The World According to Tom

From time to time Carin comes up with an idea of something for me to sculpt. I’ve got to admit I don’t often find these ideas practical or interesting and have refused so many the weight of it began to lie heavy upon me if you know what I mean and anyone who is married almost certainly does.

So when she came up with an, ahem, rather unusual and not impracticable idea I weighed my options and considering the project she had in mind wasn’t the sort that takes long or involves much effort I decided to whip it up.

So here it is… an anime Japanese schoolgirl with a hamster gun.

She’s about 1/24 or 2.5" (60mm) tall. We’ll probably be auctioning her off.

Posted by Tom Meier at 20:46 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0)

The French and Indian war figures I tried to cast in with a master mold didn’t work, so they will not be available for at least another month. The Iroquois had registration problems, probably because of the mixed weight of figures around it, only a few were acceptable and I never did get a good casting of the French officer. In the one pictured you can see the left lapel of his coat did not fill properly. The ranger worked pretty well but I’ll wait till the bugs in the others are fixed to release him.

The picture is product with a rather heavy coat of spray primer, this is what they will look like except for the French Officers coat.

Also pictured, my sculpting tools. These are what I do nearly everything with on figures 54mm and below. The only other tools I have are some circle punches, a sharp hobby scalpel and some pliers and clippers.

Posted by Tom Meier at 09:26 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Dennis Chang wrote:

"I'm not sure if ANY complaints or disappointment has anything to do with the fact that it comes as a prepaint vs a kit. I had thought it came as both?"

There are several reasons why the ‘Ruby Ford’ diorama is not suited to being sold as a finished piece or shipped once assembled.

Assembly: the overall figure design and placement of joints was for ease of casting and to limit the effects of mold distortion, that is to say, to make the figures in the minimum number of parts consistent with a good looking, easy to cast figure, rather than for assembled strength, ease of soldering or disguising solder joins. The whole design from start to finish was created without taking factory assembly into account because I was told Testors were making larger resin figures for the gift market and the 54mm figures would be sold as kits.

Shipping: aside from the inherent delicacy of the extremities, the fairly heavy figures have only two points of contact with the very large heavy base, a grievous flaw as this makes the ankles the point of stress when the object is dropped unless it is packed so that it absolutely can not move in any direction, problematical given the complex shape of the object. In other words if the box the figure is in is dropped, even if the figure does not contact the side of the box and have something break off or get dinged, the side of the figure which is closest to the point of impact of the box will stop but the rest of the figure will spend it’s momentum by stressing the figure, if this stress point is the ankles or some other weak point, they will bend. The only certain way to avoid this is to pack the figure so that it can not move at all, as with small foam beads. I suggested this to Testors but they didn’t want to because it makes a mess when you open the box.

Here are some pictures of the French Grenadier caricature I showed the head of earlier, it’s 1/35, about two inches (50mm) tall to the top of it’s head.

Posted by Tom Meier at 09:41 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0)

To clarify a few points and answer questions:

‘Valiant’ is Valiant Enterprises Ltd. of Madison WI, they are, as far as I know doing molds and casting for Testors.

Testors did eventually do a demo with the 1/48 figures I made but it was the year after I had to rush to get them done. That first invoice by the way was paid in 30 days.

A headache yes but only in degree, that is to say I went in expecting it to be difficult. With the exception of most of the work I did for Hasbro who had a sculptor in charge of the design department (imagine that!) with enough clout and moral fortitude to go to bat against and so limit executive silliness, work for large companies with tiers of organization is always a problem.

I am out of pocket, so to speak, for a rather substantial amount of work, partly because I was trying to get the project going and took it on myself to make studies and samples which may turn out to have been a waste of time. I’m not upset about it just a bit disappointed. The only part that bothers me is to read of all the dissatisfaction people have had with the ‘Ruby Ford’ because of it being sold as a finished piece rather than a model kit.

The French and Indian war figures will be $5 each but the supply will be very irregular as I’m just going to throw them in master molds to fill up space so they’ll be available in fits and starts 20-30 at a time.

Here’s a picture of the half finished Ser Loras in 1/32 (54mm), the famous forget-me-not cloak is not complete and so not pictured and also one of the non-combatant Night Watch guys in 1/48 (35mm), he’s not meant to be any particular character.

Posted by Tom Meier at 10:59 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0)

Here’s my history with Testors and the situation as I understand it I think it’s an instructive story from several perspectives.

