Curious painting conventions

[Hobgoblin]

Here's a rare (and very nice) example of a "Perraultian" ogre miniature - based on Arthur Rackham's illustration of Puss In Boots.

[Hobgoblin]

I think the "Perraultian ogre" is where one of those Marauder landsknecht ogres would really come into its own. But is there an equivalent in 15mm? Hmm ...

[Barbarus]

I dont have the time right now to go into detail, but a lot of these things have their origin in some form of racism.

Not the wolves etc. obviously, but the mentioned dominance of white skin for fantasy minis, the skin colours for orcs, the "Drow" thing with that black-greyish skin etc.

It is because we still draw from old fantastic literature and this literature was written by white European men and just going back 60 years or so and further "racism" was still the "default" in a lot of minds.

Tolkien and lots of other authors had certain stereotypes in their minds. Not saying they were bad people.
But Im saying they couldnt shake their upbringing.
And all this baggage is found in their literature.

And so today orcs are still these degenerated "impure" creatures, their skin colour - no matter if it is green or any kind of grey or brown or black - indicating their "evilness" and their characters "ugliness".
Their skin shows that they are not trustworthy.

Heroes are often blonde, bad guys have black hair...

White = good; black = bad

All this fits the beliefs people had 100 years ago and further back that there is some kind of relationship between a persons or animals character and its/his appearance.
People thought that you could recognize evil by looking at it.
So this is what they wrote.
And so this is why Europeans thought of the African people as "savages" when they colonized Africa.
For the Europeans "white" was at one end of the spectrum, representing nobility, civilization, knowledge, moderation...
so "black", that devilish colour, had to be at the other end of the spectrum. That was their (very flawed) logic.


I think it is important to be aware of these things if one is into any kind of fantasy stuff...

[Hobgoblin]

I dont have the time right now to go into detail, but a lot of these things have their origin in some form of racism.

Not the wolves etc. obviously, but the mentioned dominance of white skin for fantasy minis, the skin colours for orcs, the "Drow" thing with that black-greyish skin etc.

It is because we still draw from old fantastic literature and this literature was written by white European men and just going back 60 years or so and further "racism" was still the "default" in a lot of minds.

Tolkien and lots of other authors had certain stereotypes in their minds. Not saying they were bad people.
But Im saying they couldnt shake their upbringing.
And all this baggage is found in their literature.

It's an interesting argument, and it's certainly true in some instances. But I think it's not always applicable. I'd say the main reason that humanoid creatures have non-human skin hues is simply to show that they're not human.

Tolkien is an interesting one. There's certainly his infamous letter in which he says that orcs look like "repulsive and degraded versions" of the "least attractive (to Western eyes at least) Mongol-types". But you don't get that really get that from the books. I'm sure that Tolkien drew on Roman descriptions of the Huns (at one level, there's a parallel between the Goths and the Huns and the Rohirrim and the Orcs). And it's important to note that Tolkien doesn't say that the Orcs look like "Mongol-types"; he says that they look like hideously distorted versions of them. It doesn't sit well in contemporary ears, but I think it's hard to convict Tolkien of racism when he pops in that "to Western eyes" caveat. That actually strikes me as a remarkably sensitive comment for the times.

But the main defence is that the Orcs don't behave like any kind of racist caricature. What they do behave like are the worst elements of the British army - bullying officers and sadistic NCOs. And, if I recall correctly, Tolkien makes that parallel explicit on more than one occasion.

And so today orcs are still these degenerated "impure" creatures, their skin colour - no matter if it is green or any kind of grey or brown or black - indicating their "evilness" and their characters "ugliness".
Their skin shows that they are not trustworthy.

Again, in Tolkien, there's very little description of Orcish skin - and even less of its colour. One small tracker is "black-skinned", but the description indicates that that characteristic is unusual. And the letter says that Orcs have sallow skin - but that's never mentioned in the whole of LotR (you might infer it from the description of the half-orcs). So, Orc skin isn't really a "signifier" in Tolkien - it's almost never mentioned. What is mentioned is their short stature, their long arms, their drooling fangs and hairy ears. And - above all - their coarse and barbarous talk and actions.

I think there's quite a convincing case that Orcs are almost entirely defined by their speech and actions in The Lord of the Rings. Their appearance is, remarkably, largely secondary. It's the same in The Hobbit - their actions (cruelty, cunning, bullying, squabbling) define them.

Here's a pertinent quote from The Two Towers:

"‘No other folk make such a trampling,’ said Legolas. ‘It seems their delight to slash and beat down growing things that are not even in their way.’"

There's much more of that sort of thing in Tolkien than any description of skin colour.

