Question: Why do some people feel model ship building needs a wider audience?

I would like to emphasize that the supposed arrogance of scratch builders towards kit builders, as noted by @Jimsky, is, in my opinion, unfounded.

Building a ship model from a kit is simply a completely different ball game than a scratch built project. Personally, I rarely open a thread describing building a kit. Not because I look down on it, but because there is little new for me to learn. It is a different world, set in motion for reasons other than my own. But no reason is more or less valuable than another in my opinion. There are a hundred reasons to go model building and they are all valuable. I simply have no interest in following another Bounty, another Victory or a Titanic and certainly no Black Pearls. They simply don't fit in with my world of interest. Does that make me arrogant?

I see the forum as a box of chocolates: all the goodies are good, but some are simply more delicious than others for me. On the other hand I would never refuse help to a kit builder who approaches me with a question. But there are much richer sources than my limited experience.

And as for advertising model building to reach more people: Frankly my dear, I could not care less. Let everybody do what he likes to do.
 
Ab Hoving said:
I would like to emphasize that the supposed arrogance of scratch builders towards kit builders, as noted by @Jimsky, is, in my opinion, unfounded.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your perspective, Ab.
I’d like to clarify that my earlier comments were made in the context of the broader discussion (here) and weren’t meant to reflect a personal opinion about scratch builders. I have great respect for the skill and dedication involved in all forms of ship modeling—whether from a kit, plans, or built entirely from scratch. I aimed to explore how different approaches are sometimes perceived in the community, not to suggest any arrogance on the part of scratch builders themselves.
 
i am a scratch builder and built maybe 1 or 2 kits and a heck of a lot of scratch built models. But i do design "kits"

there are two ways of seeing this a model of a ship and a scale ship model what's the difference?
kit models are not true scale models of a ship because the way they are designed and built is in no way how the real ship was built. It is like a movie set of an old western town it looks real from the front but behind the facade there is nothing to show how such a town was constructed in the wild west in 1830.

i do not think this is a question of who is better skilled at model building i think it comes down to" is this how a wooden ship was built." There are plank on frame kits which you can say are closer to a "real" ship model than a plank on bulkhead model.

can it be said kits are the watered downed, simplified version of the true art of building a scale model of a ship?

why does it matter? i design and scratch build prototypes for kits HUM? in a roundabout way i build kits because the first one was scratch built it still ends up as a "kit" so i scratch built a kit.

the value of the build might depend on the end use, to the academic world a kit has little value in the study of marine architecture. to a builder it might be priceless because it is a personal accomplishment. To an art gallery it is just a mass-produced object of little value.

from a business point of view it is important to spread the word and get as many involved in the hobby. The bigger the income the more research and development. The better the product

do we really need the critical high end builders? sure we do they are the ones that show us what can be achieved if you really make an effort. or if you want to make an effort

who do you support a kit maker who just makes another kit to get in out on the market for profit. Then skimp on instruction with the attitude of here it is you figure out how to build it. Or a kit maker who makes the extra effort to teach you how to build. Is the foundation a goal of a club, forum or business who wants to see the hobby grow should teach rather than leave it up to the builders to figure it out on their own.
 
I suspect that most scratch builders, myself included, started in this hobby by building at least one kit. That first kit may have been a high end from a well known manufacturer or it could have been an inexpensive chinese knock-off. I have seen some kit builds on this site that in my opinion are, well, less than stellar, and I have seen some that are breathtaking. Scratch builders have moved on to the next level, that's all.
Scratch builders have seen the mistakes in scale and accuracy and decided to do something about it. Some like myself, started by purchasing the plans then buying all the wood and fittings separately, then gradually evolving into milling your own wood, manufacturing your own fittings ( either by specialized machines or by 3-D printing ). As Mr. Hoving states in his post, the forum is like a box of chocolates. Some pieces are a chocolate truffle with caramel filling and some are a turkish delight. I enjoy following the build logs of certain ships from a certain era, but have no interest others. It is personal choice not a discrimination against a genre.
 
This discussion reminds me of the four blind men trying to describe an Elephant. Each of us is trying to describe a wide ranging activity from a limited perspective.

