Most expensive single mini ever?

[Morgramen]

That's a gorgeous paint job.  One of the best I've ever seen.  I'd never pay money for a GW model, though. 

 

~J

But would you pay that much for a WotC mini that was believed to be an OOP GW fig? I saw an auction last week for a Tordek figure (WotC dwarf) that went for over $100.00 US because it was thought to have been an old OOP GW dwarf. A few auctions later, the same model went for $3.00 U.S (advertised as a WotC 3E mini.)

 

The moral of the story: Always look before you leap I guess, or perhaps Brand Names are better...

[Heisler]

According to Minipainter, there are miniatures out there that have gone for over $3000. Your in the one of a kind art realm now.

[Vaitalla]

It's a non-mainstream art form, I guess...

 

Tommy.

It's getting a lot more mainstream, though, as the hobby spreads--and it *is* growing, by leaps and bounds every year. I used to say that one of my goals in this business would be to establish the first-ever actual Art Gallery for painted miniatures, but I'm going to need to get a lot richer before that happens!!

 

Also, for those of you saying you'd never pay that much for a miniature even if you had the money--here's a breakdown. The *minimum* amount of hours I've ever spent on a human-sized, quality miniature (a Silver Demon winner, in fact) for competition is 40 hours. That mini isn't painted nearly as well as I could do today; if I did a new version and used all my new tricks and refined techniques, it would take me at least sixty hours to finish (conservative estimate). A *mounted* model like this would take me 100 hours, hands down. If Alexi paints even remotely like myself and other Golden Demon painters I know, 80-100 hours or even more would not surprise me.

 

The point of all this? If Alexi took 80-100 hours on that figure she's getting at or less than ten bucks an hour for it. It probably took half a month of work. That's about $1600-$1700 per month profit if you double it, if she does this for a living. After taxes (if she was in the U.S.) it would be about $1200 net. Can you live on $1200 a month? Probably. Can you enjoy living on that much? Unless you're a student, probably not!

 

This is hand-work, unique, one-of-a-kind, from one of the top names in the business. Also, don't be so quick to say that Name won't mean as much down the line--I suspect that it'll actually mean more. Like the field of traditional painting, though, you'll see appreciation in value for the Masters and a lot of other stuff go by the side of the road.

 

--Anne

p.s. I once read a book where an old artist had been asked by a young artist how much her work was worth. She was told "It's worth as much as someone will pay for it." As an ex-freelance painter, I can say: That's so true. :)

[SaintRigger]

I'm probably going to draw fire for this - but I have a hard time finding mini painting to be an "art" form - any more than toll painting or model building. I guess any endevor can be considered art - a wise person told me once that what makes a piece art is the motivation behind it's inception. The age old question - what is art.

 

I also find favored mini painters to be trends. For a few months one painter and style is in favor and commands huge prices, the next few months it might be someone else. There are a few names that have totally dropped off the radar. I doubt one will walk into an auction house in 40 years to find a particular piece from a particular painter up for bid.

 

The same is true in the fine art world - artists go in cycles and trends.. certain painters and styles fall in and out of favor with collectors.

 

This *isn't* and I emphasize *isn't* to say that there aren't really super talented people out there, or this isn't a creative endevor... it totally is. I constatly stand in awe of pieces presented here and elsewhere - there is such talen and sight. I feel the same way about people who build models though. Any moron (much like myself) can piece together a Revel F-4 phantom kit - but it takes a special person to give it a sense of scale and to have the piece tell a story (like various names and insignias, paint scrape and wear from a tree-top mission etc...)

 

I have a world of respect for these people - but I don't know if I would consider it "art"... perhaps it is, and I'm being an art snob (most likely). I don't consider it art when I do it.. I paint as a hobby. It unwinds me, it gives me models to play with - some I do for display, but not simply for displays sake.

 

Anyways - bottom line - I feel I'm really fortunate to have the opportunity to share in the hobby with so many talented and creative people. If y'all wanna be called artists (or ar-teests) then I'd be happy to do so. Just keep posting the great work.

 

And anne is so very right with the "Whatever people will pay for it". This is also the perfect definition of capitalism. :)

[Mengu]

Anne's right (duh). For the amount of time that goes into a figure, the pay needs to be much higher than what the current market supports, to be able to sell competition quality miniatures. Unfortunately that is not the case.

