“Is modeling art?” It’s one of those questions that never seems to go away.
I’ve been skeptical for years. Not because modeling isn’t art, but because “art” has been stretched so thin as a label that it’s practically lost all meaning.
I’ve tended to view modeling as an activity, or if that isn’t lofty enough, a craft. Like photography or writing. Modeling can be art. Just like photography or writing can be art. The grocery list I write, or the picture I nab of one of the dogs looking silly – not art.
But photography absolutely can be artistic expression. And so can modeling.
At least, that’s been my stance. But recently I’ve been rethinking a lot of things.
It’s all connected
Over the past few months, I’ve watched artist after artist get mobbed by the internet outrage machine for daring to take stances on issues—for supposedly “making art political.”
Which is a steaming pile of bullshit.
Art is political. It always has been. Now that doesn’t mean art is, like, democratic or republican. It means art reinforces worldviews or challenges them. It sparks love, shame, wonder. It celebrates and condemns and commemorates. It props up regimes and tears them down. Because at its core, art is expression.
And modeling certainly qualifies.
Sure, some expressions are more inspired than others. Slapping together a kit straight from the box isn’t a grand creative endeavor, but it’s still a choice. The subject you pick? An expression. The details you obsess over (or ignore)? Expression. Even an abandoned half-built kit shoved in a closet is a kind of performance art—a statement on fleeting motivation.
From that perspective, all modeling is art. Even the uninspired stuff. Even the forgotten projects. Even the ones built straight from the box, without a single deviation. They all say something.
If modeling is inherently art, and art is inherently political, then what the hell am I saying with my builds?
What am I expressing?
I’ve avoided WWII German subjects for years. More recently, Russian subjects have joined the blacklist. I’ve never been drawn to IDF subjects. And at some point in the last year, my interest in military subjects as a whole cratered. With the state the world’s been in, I don’t know, it just started feeling callous. I don’t begrudge others, but something about it just hasn’t been sitting well with me.
While redoing my bench, I’ve been asking myself: What do I want to express, then?
And that led me to Res Publica.
Cicero’s famous work translates to “the public thing,” and it’s where we get the term republic. But more than that, it’s the idea that “the public thing” is a community bound by shared values, not just physical proximity. Public actions carry weight because they shape and reflect our social order. Even mundane things—following traffic laws, standing in line—are unspoken agreements on how society functions.
By that logic, any action that impacts public space is political. It either reinforces or challenges the system.
Which brings me back to another modeling cliché: “Keep politics out of modeling.”
I reject that entirely.
Modeling, as an art form, is an act of political expression. And that’s exactly what I intend my modeling to be in 2025.
So if you got big mad when I voiced support for Ukraine, buckle up, buttercup.
That’s just the beginning.
Very well said. Myself I never did any SS, IDF and now Russian. I did some WWII russian subjects but not anymore.
Keep up the good work and I hope you finish your Devastator.
Wonderful ♥️
Doog, a beautifully crafted and thought provoking opinion piece….as usual. Keep them coming. And I am totally with you on the view that art is intrinsically political. How could it be otherwise?
love it. Thanks for sharing this. I for one can’t wait to see what you come up with this year!
Yep art is expression and we’re expressing ourselves with varying degree’s of success. Just walling off entire sections of modelling because of war is not necessary helpful it’s more like burying your head in the sand. All war related equipment is part of the war machine it has no thought it’s the people using it and more often than not it’s the ones in charge directing the underlings to do there bidding who are the real criminals. I don’t like modelling dead people, but I have no issue modelling the current Ukrainian conflict. I do prefer to do it from the Ukrainian perspective though. WW2 the Russians were on our side from 41 onwards I think, so do we not model anything to do with that and there are plenty of examples of some really nasty things from all sides over the centuries where do you draw the line. Memories fade of course and crimes are forgotten and history is written by the victor. Don’t misunderstand me I support Ukraine and I think USA is on a really scary road from the view point of democracy.
Well to be more specific about Russian things – I specifically mean things like T-90s, Su-35s etc.
But again…overall interest in military subjects has cratered.
I have a ton of ideas for ways to integrate elements going forward but right now it’s largely a time issue.
Everything that happens at the polis is politics
Nice timing. I just started building a T-84BM Oplot.
This is the exact reason I love modeling Israeli aircraft and armor.
Wow, you’re so cool
Subscribed after hearing your discussion with Chris on The Model Philosopher. Great interview, I wholeheartedly agree 👍
Doog,
I see that you’re propounding your thesis that political and aesthetic expressions are equally grounded in the fundamental presuppositions that inform one’s worldview. This is expected within an expressivist account of aesthetics, but worldviews are mostly dependent on epistemological, ethical and metaphysical assumptions. Aesthetic assumptions, I would argue, are informed from an axiological foundation, where what we a priori judge as beautiful, are grounded in moral facts. These moral facts are in turn grounded in the epistemic weight in which they correspond to the world. This would be argued that to perceive that something as beautiful in its aesthetic expression, it would need to reflect the value the thing has to its artistic and the one enjoying the art. This value would be something that represents reality to communicate truth to both the artist and the recipient of the work of art. In short, there would be an equal metaphysical representation of the good (axiological), the true (epistemological) with the beautiful (aesthetic). This triad forms the primary virtues which can be expressed in art. Further, these aesthetic virtues communicate truth that form the music, literature, fashion, and other artistic expression that come together as cultural representations of their underlying worldviews. These are the primary assumptions of aesthetic cognitivism, the branch of aesthetics I hold to.
That being said, if our modeling utilizes aesthic means in order to express truth and value, which when combined, forms the foundation of our moral truths, is art. Those who would claim otherwise hold to an institutionalistic definition of art. This is a greatly disputed claim in academic philosophy. Art can be defined as that which artists do, or it can be defined as things we ought to perceive as art. Or art can be defined as what is popularly agreed to be art, or that which functions as art. Long story short, unless you’re an institutional gatekeeper from the high-art community, nothing stands in our way to call the fruits of our stryrene passion as art.
To support your claim about politics, our politics are equally informed by our foundational presuppositions that inform our worldview. Recall, a truth statement grounded in an axiological value statement informs our moral truths Further, if our politics convey these foundational truths as aesthetic expression, then they are a fecund means to express these moral truths. Moreover, if our modeling is to be an accurate representation of the way the world actually is, it would necessarily convey political truths. Addressing these political truths in a public forum is definitionaly political in nature. Those who claim otherwise are foisting upon others an intolerant position of pluralism. Their primary assumption is that all worldviews hold equal epistemic value, and none should be considered as more valuable than any other. A paradox arises when enforcing their worldview; they consider their worldview as inherently more valuable than all others, thus contradicting their foundational thesis. In final conclusion, they promote the very intolerance they claim that introducing politics into modeling will produce, and by doing so in a public forum, are enforcing their political position and assumptions on others. Hypocrisy at it finest.
Thomas ‘Fury’ Doane,
Modeler and Analytic Philosopher
I appreciate your work very much since the first day I saw it. Actually I can live very well with your “craft” definition for the hobby. Having been a professional journalist for 30 years I often called my profession a craft combining intellectual (researching, analyzing, relating, commenting) and manual (writing) skills. Actually I don’t care about the political expression in your work and will continue to appreciate it from that craft point of view. For the record, you opt for the “internationalist left wing” definition of republic. I am nationalist (from a very small country) because I cherish our cultural differences and I respect my roots and my history. I am also convinced that we need governement for few basic needs and should keep its scope of action as limited as possible and as extended as necessary. Looking forward to see where your work leads you.