For Expmple:

It’s just a hobby. Ignores serious amateur builders

The ultimate achievement is a highly decorated plank on frame sailing warship. Ignores a wide variety of worthwhile modeling subjects

Kit builders build POB models. Scratch builders aspire to build POF models. What about solid hull or laminated lift models. Is the POB method actually the best way to build a Titanic or Bismarck model?

I could go on! A wonderful thing about ship modeling is its huge range of interesting and worthwhile subjects, building techniques, and artistic visions. The men describing the elephant can be excused because they were blind. In discussing this topic remember, in the hands of the right builder a model of a humble harbor barge could be a work of art.

Roger
 
Back to the original thread question:

It’s a fair question: why do some feel that model shipbuilding needs a wider audience? I believe, as a forum, we can (and should) promote the hobby, share knowledge, and celebrate the craft, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it must appeal to the masses. Like many niche pursuits, its value isn’t measured by how many people are involved, but by the depth of skill, passion, and history it carries. For those of us already immersed in it, the reward is intrinsic.
 
Jimsky said:
It’s a fair question: why do some feel that model shipbuilding needs a wider audience? I believe, as a forum, we can (and should) promote the hobby, share knowledge, and celebrate the craft, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it must appeal to the masses. Like many niche pursuits, its value isn’t measured by how many people are involved, but by the depth of skill, passion, and history it carries. For those of us already immersed in it, the reward is intrinsic.
Click to expand...
It appears that history teaches that pursuits which were once the remarkable province of a few skilled practitioners, particularly in the area of the arts, when popularized and their participation expanded, inevitably find themselves made common and their market value reduced.
 
Bob Cleek said:
It appears that history teaches that pursuits which were once the remarkable province of a few skilled practitioners, particularly in the area of the arts, when popularized and their participation expanded, inevitably find themselves made common and their market value reduced.
Click to expand...
Bob, I appreciate your perspective, but I’d have to disagree with that conclusion. While it’s true that wider participation can change the landscape of any art form, it doesn’t automatically lead to a decline in quality or value. Popularizing a skill doesn’t make it “common” in the sense of being lesser; it just makes it more accessible.

In fact, increased interest often brings in fresh talent, new techniques, and broader appreciation, all of which can elevate the craft as a whole. Market value, in any case, is driven by many factors; rarity is just one. Passion, execution, and cultural relevance matter just as much, if not more. Gatekeeping a hobby to preserve its “market value” seems counterproductive to its long-term vitality.
 
I spent 8 years as a board member of The Duluth Superior symphony. A professional orchestra that performes 7 classical and three Pop concerts annually. Every thing about this organization could be described as Elite; the musicians, the conductor and the performance venue. It is a remarkable asset for a small city.

We spent an endless amount of time discussing how to attract the younger generation as older (and wealthy) patrons aged out. The majority of board members ( not including me!) argued that we needed to make the concerts more accessible.

Despite this, the orchestra struggles financially. Real symphonic music fans have found that the changes made have diminished their experience, and the “improved” accessibility has not attracted the new younger patrons.

It turns out that either you like classical music or you don’t Rebranding does not change things.

Maybe this story applies to other niche activities too.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
I spent 8 years as a board member of The Duluth Superior symphony. A professional orchestra that performes 7 classical and three Pop concerts annually. Every thing about this organization could be described as Elite; the musicians, the conductor and the performance venue. It is a remarkable asset for a small city.

We spent an endless amount of time discussing how to attract the younger generation as older (and wealthy) patrons aged out. The majority of board members ( not including me!) argued that we needed to make the concerts more accessible.

Despite this, the orchestra struggles financially. Real symphonic music fans have found that the changes made have diminished their experience, and the “improved” accessibility has not attracted the new younger patrons.

It turns out that either you like classical music or you don’t Rebranding does not change things.

Maybe this story applies to other niche activities too.

Roger
Click to expand...
So.......does the repertoire include stuff from Metallica?
 