Heroes are often blonde, bad guys have black hair...

White = good; black = bad

Except in Tolkien, of course, where the "noblest" human heroes have black hair - and the Hobbits are sometimes described as "brown-skinned".

And the really bad guys - the Black Numenoreans, the Witch King, etc. - are white-skinned.

All this fits the beliefs people had 100 years ago and further back that there is some kind of relationship between a persons or animals character and its/his appearance.
People thought that you could recognize evil by looking at it.
So this is what they wrote.
And so this is why Europeans thought of the African people as "savages" when they colonized Africa.
For the Europeans "white" was at one end of the spectrum, representing nobility, civilization, knowledge, moderation...
so "black", that devilish colour, had to be at the other end of the spectrum. That was their (very flawed) logic.


I think it is important to be aware of these things if one is into any kind of fantasy stuff...

I'd say that giving monsters characteristics of "The Other" is universal in human society. It's not confined to Europeans by any means.

And that's what makes Tolkien interesting. His monsters - the Orcs in particular - are uncomfortably close to home. Ugluk, Grishnakh, Shagrat and Gorbag are remarkably well spoken - they speak like British officers, not like foreigners. They aren't "Othered" except in the most basic ways. They're "Ussed" instead.

[Major_Gilbear]

Hmm, sorry... I regret making the comment now! 

Anyway, although this is posted in Fantasy, I actually see this across all non-historical genres.

I also did not suggest that it's some form of widespread racism (as I carefully noted in my post); instead I suspect that often the paler colours just contrast better than darker colours on small models that are typically around an inch high or smaller.

[Hobgoblin]

Hmm, sorry... I regret making the comment now!  

Anyway, although this is posted in Fantasy, I actually see this across all non-historical genres.

I also did not suggest that it's some form of widespread racism (as I carefully noted in my post); instead I suspect that often the paler colours just contrast better than darker colours on small models that are typically around an inch high or smaller.

There's probably also a "default fantasy Europe" assumption at work too in "fantasy". I think it's possibly more of a "thing" in sci-fi, where "European" skin tones seem to predominate to a degree that looks quite wrong from a contemporary perspective.

[Ogrob]

Yeah, I don't see any of this as accusations of direct and conscious racism. It's about our default assumptions, and the fantasy genre, especially in wargaming, is very white.

I tend to enthusiastically collect exceptions to this.

[Cubs]

Jesus wept.

Aaaaand, I'm done.

[Hobgoblin]

Yeah, I don't see any of this as accusations of direct and conscious racism. It's about our default assumptions, and the fantasy genre, especially in wargaming, is very white.

I tend to enthusiastically collect exceptions to this.

Yes, indeed.

You can, though, sometimes get an odd phenomenon in which the assumption that Dead White Males must be making racist assumptions leads to a reading of everything they wrote in a hypercritical light - and, indeed, to a misreading of it. It's the same with classist assumptions. I've been told time and time again that Tolkien's Orcs are unmistakably Cockney (and thus snobbishly depicted), but the sole trace of this that I can find is the use of the exclamation "Garn!", which only a couple of the Orcs use - and is in any case (a) not exclusively Cockney and (b) almost certainly a "minced oath" - the Orcs, if you play Tolkien's game, actually said something unprintable. Ugluk, for example, uses precisely no Cockney. Nor, if I remember correctly, does Grishnakh.

And, more conclusively, there are no other Cockney words in the Orcish argot. Snaga might say "Garn!", but he talks about the "stairs", not the "apples ...".  

Robert E Howard and HP Lovecraft, on the other hand ...

[Hobgoblin]

Back on topic!

Gleaming white teeth and tusks are another default - see Cubs' terrific orcs for a spectacular corrective.

And bright white eyes too.

Also, tiny pupils.

[Vermis]

Or choosing not to, of course, as in Ancient Egypt!

I suppose there might be an argument that - at certain scales at least - a "block" grey wolf might somehow look more lupine than a more realistic one. It's not one I'd buy, but there might be other examples in miniature painting where symbol/suggestion trumps realism.

Perhaps... I was interested to read that Calimero's painting style was described as ligne claire, and I wonder if that a good direction to develop a style in.
I've also seen articles by Tyler Provick (since deleted) on the General's Tent blog, using a fairly stark shading style that's somewhat similar to cel-shading. To be fair it's not a million miles away from basic shading on a lot of minis out there, but it actually enhances the realism of the mini because it's placed realistically. Wish I had a link...