 

And when most people talk about how long it took them to paint something, they don't talk about the time it took them to file, clean, pin, assemble, and base the miniature, and the time it took to make a plan. Add to that the time it takes to take good pictures of the finished product, photoedit, advertise, package, etc, most painters need to be charging a lot more than current market values.

 

If a miniature took 40 hours (1 work week), including everything mentioned, it should sell for a minimum of $800, for the artists's time to be worthwhile. Thankfully for an artist who works from home, there is a good bit of tax break since half of rent (or mortgage), and utilities are deductable, as is all of miniature related expenses including decorating, lighting, and such, and even convention and related travel costs.

 

If I made more money, I'd certainly consider purchasing such masterpieces. As it stands, I can afford about one (average) commision a year.

[E-Arkham]

A few weeks ago I was complaining (read: whining) in the auction folders that it bugged to see poorly done figures sell for a lot (and it does). This is on the other end of the spectrum, though -- it totally thrills me to see the likes of Natalya Melnick, or Jen Haley, or whatever other top quality name manage a nice sum for painting work.

 

Kudos to her, I say. And it's damned beautiful work, too.

 

I'm somewhat mixed on the idea of time and effort directly corresponding to profit however. It's far more subjective; figures I've done of which I've spent the most time have sometimes received a mild "that's nice looking" while others I felt were rushed or lacking have gotten "wows" and looks of amazement -- to the point I wonder if we're talking about the same miniature! So yes, I'd agree 100% with Anne on the subjective nature of painted mini value: they're worth what someone is willing to pay.

 

As a painter, I do like the idea of receiving a fair hourly wage but I just don't see it being a prime factor. There are just so many variables involved, many of which are subjective and/or difficult to predict. Is there only one guy out there who buys up all the female Paladins, and he's not buying this week? Does someone need a figure to complete a collection? Is it an out-of-production figure that someone's willing to pay more for just on that basis? Is it someone's friends who don't care that the figure is poorly painted? Did that army just come out and so is currently "hot" amoung the masses? Maybe you picked a shade that most people just don't like, or maybe the colour doesn't match their existing collection and they want a matching warband. Did the figure win awards or was pictured in Harbinger, White Dwarf, etc? Is it converted? Do a lot of folks use this type of figure for their armies or roleplaying? Is this a leader or a rank-and-file?

 

And those are just off the top of my head, too. I'm sure we could each come up with a dozen more reasons why a figure does or doesn't sell for what it does. Since the time/effort portion of it is very difficult for the casual viewer to determine -- it's the final product that counts -- then that factor likely won't affect the price much if at all.

 

Kep

[Jonas Withabee]

But would you pay that much for a WotC mini that was believed to be an OOP GW fig? I saw an auction last week for a Tordek figure (WotC dwarf) that went for over $100.00 US because it was thought to have been an old OOP GW dwarf. A few auctions later, the same model went for $3.00 U.S (advertised as a WotC 3E mini.)

 

The moral of the story: Always look before you leap I guess, or perhaps Brand Names are better...

Nah, but that's because I just don't like the way GW minis look, OOP or not. Too much like caricatures, especially the greenskins. Especially next to the new Warlord greenskins. The whole "big head, big hands, big feet" style just doesn't do it for me.

 

But that's for another thread.

 

~J

[Arvok]

What do you do with an $800 mini? You sure as heck don't play with it--and risk getting bean dip on it or having it knocked off the table. You can put it in a display case but since it is a mini you're not going to be able to really appreciate it.

[Kheprera]

Ask Chaz Elliott if he appreciates his Dark Maiden by EricJ.

 

Such minis are considered works of art. You most certainly can appreciate and admire them. (like I admire Jester's Tamaor the Vulture )

[Enchantra]

Heavens that thing went for more than one month worth of my salary!

 

I sure wish I had money to throw around like that.

[ReaperDarryl]

hmm heres my question for you saint. Painting is Art correct? the defenition of painting is applying paint to A GIVEN MEDIUM in a way pleasing to the eye, so how is this NOT art?

[Zordana]

I sure wish I had money to throw around like that.

 

Lol, I doubt the buyer or Alexi view this as money being 'thrown around'.

[SaintRigger]

hmm heres my question for you saint. Painting is Art correct? the defenition of painting is applying paint to A GIVEN MEDIUM in a way pleasing to the eye, so how is this NOT art?