1. I assume that Metallica is a arock band.

2. I have never listened to their music.

3. Covid and severe hearing loss only partly solved by hearing aids ended my concert attendance.

Roger
 
Jimsky said:
Bob, I appreciate your perspective, but I’d have to disagree with that conclusion. While it’s true that wider participation can change the landscape of any art form, it doesn’t automatically lead to a decline in quality or value. Popularizing a skill doesn’t make it “common” in the sense of being lesser; it just makes it more accessible.

In fact, increased interest often brings in fresh talent, new techniques, and broader appreciation, all of which can elevate the craft as a whole. Market value, in any case, is driven by many factors; rarity is just one. Passion, execution, and cultural relevance matter just as much, if not more. Gatekeeping a hobby to preserve its “market value” seems counterproductive to its long-term vitality.
Click to expand...

Nobody's proposing "gatekeeping." That's the affirmative effort of keeping people away. At the other end of the spectrum, is lowering standards so an endeavor becomes "accessible" to a much larger number of people. It's not the larger number of people that's the problem at all. It's the lowering of standards that has a negative impact. This is precisely why so many golf courses, for example, are "exclusive." Nobody who is a good golfer wants to have to play behind a foursome of drunk "duffers." This is why pro golf is very profitably televised. People want to watch the pros play, not the players who "just play for fun." If everybody played golf "just for fun," few would have any interest in following it on television.

Anybody who ever seriously pursued film photography and aspired to become an Ansel Adams, a Robert Capa, a Robert Maplethorpe or an Imogen Cunningham knows what happened when access to that artform was "expanded" to anybody who wanted to buy a digital camera. There was once some status and respect afforded those who did their own darkroom work and studied composition and lighting, exposure and depth of field. Now, well, anybody can take a snapshot. (And, interestingly, film photography now appears to be having somewhat of a renaissance as an artform precisely because it requires more learning and commitment than "point and shoot" picture-taking and so receives more respect.)

I think celebrating an "elite" in any artform or sport is exactly the engine which draws participants. Some aspire to themselves become one of the top participants someday, while others participate just to imagine themselves being one of the "elite" players, even though they know they aren't. Without a "pecking order," anything just becomes "another ordinary thing." It's not about discouraging beginners, it's about attracting them. What draws millions to play basketball isn't that schoolyard courts are widely available. What fills those courts are the elite players of the NBA! There's nothing wrong with being a lousy basketball player, but it isn't the lousy players that make the game interesting. Any artform, sport, or similar endeavor... even cooking, is driven by its "masters" who make it fun for the rest of us. For an artform or similar endeavor to attract "new blood" over time, it must be aspirational.

 
Frankly, I don't see a parallel with the Duluth Superior Symphony or any other group endeavoring to provide a public service, be it for profit or otherwise. This is a private pursuit, and we're not talking about forcing anyone to change what they are doing or how they are doing it or even why they are doing it. We're not changing the hobby to make it more accessible; we're simply expanding exposure and offering encouragement for people to give try. It's a hobby, and all practitioners are free to participate in whatever way they see fit. In fact, the only impact I can see of having more people in the hobby on any one Indvidual's pursuit of it is the sharing of knowledge and fellowship (and second-hand tools and supplies ;)). Is that such a bad thing?

Oh, perhaps we should change the site’s homepage if there are that many here who don't think we shouldn't be trying to encourage more people to get into the hobby. As it stands, it's the first thing you see when you arrive.
IMG_5710.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Bob Cleek said:
Nobody's proposing "gatekeeping." That's the affirmative effort of keeping people away. At the other end of the spectrum, is lowering standards so an endeavor becomes "accessible" to a much larger number of people. It's not the larger number of people that's the problem at all. It's the lowering of standards that has a negative impact. This is precisely why so many golf courses, for example, are "exclusive." Nobody who is a good golfer wants to have to play behind a foursome of drunk "duffers." This is why pro golf is very profitably televised. People want to watch the pros play, not the players who "just play for fun." If everybody played golf "just for fun," few would have any interest in following it on television.

