You've started, not me.
Hi, Gilles. Welcome to this thread, and thank you for your thoughtful, balanced perspective and for making a fair attempt to bridge differing philosophies in the model shipbuilding community.
Absolutely. One only needs to look at some of the build logs on the various ship model websites around the world to find some world class builds, be they from a kit or from scratch. We are a mix of working or retired mechanics, doctors, carpenters, sales folks, engineers, and the list goes on, yet we get some great models off the ways regardless of our background.
Well said!
You've started, not me.
There are documented discussions within the ship modeling community regarding the historical accuracy of Harold Hahn's models. While Hahn is celebrated for his craftsmanship and contributions to the art of ship modeling, some experts and enthusiasts have pointed out that certain aspects of his work involve artistic interpretation rather than strict adherence to historical records.
Furthermore, you (Dave), who knew Hahn personally, have commented on the critiques of Hahn's work. You (Dave) mentioned that Hahn's framing techniques were sometimes considered stylized and not entirely historically correct, recounted that Hahn acknowledged these critiques, and emphasized that his models were not meant to be historically accurate. Hahn believed that unless one is working from an intact shipwreck where every detail can be studied and reproduced, complete historical accuracy is unattainable. He viewed his models as dioramas intended to suggest life aboard wooden ships of the period, using artistic license to provoke the imagination of the viewer.
While Harold Hahn's models are highly regarded for their craftsmanship and have significantly influenced the field of ship modeling, there is acknowledgment within the community that his work includes subjective elements and artistic interpretations. These aspects, while enhancing the visual and educational appeal of his models, indicate that they may not always serve as precise historical replicas.
But..., there's nothing wrong with that! He is still a Harold Hann.
That’s a fair and honest perspective, and it highlights an important distinction: when a model is intended as a personal artistic interpretation, historical scrutiny isn’t necessarily the goal. But in broader discussions, especially those centered around accuracy, it helps to be clear about where interpretation begins and ends. I do wonder, though, in our shared space of model building, how often artistic intent gets misunderstood as historical authority. That might be where confusion (or debate) starts (but please don't). Either way, your experience in the art world may bring a valuable lens to such a conversation.
. After all, he's the author...
Thank you for your articulate and balanced response, mon ami! Yes, you’ve captured exactly the point I was hoping to highlight when I started this topic. Authorial intent and craftsmanship are both essential lenses for appreciating someone’s work, regardless of whether they aim for historical fidelity, creative interpretation, or something in between. Recognizing that helps us move beyond rigid categories and creates space for a wider range of builders to be valued for their contributions.I have tried to stay out of this discussion but Mr. Korent's recent post prompts me to share some thoughts.
It is a simple truth that we all come to the topic of model shipbuilding (or really any topic) with our own preconceived notions. In professional/scientific literature (one of my playgrounds) we call this reader bias. Broadly speaking, it describes our tendency to read what we are reading through the filter of our own accepted truths. As a result we often find ourselves disagreeing (or agreeing) with what another has written because we have already decided what is right/wrong in our own minds.
But there is another side to this. It is something called authorial intent. This is somewhat less applicable in scientific literature than it is in the world of philosophy or humanities studies. Broadly speaking, it refers to the intent of the author when he/she communicates. If we accept that the author wrote (or created) with intent then that should constrain our interpretation of what has been written or created. It establishes a hermeneutic.
In the area of ship modeling we might say that if the modeler intended to create to an 'historical' standard then that person's work should be interpreted (judged, or perhaps it would be better to say appreciated) against that intent. If the modeler intended to create to another standard then that work should be appreciated against that intended standard. But that also means we should not interpret (judge) another's work against an intent (standard) they never intended. I believe we can discern authorial intent by 'reading the room.' For example, it would be hard to review my work and not discern that my intent is to build to a mostly historical standard. There are other build logs here that the intent of the builder is to create something fanciful - in that case to interpret or judge their work with regard to historicity is to fail to appreciate authorial intent.
The part that I found appealing from Mr. Korent's post is the notion of craftsmanship. Assuming the builder intended to do their best possible work (perhaps that's unfair?) then craftsmanship should be evident. Of course there is a learning curve even to that. Or there might be constraints imposed by knowledge, materials, tools, natural ability, etc. But we can all appreciate craftmanship regardless of the intent of the author/creator/modeler.
I believe this is the distinction Jimsky intends for us to recognize when he introduced this topic - but if otherwise I'm sure he will correct me
Exactly, that’s precisely the point I was trying to make. In many cases, you're not paying for the "art" itself, but for the name attached to it. The banana-on-the-wall example proves that perfectly (where is the art???): the object is ordinary, even replaceable, but its perceived value comes from the status of the artist and the certificate of authenticity, not from craftsmanship, meaning, or even originality. It’s a different world entirely from the one most of us operate in as model builders, where the value often lies in the process, passion, and precision, not in the signature.
Museums aren’t the only places where ship models can be appreciated or recognized. Of course, museums are great places to keep models safe, climate-controlled, dust-free, and well out of reach of curious grandchildren with sticky fingers!
To be honest, I don't think you, or many others, need to be confined to any particular group at all. Your approach shows care, attention to detail, and personal expression, which are all valid and meaningful qualities in model building. Sometimes these classifications can be too rigid to capture the unique motivations and styles we each bring to the work. It's more about how you engage with the process than which “camp” you fall into.
I myself strive for the gorgeous lines and run of the entire ship a graceful thing of beauty. If I put a cannon of the wrong bore or a different capstan than the Time period shown, I don't care my main goal is to create a ship that most people just love the lines of her as I do.
