply)

    Hey Tom!

    I was looking through the pictures Ming-Hua linked to and one thing in particular made me curious. It's towards the end where we see you modeling a cape. Your work method, in my eyes, looks unsuitable to the properties of green stuff. Is there a difference between what we see in the pictures and how you would do it in a smaller size with green stuff? (I understand it must be hard demonstrating something in a different medium and a completely different size than what you usually do). Do you, for instance, lay on a thin sheet of GS to cover the whole thing or do you really build it up like that from big awkward lumps of GS? I just find it hard smoothing out large areas of green stuff, especially when it has to partly support itself (no steady base apart from those wires). Capes and other large pieces of cloth are some of the things I find most difficult, so I would be interested to know a little bit more about your method when it comes to those :-)

    Thanks,

    Nils Wadensten


Add Comment


Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA