Sten Ekedahl wrote:A few thoughts on the composition of your diorama: Although I don't build dioramas myself, I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of them at model shows and on the net during the past 30+ years. I have found that there is one thing the majority of diorama builders seem to be scared of; an empty area! This is especially obvious in military land dioramas, you know the typical ones with a street crossing, house ruins, one or two tanks and a group of soldiers. Often these dioramas are then filled with rubble, spent cases, buckets, a rusty broken bicycle, abandoned weapons and every other possible sort of junk you could think of. You get the impression that the builder has carefully inspected his diorama and been horrified at finding an empty 1/4 square inch, and promptly filled with even more junk! In my eyes these dioramas are quite frankly boring!
Your diorama is in my eyes a very good composition: The ships are the main focus and in the center. They are positioned where land and sea meet and sort of highlights ships as the link between land and sea. Since you also have both land and sea in the diorama I think you should take advantage of the difference between the two - land; cluttered with features, both natural and man-made, and the open featureless water. In other words, don't be afraid of that empty area of water. It balances the busy shore. And as you say, it leaves room for a name plate.
Just my 2 cents worth...
BTW, I like it a lot!
Wow, Sten! For a second, there, I thought you were going to trash my diorama.
I'm glad that your comments turned the corner towards a positive direction at my diorama. It sounds like you have an eye for the clutter in a diorama and that "it ain't fooling you".
I agree with all that you've said about the armored vehicle type dioramas but, honestly, the clutter has always caught my attention and I've admired modelers' imaginations for thinking of such details. It is almost too, much to take in sometimes. I've never given it as much thought as you have but, I will remember your observations when I view dioramas in the future.
One such diorama comes to mind that I saw at the 2010 Nationals. It was a 1/72 scale battle diorama of German and Russian troops inside and outside of a T-34 tank factory. I found it fascinating and it was an example of where the more detail, the better, I feel. I found it to be impressive and especially when considering the scale.
Your thoughts about the vacant water areas in my diorama was going to be the basis for any argument that I could have made with Rui about his suggestion of filling the void. But, Rui has worthy point, as well, and it got me thinking about those garbage lighters.
I'm sure that Rui will agree with your comments about the contrast between the busy land area and the vacant water areas. That makes total sense and sounds like the teachings of an art theory or composition professor. This contrast, or balance, may actually be the subconscious affect that they had on me when I first saw the photos. Who knows. Maybe we should compliment the photographer.
This may sound like I'm an easily swayed person but, now I'm thinking about going back to my original intent of leaving the vacant areas of water, vacant. Just like the photos.
I'm torn.
I'm glad that you commented, here, Sten. I think this is the first time that our paths crossed, here on MWS.
Say hello to my cousins, if you see them. I'm half Swedish. My ancestors came to the USA beginning in the 1880's. It's one of my favorite countries and on my list of places that I'd love to visit.