A couple of years ago Mike Butterworth from Testors contacted me about making 54mm and gaming figures for George R. R. Martin’s ‘Ice and Fire’ series of books. He said it was to be a large project, wanted to buy at least half my time and would pay the going rate for toy work. To be exact when I speak of Testors below my only contact with that organization until recently was through Mike Butterworth.

I was unfamiliar with the books but my wife had read them and said they were good and the characters were basically middle ages costume with fantasy elements. I subsequently listened to them all on tape and agreed with Carin’s assessment, a good read by any standard and outstanding in the fantasy genre. The best part from the view of making larger sculpture was the very strong characters.

From this point my main problem was trying to understand what, exactly I was supposed to make. This is a very common situation. I have worked for companies large and small for over thirty years and the main difficulty I have is always figuring out what the customer actually wants. In the best case, as for example most of the work I’ve done for Hasbro, you are told very specifically what to make and given materials enough to get a clear idea of a project which is sculpturally feasible. Another acceptable situation is where you are given little guidance but the customer relies on your judgment and is content with whatever you make. In the latter case I still try to figure out what they want but I’m generally successful and it’s an interesting problem.

Difficulties occur when the customer doesn’t know what they want and is uncommunicative, wants a contradiction or something which can’t be produced in sculpture, changes their mind or has an organization afflicted with the thumbprint syndrome. The thumbprint syndrome is when managers must approve work and demand changes (their thumbprint) for no other reason than they must be seen to have had some input to justify their salary.

So with Testors I set about trying to grasp exactly what they wanted. The first thing I checked was who and how the figures would be approved, since this turned out to be George Martin I opened a channel of communication. He turned out to be almost too easy to work with, my only difficulty being he was so agreeable it was hard to read his stylistic preferences. He wanted 54mm figures of his characters to be a sort of modernized version of his collection of classic toy knights.

That was the easy part, figuring out what Testor’s wanted was the trouble.

After being asked to reserve a huge block of time I got no order. I was sent some useless scrap (working instructions, models, artwork et.) with no parameters but not given any work order. I was required to invest an absurd amount of time trying to figure out what I was supposed to be doing. Finally I decided it would be less trouble just to make something in the hope that with an actual model to look at Testors would come to some sort of conclusion, I was often called on to make objects for Hasbro just for the executives to pass around at meetings to help them make up their minds, though of course these were ordered by Hasbro.

So I made the figure of Jon Snow and Ghost. The design being a mix of ideas to give an example of different options. Everyone seemed to like it but it didn’t help to resolve anything. Then I got a call to hurry up and make as many 1/48 gaming figures as I could and have 100 samples of them for Gencon in two months. I worked around the clock ( I had my own work for Gencon as well) to make ten figures and cast the samples. My understanding was, there was to be a demo of a skirmish game, but that didn’t happen.

There followed more months of dithering and confusion I made some studies of heads for characters, a horse and other bits (without direction from Testors) in the expectation of these giving me a useful jump when things finally got going.

Then it was decided to start making 54mm figures in kit form as dioramas and individual figures in metal starting at the beginning of the story and working forward. Robert and Reahgar at Ruby Ford is the most appropriate early scene so I made a somewhat compromised diorama (because of the required dual use). I also made the master sets because Testors were unsure at the time who would do the manufacturing.

Then I didn’t get paid for four months, during which time they changed their mind and decided to sell the ‘Ruby Ford’ as a finished pewter diorama, a purpose for which the design was unsuited.

I was finally paid for ‘Ruby Ford’ and told to send on the ‘Jon Snow and Ghost’ study I had done earlier.

Then I wasn’t paid for that for three months… but in the mean time, told to make more 54mm figures (a foot version of Ser Loras at the Hand’s Tourney) and some more 1/48 Night Watch, (halfway through which I was told to switch emphasis from fighters to non-combatants). I made five 1/48’s and half finished Ser Loras and stopped when payment for the Jon Snow and Ghost diorama hadn’t come after 60 days.

Finally I was paid for Jon Snow and Ghost and asked to hurry up and modify the Ruby Ford to make it easier for it to be soldered together (such changes would help some but not solve the fundamental problem of it not being designed for the use). Since the changes were not any fault of mine I required to be paid and given the recent difficulties I told them I expected a purchase order or some other assurance payment would happen in a reasonable time. No such order has been forthcoming and so there it lies.

Since then Mike Butterworth has left Testors and I have been contacted by a consultant retained by the company who seems knowledgeable and efficient (though I still haven’t gotten an order to rework ‘Ruby Ford’). A few days ago I was asked to forward the original ten 1/48 figures to Valiant and despite the situation as regards unpaid outstanding work I did.