On the subject of grey wolves... mmmyeah I dunno. I still think it's an unconscious - and as Major Gilbear says - painting by rote situation, moreso than consciously ensuring the minis are distinctively marked for the tabletop. Thinking about it, and considering the Major's remarks on brown (sorry M_G) I wonder if colour itself falls victim to preconceptions. 'Brown' can cover a fair swathe of the colour wheel or colour space and isn't ring-fenced off from the basic hues. Though in this discussion, maybe it's more helpful to think of desaturated colours (or in the case of flat grey, any saturation above 0!) rather than a single colour name.

- Wood is always brown (preferably reddish)

And covered in deep bark texture. Good points overall!

I think "painting by rote" as it were is responsible for a lot, including things like horns being lighter rather than darker at the tips.

Depends what type of horns.

《《《

That's photo's more than just a weird avatar, it's reference!

Nearly all Fantasy human figures are painted as white Caucasians (although I suspect that this is more for reasons of brightness/high contrast on small figures rather than anything untoward).

Hmm, sorry... I regret making the comment now!  

Anyway, although this is posted in Fantasy, I actually see this across all non-historical genres.

I also did not suggest that it's some form of widespread racism (as I carefully noted in my post); instead I suspect that often the paler colours just contrast better than darker colours on small models that are typically around an inch high or smaller.

I'd lean towards Hanlon's razor, myself. With fantasy gaming traditionally being the remit of stereotypically nerdy, white, insular males, I'd hazard it didn't occur to many to depict their little metal surrogates as anything other than caucasian. And then painting by rote might kick in, too. Lizards are green, wolves are grey, humans are white.

Edit: hmm. Ninja'd a bit, there.

(Ninja'd on the 'lots of Tolkien's heroes are dark-haired' bit, too!)

Undead always seem to have freshly painted shields with suitably skull-themed motifs. I wonder if warriors of these Fantasy worlds are buried with carefully-wrapped shields repainted in anticipation of a Necromancer requiring their services in future?

Oh yes.  

[Elbows]

I simply paint whatever colours work...contrast well enough and provide a result I like in the end.  I use brass/gold to add a little contrast in certain places.  Reality has very little place in painting fantasy stuff for me.  Don't care what X is supposed to look like.

[Hobgoblin]

Perhaps... I was interested to read that Calimero's painting style was described as ligne claire, and I wonder if that a good direction to develop a style in.
I've also seen articles by Tyler Provick (since deleted) on the General's Tent blog, using a fairly stark shading style that's somewhat similar to cel-shading. To be fair it's not a million miles away from basic shading on a lot of minis out there, but it actually enhances the realism of the mini because it's placed realistically. Wish I had a link...

I was struck by this blog's photos of classic Kev Adams miniatures (many of which will be familiar from White Dwarf or Heroes for Wargames). Photographed as they are here, what's noticeable about them is how dark the shading is - almost "black lining" in places, especially on some of the trolls. That doesn't come across in some of the professional shots in Heroes for Wargames, but I bet they'd look fantastic on the tabletop.

On the subject of grey wolves... mmmyeah I dunno. I still think it's an unconscious - and as Major Gilbear says - painting by rote situation, moreso than consciously ensuring the minis are distinctively marked for the tabletop. Thinking about it, and considering the Major's remarks on brown (sorry M_G) I wonder if colour itself falls victim to preconceptions. 'Brown' can cover a fair swathe of the colour wheel or colour space and isn't ring-fenced off from the basic hues. Though in this discussion, maybe it's more helpful to think of desaturated colours (or in the case of flat grey, any saturation above 0!) rather than a single colour name.

That's an excellent point. It can take people a very long time to learn to thin their paints. And I only read up about desaturating colours last week ....  

[Hobgoblin]

I simply paint whatever colours work...contrast well enough and provide a result I like in the end.  I use brass/gold to add a little contrast in certain places.  Reality has very little place in painting fantasy stuff for me.  Don't care what X is supposed to look like.

And you can't argue with that!

I suppose what I'm thinking about here, though, is that the "conventions" occupy a strange middle ground between faithful imitation of reality and completely off-the-wall stuff like this old John Blanche miniature. Each to their own, but I like the extremes better, and so I like to learn how to avoid the "strange middle ground". In this regard, your "credo" above sounds terrific.

[Hobgoblin]

• Undead always seem to have freshly painted shields with suitably skull-themed motifs. I wonder if warriors of these Fantasy worlds are buried with carefully-wrapped shields repainted in anticipation of a Necromancer requiring their services in future?

A bit like Raedwald (possibly the Sutton Hoo king) erecting altars to Christ and the Devil side by side (just in case ...)!

"Bury me with a top-end suit of armour with skull motifs and vile runes - and a particularly ghastly shield. And a couple of horse skeletons too. If I'm to be summoned from my grave, I will not be joining the bloody infantry!"