Unfortunately, that certainly seems to have become the case in recent times. It would appear that all things which we may do for "therapeutic exercise... that gives us satisfaction" are best done in private. Self-satisfaction in public is generally considered indecent. Why would anyone have any interest whatsoever in anybody else's therapeutic self-satisfaction? The problem with ship modeling is exactly that: there are too many people who are doing it with the expectation that others will give them satisfaction and far too few people who build academically accurate scale ship models to standards of quality by which each model can be measured and stand alone on its own merits. In other fields of endeavor, this quality has been called "redeeming social value." It's of no moment why a modeler built a model, but what a model says to its viewers is everything.
I've posted this excerpt from Rob Napier's book before. It's about as spot on a definition of a "high-quality scale ship model" as anybody's ever done. It was the result of an effort to define what it was believed a serious ship modeler ought to strive for in the wake of Howard I. Chapelle's "What should and should not be built." editorials.
Like it or not, this is the standard against which every scale ship model is unavoidably measured in one sentence:
"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy.
"Historical accuracy" encompasses all the objective, or measurable, standards of technical exactness that might apply to a ship model. These embrace the obvious hull shape and fairness; precision in fittings, rigging, and colors; lack of anachronisms; and so forth. But it also encompasses all aspects of craftsmanship because the lack of craftsmanship creates unrealistic and, therefore, historically inaccurate blemishes on a model. ... The phrase "historically accurate" alone effectively replaces the intention of the now-vapid "museum quality."
"... (A "compelling impression") allows and encourages aesthetic interpretation of a vessel that will help propel the viewers to make the leap of faith that allows a model to work or to willingly suspend the disbelief that keeps a model from working. Both processes help viewers accept the invitation to visit a ship instead of a model. Compelling impression is the result of applying artistic and interpretive decision-making processes... to amplify a model beyond being a mere assemblage of parts.
"It is important to recognize that neither arm of our definition considers how a model was made. There is no assessment of whether entire models or components of them are built from scratch, built from kits, or built by teams of modelers. The main thing is the appearance of the finished model. The ends justify the means.
"One could argue that it is more important and more difficult to teach inexperienced modelers how to tell if their model yields a compelling impression than it is to teach them how to put the thing together. If they are only interested in being satisfied with the latter, then the former is even tougher."
Rob Napier, Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application
(2022) Seawatch Books.
See: https://seawatchbooks.com/products/...tive-of-thought-and-application-by-rob-napier
See also: https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Wa...ications-for-Building-Exhibition-Ship-Models/
You clearly have very strong views on this issue, Bob. I think Jaager's post captures much of the problem here with his notion of two universes colliding:
One universe is when Historian, accurate scratch building, expanding knowledge, serious dedication, seeking to bring the obscure and forgotten back into a physical presence, looking to cut a new and unique path, ship modeling as challenge and something worth serious effort are the ambition as the stand
I think Jaager's comment very much captures a lot of what the discussion has been about in this 'course' (and elsewhere). When I look at some of the build logs on SoS, I realise that some of the work being done falls into the category of what could be called 'reconstructive archaeology through model building'. This group of model builders, which is perhaps the audience Chappelle was largely addressing, is pretty much by definition a small elite. The level of dedication required to achieve this standard, for the ordinary mortal, borders on the obsessive.
According to Chappelle's argument (and presumably your's Bob), most of us shouldn't even touch a hobby knife, yet alone attempt to build a "model ship". I put "model ship" in quotation marks as the definition of what consitutes a model ship I think is part of the (unstated) argument here. Donald McNarry for instance prefers the term "miniature ships" (though he built at the scale of 50 feet to one inch - Robert A Wilson continues in this tradition):
"Well-made ship models can be seen in most museums and any shipping office window. They are characterised by smooth, unplated hulls gleaming with high gloss paint, boot-eyelet portholes, drawn or painted-on windows, highly polished decks lined with black ink, gravity defying aerials [etc] ... Fortunately this tradition is dying - but it is dying hard." Donald McNarry,
Shipbuilding in Miniature, 1955.
I also find it interesting that, in my opinion, many of the incredible models that are displayed on this site do not comform to the definition: "a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." Instead of the "shipping office" tradition McNarry talks about, the dominant tradition seems to be Admiralty/Dockyard/Russian Palace model, where, for example, contrasting timbers are used instead of paint. They are technically superb but I am sure that they do not look like any actual vessel.
And the vast majority of us do build our models in private, they are displayed in our homes if anywhere. I totally respect your opinion Bob, and yes, by all means judge models against your very rigorous standards, but I build model ships because I enjoy the process (that is for my own self-satisfaction - and, perhaps unintended, but your implication here is a little bit rude), not to impress anyone, certainly not to be compared against other model builders (though being human I inevitably do make such comparisons) and judged against impossibly high standards, though it is always nice to have people say encouraging things about one's attempts.
I can only bring my own personal and limited perspective to this conversation. I am very much a scratch builder, but I am not trying to expand anyone's knowledge but my own. I guess each of us mature as model builders in our own way. I remember a time when I was a child I used to build plastic kit models and I learnt a lot about ships through this, but I would not be bothered with a kit model of any description these days, mainly as a matter of personal satisfaction. And nothing against kit-builders, though a theme through this course has been the suggestion that many kit builder move on to scratch building. In this regard I am very much in line with Harold A Underhill’s thoughts:
"… my pleasure in model work is the making, and a model in which the fittings were bought ready-made would have no appeal whatever, I would rather have a relatively crude fitting made with my own hands than the most perfect example of the modelmaker’s art supplied by someone else. … On the other hand, and here I know that I am asking for trouble, I get very angry when shown a model which someone claims to have “made”, when in actual fact all they have done is assemble a number of parts made by someone else. That is not model building."
Harold A Underhill,
Plank on Frame Models, Vol 2.
So Underhill's argument would go against the claim that the ends justify the means. Like Underhill, I believe the process is important. Napier's definition of what constitutes a "high-quality scale ship model" is no doubt sound, but my understanding is that the argument that Greg Davis started this course with is about what Chappelle thought ought and ought not be built. Basically, having considered Greg's question, I disagree with Chappelle; and Greg even found some examples of Chappelle's own work that goes against his argument, though from this course I understand that Chappelle never actually built a model ship.
To extend Jaager's metaphor, when universes collide perhaps it is best to let them pass through one another and hope that they do not do too much damage to each other along the way. And I am not even sure that our universes are so far apart, Bob. I do try to build my models as accurately as I can, and being historically correct is of concern, but ultimately I do it for my own satisfaction. The fact is my models will never come close to the standards you are suggesting should always prevail.
"Why would anyone have any interest whatsoever in anybody else's therapeutic self-satisfaction?" Well, because as a social creature I care about other people's well-being. I can be critical of the object they have created but still appreciate the effort that went into it and share in the joy they gained in the process.
Where can I find examples of your work, Bob?