My sympathies to all those frustrated by dealings with Testors, I don’t know who’s to blame for the situation but I think it’s clearly not me and as far as I can see it’s not George.

Here’s another 1/48 French and Indian War Figure, an American ranger. With a bit of luck I may be able to do some kind of limited release of these later this month.

Posted by Tom Meier at 14:04 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

I thought I’d drop a line on the situation with Testors for everyone who has been waiting on the Ice &Fire figures. They have had another shake out and the whole project and situation is again uncertain. I don’t think the work I’ve done will be wasted but there is no telling how long it will be before they are produced in some form. Sorry, but I have no influence on the situation.

For all the people who have asked about the Nativity set this could be good news as I will have more time to work on it. Please be aware however that a single 1/32 figure can take more than a week to complete and I still have lots of other commitments.

The pictures today are of a French officer for the French and Indian War line I work on from time to time to amuse myself and hope to one day enjoy with my son. It’s 1/48 or about 35mm tall.

This line will not be made for some time unless I win the lottery, which is highly unlikely as I don’t buy tickets.

Posted by Tom Meier at 09:45 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

A few words about chainmail in answer to an e-mail enquiry:

"I'm encountering a problem getting my chainmail finer and cleaner and was
wondering if you could provide a few pointers or suggestions."

The method I most commonly use for chainmail is to make a foundation so the final coating of epoxy is a consistent thickness which depends on the size of the rings, too thick and you run into the problems you describe, too thin or inconsistent depth and you don’t have enough material to form the ring and have it settle in place. You want enough material so it settles but doesn’t blur or bleed into the previous row.

I find a tool with a slightly bent, flattened end (again diameter depending on the size of ring you want to do) gives the most control.

"I'm assuming the bend in the tools just makes it easier to use"

Yes, it makes the angle more comfortable and easier to see the ring form as you make it.

"Are there any techniques to make it easier or is it just practice?"

Both, the techniques take time and so the ideal is to dispense with them eventually so you have more time for pulling rings. Try applying the putty in strands which you then blend, also a very fine probe like the point of a needle pushed through the final coat in places will tell you how thick it is and you can correct it before you start pulling rings.

The important thing about practice it to get the best feedback for the time spent practicing. Design practice so the feedback shows you the error clearly, as it occurs and you will learn most quickly.

The pictures are from a Nativity and Epiphany set I plan to make over the next couple years in 1/32. It’s not available this year unfortunately.

Posted by Tom Meier at 20:44 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

The perennial question of how to measure figure for comparison has cropped up again over on the Miniatures Page so I thought I’d give an exhaustive examination here where there is more room.

To start let’s roughly examine ‘normal’ human proportions, by this I mean the rage into which at least 98% of people fall. According to statistics gathered by the U.S. army for the purpose of designing equipment the average modern man is about 5’10" (1.7m) his height is about seven times the height of his head with the ‘normal’ range being 6.5 to 7.5 his hands are about 4" across the palm with a normal range of 3.75 to 4.5" though this can vary with development a surprising amount. The normal range for hand proportions is about 15 to 19 hands equals overall height.

I’d like to make it very clear I am not in any way saying these are the proportions in which small figures SHOULD be made, there are several very good reasons for departing from them but they are useful as a baseline.

Other proportions; ‘normally’ the bones of the thigh and leg are roughly the same length and the bone of the upper arm is about the length of the forearm bones plus half the width of the palm. There is a good bit of variation in proportion of overall leg length to height (though not as much as many people seem to think)but the hip joint is roughly the average mid point for European males (women actually have slightly shorter legs on average).

Now the problems of measurement and comparison. It’s easy enough to say measure this and compare to that but the fact is accurate measurement requires some skill and no little understanding.

The fist problem is where to measure to. It is not very accurate to measure to the middle of joints because of the way joints move, see the illustration ‘elbow’.

This leads to the problem of position, see illustration ‘posture’. The best way to measure is to add up the lengths of the component bones and joints but this requires some understanding of anatomy and frankly, if you can do that you can probably estimate just as accurately. Head position is important as well when considering how a figure’s eye height relates to overall height, another reason why measuring to the eyes makes no sense since it introduces more potential inaccuracy and requires as much estimation as measuring overall height. The eyes are approximately in the middle of the head, it varies about an inch (see illustration ‘proportions’)and depends on what you consider to be a head held ‘level’ ,since the head pivots at the back, and also on the shape of the skull.