Anybody who ever seriously pursued film photography and aspired to become an Ansel Adams, a Robert Capa, a Robert Maplethorpe or an Imogen Cunningham knows what happened when access to that artform was "expanded" to anybody who wanted to buy a digital camera. There was once some status and respect afforded those who did their own darkroom work and studied composition and lighting, exposure and depth of field. Now, well, anybody can take a snapshot. (And, interestingly, film photography now appears to be having somewhat of a renaissance as an artform precisely because it requires more learning and commitment than "point and shoot" picture-taking and so receives more respect.)

I think celebrating an "elite" in any artform or sport is exactly the engine which draws participants. Some aspire to themselves become one of the top participants someday, while others participate just to imagine themselves being one of the "elite" players, even though they know they aren't. Without a "pecking order," anything just becomes "another ordinary thing." It's not about discouraging beginners, it's about attracting them. What draws millions to play basketball isn't that schoolyard courts are widely available. What fills those courts are the elite players of the NBA! There's nothing wrong with being a lousy basketball player, but it isn't the lousy players that make the game interesting. Any artform, sport, or similar endeavor... even cooking, is driven by its "masters" who make it fun for the rest of us. For an artform or similar endeavor to attract "new blood" over time, it must be aspirational.

Click to expand...
Bob,
I agree with everything you said except comparing this to spectator sports. First, golf courses would go out of business or the cost to play would get prohibitively expensive if for every aspiring pro there wasn't a small army of old guys in funny pants out to have some fun on a sunny day. And second, except for sites like this, model building is not a spectator sport. The closest things are sites like this and model building competitions, and they're still not the same thing.

In fact, I think your point about photography highlights the fact there's room for all. It is the names of the greats that people recognize and their work that is emulated by those who pursue photography as an art form. Doesn't mean we should take cameras away from people who just want be able to share vacation shots with their friends. That punishment should be reserved for "social media influencers"...
 
Namabiiru said:
Bob,
I agree with everything you said except comparing this to spectator sports. First, golf courses would go out of business or the cost to play would get prohibitively expensive if for every aspiring pro there wasn't a small army of old guys in funny pants out to have some fun on a sunny day. And second, except for sites like this, model building is not a spectator sport. The closest things are sites like this and model building competitions, and they're still not the same thing.

In fact, I think your point about photography highlights the fact there's room for all. It is the names of the greats that people recognize and their work that is emulated by those who pursue photography as an art form. Doesn't mean we should take cameras away from people who just want be able to share vacation shots with their friends. That punishment should be reserved for "social media influencers"...
Click to expand...
Stosu obeeru dozo!
 
Audience
1 - a gathering of spectators or listeners at a (usually public) performance.
2 - the part of the general public interested in a source of information or entertainment.
There are other definitions but these 2 are surely the most relevent...

Because of where I stood before posting the question....
The funny thing is that "widening the audience" naturally takes place when what many consider the "elite" is more present by showing their work: that work becomes motivation for the aspiring viewer. In some cases, it is a bonus when these people (whatever one may want to call them) document their work by some explanations. If the individual aspiring viewer is motivated for his or her self-development, being technical or otherwise, this information becomes trully valuable.

I will not address the commercial side of wishing to "widen the audience" as I think most modelers partake in building models for their own private and personal enjoyments. Although yes, the availability of more plans, more kits, more tools, etc... may be nice for the modeler, but on a commercial point of view, the best way to widen the audience is to advertise their goods within the existing "audience" (community) and hope to suck-in more modelers (existing and new to the hobby modelers) with their offerings.

So the two are different and may be the subject of separate discussions.

Here is a link to model ship history. I know..... it is Wikipedia.... it may not be totally accurate and probably does not cover everything, but I do think that, contrary to the belief has been in decline, the community has grown and continues to grow exponentially. Again, the membership here or other forum is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.
And I would encourage all to read (unfortunately for some here, the english version seems to be the most detailed)

en.wikipedia.org

Ship model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

What is really needed is not an effort to widening the audience but the expansion of what so many seem to despise... "the elite" who should have more presence within the model ship building community.

Oh Boy..... How is that for being controversial. That last sentence may get me into trouble.

Anyways,
Kindest regards to all.

Keep the discussion going round and around...

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top