It's not the action that makes it art - it's the intention behind the action.

 

I painted my bedroom a year ago.. this is painting, right? I am afterall applying paint to a given medium to make it pleasing to the eye. Therefore my walls are art! Not quite.. the reason I painted my bedroom was because I didn't like the color and I wanted it to look nicer.

 

Jackson Pollock lays a canvas down and splatters paint on it... if most people do this, they are considered just being sloppy - but the intention behind it is to go beyond cubism in an attempt to express the action of painting in and of itself (gestural abstraction) - and shifts the focus from the object itself to the struggle of creating the object - and in this defines it as art.

 

Lets apply it to mini painting now - In the case of this model, and many others like it people paint them very nice for a few reasons, the main ones being 1) They want something nice to play with 2) They want to use it to win a competition 3) They want to sell it to collectors to fund their hobby, crack addiction, college tuition..etc

The motivation behind these are not artistic in definition. Looking more closely at contest entries - they are to demonstrate a mastery or innovation of technique. Who can do the best NMM, who first used directional lighting, who can blend the smoothest, who has the best sense of color etc.. all of these are taken into consideration for judgement. What is seldom taken into consideration is "what is the painter trying to say here" - which usually is nothing but "Hey, I'm pretty good at these techniques!"

 

Interestingly, Zaphod was in a painting contest and decided to really go off the beaten path and take a model and give it his interpretation - which cost him the contest - but left him with a greater sense of satisfaction in that he did it his way and let it stand at that. The motivation behind that approaches art.

 

If someone were to make a diorama of the last supper out of elf models and then gouged all their eyes out, or removed their faces in an attempt to state they are sick and tired of the typical cliches in the fantasy genre - this probaby wouldn't win any contests or do well on e-bay (maybe because of the novelty factor it might) but it would be art in the the motivation behind it was to make a statement in an attempt to get people to think critically about something.

 

Same if someone entered a model of their own sculpt into a contest - but painted the entire model black as a statement to focus on the model itself and not the paint job - or as a statement that sometimes lousy models are good with paint, and something good models are lousy with paint.. etc... this would be art because of the motivation behind it.

 

Again - I'm not saying there aren't talented people in mini-painting - because there are.. some of whom are masters - but you need to focus on why they are doing what they are doing and wht they are trying to say, if anything by their actions and use that to determine if they are artists or master craftsmen.

 

Sometimes craftmanship can transcend into the arts - actually - someone did a really interesting WWII diorama in miniature all in black and white painting (in fact, it's

Here) that is not only technically very good but makes an interesting statement in that he is applying a 3d technique to give a feel of old WWII photos and movies.

 

Does that clarify more of where I'm comming from?

[FreeFall]

Craftsmanship versus art, that's a discussion I had loooong ago in college. I studied theatrical design, primarily scenery and lighting design. We had a professor who tried to drum into our heads that we were craftsmen, not artisits. Well, that didn't go over well at all. We spend 3 weeks of classes arguing about this and it all comes down to "what is art"?

 

If you look at that mini and see a work of art, done by an artist interpretting the lighitng and features fo the piece, then it is art. If you look at it and see a skilled painter rendering color on an unfinished sculpture, then it is not art. It's is all in how each individual person interprets it. Art is not inthe eye of the artist, it is in the eye of the beholder, the critic.

 

For example, I paint a lot of armies for myself. To me this is not art, it's a craft because I'm not getting artistic, I'm just trying ot make them look presentable ont he game table. I do however have a lot of people who see these figures and feel they are art, where I do not. Also, I have a lot of minis that I paint just to paint, to interpret. Those I feel are art. No one can say that something is or isn't art because there is no clear definition. If someone wants to call them a miniature painting artitst, then more power to them. Some will doubt them, some won't, but that's how it is with all artists.

 

And for the record, I still to this day believe that theatrical designers are artists, not craftsmen. Why else are we called Scenic Artists? One of the things that made me good was that I approached lighting design as though I were painting with light, and the set and stage were my canvas. Not all art is done without boundaries or in traditional mediums.

[SaintRigger]

Hehe... thats why I'm saying - if you want to be called an artist - then I'd be happy to call you an artist. :)

 

But yes - it's the inspiration and the motivation behind the creative endevor.