As far as compatibility goes it is not the ‘heft’ of the figure, the diameter of the limbs and torso or even within reason the height, which makes two figures look wrong next to each other it is the difference in proportions, particularly the relative size of the head and hands. A figure with thicker limbs will simply look stout but one of similar height with a 1/5 head will look wrong next to a 1/7 head.

Here’s another German as well.

Posted by Tom Meier at 11:08 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0)

It has been brought to my attention if you post to the blog on the older entries the posting doesn’t come through. Carin apparently has some kind of anti-spam program in place which causes this, sorry for the inconvenience. She said she'll look into it as soon as she can.

Here is another 1/48 German. In keeping with the idea of individualizing these figures he’s a bit taller, younger and more robust than the first two.

Posted by Tom Meier at 11:55 | Comments (5) | Trackbacks (0)

Here is another of the figures in the 1/48 WWII line. These first few are being made to hammer out the exact look of the line, the balance between realism, character and utility. For me this is the most technically demanding type of sculpting, which is why it appeals.

The mind is designed to perceive irregularity in context. Finding a wonky teacup in a jumble of crockery is difficult, spotting it when it’s laid out in a row of perfect ones is easy. As things become more correct smaller and smaller faults become noticeable because we see imperfections by contrast to the background. It’s a sort of feedback loop, the more exact you make the figure the more exact it must be. This cycle continues until the limit of perception is reached. Half the time spent sculpting a figure like this is in making it precise. With historical figures the challenge is even greater, since real rather than imaginary clothes and equipment must be depicted.

It follows naturally, most people can’t see the degree of precision until a figure is compared, side by side, with one not as precise, or with a photo of an actual person. The most sublime artifice is invisible.

This particular figure is an attempt to depict a more distinctive anatomy, a thin, wiry fellow and a continuing development of ways to depict the clothes so as to make them look lived in without striking the viewer as too odd. I’ve adjusted the helmet cover, for example to show the distinctive shape of the German helmet. In actual photographs the cover often tends to obscure but since the helmet shape is an important indicator I decided for the sake of character I should depict the cover in a way that makes the shape clear. The result is a cover which is still realistic but happens to show the shape better.

I should add - I know the helmet and smock get loops, they aren't on this model because it isn't done, these pictures were taken to show the client the size of the cast pieces I made, the gas mask holder, canteen, mess kit, shovel and grenades. I'll be adding the loops when I finish it.

Posted by Tom Meier at 16:16 | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0)

Today’s picture is a figure in a new line of 1/48 WWII figures I’m making as a commission. The project is well funded and they’ve ordered about 60 figures to be made over the next three years. There will probably be enough for a release in about six months.

What makes historical figures like these interesting for me is the challenge of depicting nuances like fabric weight and texture and bringing out anatomy through modern clothes. 1/48 is a good scale, the size is big enough to do just about anything but still small enough to cast in a simple mold in two or three pieces at most. In this figure I particularly liked making the camo smock with it’s unusual seam placement.

The hands and rifle are a separate piece as is the trenching shovel, the head is turned so the mold seam will not fall on the face, he’s mounted on a bar for a slot base and would be about 1.41" (36mm) if he stood up straight, which makes him 5’8". Average height for this line will be about 5’9"

The design brief for these figures is for them to have individual character, this one in particular is a hardened veteran with elements of older and newer equipment issues.

Posted by Tom Meier at 13:07 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Having recently received an e-mail with some questions about sculpting technique I thought I’d post the answers for anyone who might be interested, the specific questions refer to the third high elf archer.

"How do you armature your figures?

I generally use an armature I cast in metal myself. I don’t do this because it makes it easier to make correct proportions or control size but merely because it saves me the time of twisting wires and waiting for putty to set. It’s a mistake to think an armature will give you correct proportions, human joints aren’t simple enough for you to repose a simple wire or metal figure and keep things very precisely right, though you’d probably be close enough for a caricatured figure.

"(I) have a hard time keeping scale exactly consistent between figures."

That’s very common, I suspect it’s one of the main reasons behind ‘scale creep’ and why many people insist figure height should be measured to the eyes. The only advice I can give is to get a good set of calipers or a small micrometer and do a lot of measuring, eventually you will develop an eye for it and not have to measure so much, though you should always check your work. Many people seem to think they can learn to orient themselves in miniature without a solid, objective frame of reference. Perhaps they can but I suspect it takes a very long time. If you are making a lot of figures with the same proportions you might make yourself a tool with wires bent in ‘L’ shapes where the short arm of the ‘L’ is the length of the bones of the upper arm, lower arm and leg bones and compare these to the appropriate parts as you go along.

