Reading it again over a decade later, I realise how much the modern miniature scene has blossomed in that time, but also wonder about the sorts of scenes that we generally make. Are we being aspirational rather that representational? And, if so, is that a problem? (Carrie Becker, I'm excluding you from this...)
I wouldn't mind having a discussion on this question. However, can you first define your meaning of the terms 'aspirational' vs 'representational'?
ReplyDeleteExcellent Mini Mod Pod. :-)
ReplyDeleteI meant aspirational as something we'd like to have but can't (for whatever reason, usually cost). And representational as representing reality.
Thinking about it:
a) It would possibly be considered pretty boring if we all made scenes of messy rooms with mismatched furniture, and as hobbies are usually a good way to escape from reality for a while, creating reality in miniature would negate the whole purpose.
b) One person's aspiration is another person's reality...
Firstly - I'm not Mini Mod Pod (though I wouldn't mind it if I were)
ReplyDeleteSo under the category of Aspirational we could include nostalgic styles s.a. Victorian as well as contemporary styles s.a. Scandi.
But I wouldn't limit Aspirational to "something we'd like to have but can't".Though this is often the case it is not necessarily the case. I think miniaturists aspire to recreating styles they like.
Victorian dollhouse style was originally a replica of contemporary Victorian aristocratic reality. But as dollhouses became more democratised in the hands of everyday children I think the truly representational standard gave way to one where anything can represent anything (enter the imagination).
In your earlier blog piece you mildly lamented that contemporary miniatures were no longer Representational and would give wrong impression of our contemporary society. I argue that it is no our job the be Representational when it comes to the way we express our aspirations in miniature form.
Hope this makes sense