"How do you achieve … perfectly smooth scale-mail"

Well to start with it’s very important not to think of anything made by human hands like miniatures as perfect, there are only flaws below the threshold of perception. Either because they are so small the eye cannot resolve them or, more commonly, because the mind is not trained to perceive them.

I wouldn’t have said the unusual characteristic of my scale armor is smoothness so much as sharpness and resolution, also I try to give an impression of the shape of the body under flexible armor. Subtle effects like this are hard for the layman to pick out but add a lot to the overall impact even for people who couldn’t say why. It’s one of the things which makes realism so much more demanding than caricature.

As to how; most of it is having a complex understanding, a sophisticated model in my mind of the thing to be depicted, this comes from lots of study and thought. The only technique I can think of that helps is, when using Kneadatite (green putty) apply it only as thick as you need to for the depth of what you are sculpting. The thicker you put it on the more rubbery it will cure, sometimes this is a good thing but not for scale armor

".How did you do the cloak? The folds are flawless"

Again the cloak isn’t flawless, in fact it’s quite fanciful, a possible but unlikely dramatized deployment.

The procedure is easy. I set a number of fine brass wires in the back, bent them to follow the main folds I wanted to make, gave them a rough epoxy coat then, when that had set, a final finishing coat.

The essential thing is to understand what you are trying to get it to look like. The better you know this the more everything falls into place and, an essential when working in epoxy, the faster. In lots of ways Epoxy sculpture is like painting fresco.

"For the face…do you have any tips on how to improve them?"

For the most part my advice is a reiteration of what I’ve already said, know the subject thoroughly and don’t apply the putty too thick but in the case of faces I’d add keeping the bone structure especially in mind. A common fault in faces is to get the surface more or less right but fall down on the underlying structure, as I said before subtle effects can have a big impact, though the viewer frequently couldn’t tell you why. It is very easy to be lazy about faces because people will perceive a face easily, it’s instinctive in us, anything with eyes and a mouth in more or less the right place looks like a face, the more challenging thing is to make a face that people can continue to find character in the more they scrutinize.

"In what steps do you sculpt, do you do an entire leg at once, or the foot, then the pants, ect?"

I’m always changing the way I do things, partly to keep it interesting and partly to learn more but the most common way I make a 30mm sized figure is as follows:

First I bend the armature to the shape I want, then roughly fill in the body volumes, the chest cavity and skull and largest muscles with epoxy putty. Then I make whatever surface is deepest, so that succeeding applications of putty overlap previous work, whether I make the legs or the face next obviously depends on how the figure is to be dressed. Whenever I make symmetrical parts like legs or arms I make them both at the same time.

Caricature French grenadier head 1/35

Posted by Tom Meier at 11:53 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0)

I’ve recently completed the three high elf archers for the December release so for today’s post a run through of the design ideas and characterization on which the elf figures are based.

The things which the appearance of all my elves have in common is a tolerance for asymmetry or odd, complex symmetries. I have only done a bit of this so far but I intend to do more, particularly for personalities. The only thing I can compare this to is some Japanese aesthetics. The ‘wonky’ looking (to western eyes) ceramics the Japanese go into raptures over for example. They use forms and motifs from the natural world as sigils and decorations as well as just wearing things like feathers, uncut gems, shells, leaves, or bits of animals. The sigils for wood elves are leaves, flowers and other plant parts. Leaves are protection and physical power and are generally worn by males, flowers are generation and some kinds of magical power and are generally worn by females. Sigils for high elves are from the sky and creatures of the sky, birds and flying insects, day for physical power night for magical. Obviously there is some abstraction for depicting concepts like light and vapor.

Aside from that I have a general convention of elves having tangled hair (elf-locks) and high elves having more sophisticated equipment and clothing. Wood elves wear a lot of leather, high elves a lot of silky stuff but both wear some of either. Wood elves tend to go abroad in high boots, high elves in low boots or shoes. Wood elves have a distinctive kind of cloak which is gathered at both top and bottom like the pleats in a curtain, it makes them look rather like they are in a pea pod. They also have a distinct kind of armor, a sort of tangled chainmail they sometimes wear. Elves prefer open helmets like a sallet, though they frequently wear decorated visors or masks.

In my view Elves shouldn’t have as much physical strength as a strong man but their dexterity and speed is much greater (goblins are the opposite, very strong but uncoordinated and slow) so they try to avoid protracted or close order melee and use light weapons which make the most of their advantages, light spear, light sword, bow.

Posted by Tom Meier at 06:51 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

By way of contrast I thought I’d write about a caricature piece I finished recently, to throw some light on the difference between composing a caricature and a realistic work.

Caricature, like realism seeks to communicate characteristics of a person or type of personality but differs in applying a formula of distortion, picking distinctive features and exaggerating them. In extreme form the effect is generally humorous and has been so employed from time immemorial. In the last century or so a sort of non-humorous, heroic caricature has become popular in comic books and the like. Illustration before the mid-twentieth century was broadly realistic or if caricature, humorous, so the development of heroic caricature is something new. Perhaps, as with the trend away from realism in fine art, it’s a reaction to photography or the technologies of mass reproduction.

The Napoleonic soldier caricatures I’ve made are meant to broadly follow the caricature formulas used by the well known caricaturists of the era, Gilray, Hogarth, Cruikshank ect. This formula uses some exaggeration of proportion, legs are either quite stout or absurdly thin, heads are a bit large, but not extremely distorted, facial features are exaggerated quite a bit and unlike many modern caricatures, there is no simplification but rather a lot of incidental detail. I adjusted this formula slightly in that I frequently chose features to exaggerate which are closer to modern character stereotypes than the way the Napoleonic caricaturists saw their subjects. This figure of Napoleon is a good example; he is generally characterized by English caricaturists of the time as a thin, hyperactive little man, a sort of militaristic Punch puppet. I chose instead to exaggerate brooding intellect (the set of the eyes and size of the forehead) egoism (the oversized hat and medals) and (popularly attributed) inferiority complex (overlong cloak, huge horse and high heels). For the face I chose distinctive features to exaggerate and enlarge at the expense of the more commonplace parts. Napoleon’s rosebud mouth, forehead, chin and lower jaw and to a lesser extent his nose, are all characteristic. One of the things which makes caricature so much easier than realistic sculpture is the degree of imprecision with which features and proportions can be depicted without in any way damaging the effect. It’s like fishing with explosives as opposed to a dry fly. To make a real portrait of Napoleon would require great exactitude and careful consideration, a caricature requires only a formula, simple choices and a few bold strokes.

I have to keep the pose simple because these figures must be robust and cast in a single piece since they are designed to be shot at with toy cannon. Napoleon is separate from his horse so he can be knocked off by a well placed ball.

A great man needs a great horse

Posted by Tom Meier at 09:53 | Comments (11) | Trackbacks (0)

I thought I’d go into a bit more depth about the wolf design as it seems I didn’t communicate very well and the question is an interesting and illustrative one.

The reason I’ve been rattling on about realism and caricature lately is connected to the wolf design. The problem was how to depict a goblin-wolf without departing from the realistic style of the elf figure line. There are several objections to making the goblin-wolf look exactly like a real one, some are practical, a real wolf for example, even a large one is realistically, too small to carry a creature bigger than a four year old child.

However the more difficult matter which raises the question of the border of caricature and realism is in depicting and differentiating the wolf as a wolf (and of what kind, there are many varieties and wide variation within them) and not a dog. In real life many people could not tell a wolf from a dog except by it’s behavior, those who could would rely on subtle visual clues which their mind would automatically accentuate without them realizing it, as in the earlier point in this blog about recognition of faces in different cultures. The question is how and how much can wolfish characteristics be ‘brought out’ before the figure becomes a caricature. The solution I proposed was not to depart plausibility (since this is a fantasy creature and not even meant to be a normal wolf) and to accent wolfish characteristics only for clarification and differentiation, not simply exaggerating for emotional impact. It’s a fine point but I think it can be found.

The fur is the most problematic point, ‘real’ fur cannot practically be sculpted or cast on this scale, there are many ways of suggesting fur, unfortunately some have the effect of making the animal look cute and cuddly, others, perhaps the most ‘realistic’ ones do little to differentiate the wolf from a dog. One of my chief concerns was not to make something which looked like a shaggy German Shepherd (or Alsatian to our cousins in the U.K.) so I chose a bit more stylization than I would generally use. The result is a "fairy-tale wolf" but not an impossible beast and no one could mistake it for a dog or a hyena or, on seeing it, call it anything but a wolf though it is not exactly like one in many points of detail. The idea, put simply, was to make a wolf that looks a bit more like a wolf than a wolf does but not to the point of cartoon.

Another High Elf Archer

Posted by Tom Meier at 15:43 | Comments (5) | Trackbacks (0)