Howdy, all…
So, which is it? Are we artists? Craftsmen? Neither? Both?
Anybody who has skimmed the various online forums has seen this argument before. A model is featured, and viewers proclaim it as “fine art”. Others reply that modeling isn’t an art, it is craft. Who is correct? Is either correct? Or is neither one correct?
Let’s see what the dictionary has to say…
Merriam-Webster has several entries for “Art”, but the one that best fits our question is “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects. Also: works so produced.”
As for “Craft”, there are likewise several entries, but the one that interests us is “An occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill.”
Boy, that was helpful, wasn’t it. Let’s see what that great repository for all Internet knowledge, Wikipedia, has to add…
“Art is a diverse range of human activities involving the creation of visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), which express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”
“A craft or trade is a pastime or a profession that requires particular skills and knowledge of skilled work. In a historical sense, particularly the Middle Ages and earlier, the term is usually applied to people occupied in small-scale production of goods, or their maintenance, for example by tinkers. The traditional term craftsman is nowadays often replaced by artisan and by craftsperson.”
Hmm. Let’s look further…
In the entry for “Art”, Wikipedia goes on the say this: “Though there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art, and ideas have changed over time, general descriptions typically include an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency and creation. The nature of art and related concepts, such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.”
Now we seem to be making headway.
What does the Great and Powerful Wiki say about “Craft”? “Handicraft is the "traditional" main sector of the crafts, it is a type of work where useful and decorative devices are made completely by hand or by using only simple tools. Usually the term is applied to traditional means of making goods. The individual artisanship of the items is a paramount criterion; such items often have cultural and/or religious significance. Items made by mass production or machines are not handicraft goods. Handicraft goods are made with craft production processes.”
In case you were wondering and didn’t want to click on the link, Craft production, as defined by Wikipedia, is “manufacturing by hand, with or without the aid of tools. The term ‘craft production’ describes manufacturing techniques that are used in handicraft hobbies and that were the common methods of manufacture – as in the production of pottery – in the pre-industrialized world.”
Hmm…where does *that* leave us?
Perhaps now it is time to use those guidelines and apply them to what we do. But first, what *do* we do when we build a scale model? I mean, all it entails is sticking plastic (and sometimes metal and resin and maybe wood) bits together, right?
Right.
As I like to point out in Model Building 101, building models is both. Preparing and sticking the bits together is no different than building furniture—we remove parts from the runners, clean up the molding flaws, and stick them together. A woodworker rough cuts their boards and smooths them so they are straight and square (you’ll see it referred to as “S6S”, square on six sides), then cuts them to size and assembles them. During assembly, all joints are made to be tight, and the piece is measured again and again to ensure it is straight, square, and plumb. If there are visible joints, they are dressed to eliminate or disguise them. These steps are handicraft and craft production methods.
We engage in our handicraft using those same craft production methods. Along the line, we make allowances for the artisanship of the finished model by dealing with flaws—inherent molding flaws, construction flaws, and finish flaws. We ensure the core of our models—armor and ship hulls, aircraft fuselages, wheeled vehicle chassis—are straight, square, and plumb. These skills are more or less part and parcel of building a model for a skilled model builder. That is the “craft” of building a model.
Where the art comes into play is with the finishing steps. Woodworkers sometimes use carved or specially cut and/or finished trim pieces to embellish the piece they are building, and then apply a smooth finish that is complementary to the construction material—sometimes employing a clear finish to highlight the grain and figure of wood, other times using pigmented paint simply as an aesthetic step to make the piece attractive.
Scale modelers engage in art when they apply the finish to their models, too. We apply paint to more realistically match the colors of the actual item, or to change the color of the material the model is molded from. From there, some modelers use various techniques to add wear and tear to the model, and/or adds the markings seen on the original that places it at a certain place and time. The trick here is to fool the viewers’ eyes into believing that the model they are looking at is an exact copy, in miniature, of the item used as reference (and inspiration) for the process of building the model.
So, we are both “artists” and “craftsman” in my book.
But at the end of the day, does it really matter what we call ourselves? I am fond of saying this about our hobby—there are as many ways to enjoy it as there are people enjoying it.
You do you. The Late Al Superczynski, a long time denizen of the rec.models.scale Usenet group, contributor to “Internet Modeler’, and a fine modeler, used to say “Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and above all, have fun." He was absolutely right.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
I received a few messages on my last post concerning Robert McNamara.
First, I fully realize that there was a *lot* more to the story than what I wrote. Entire volumes have been written about TFX alone. This is a blog, not a fully-funded research and reference site, and my posts are aimed at people who didn’t know about these subjects before and those who would take what is there are do some legwork on their own to get the whole story. That’s the danger with some internet articles—they don’t tell the whole story, or they can be misleading or outright incorrect.
Speaking of being misleading, it was also brought to my attention that I may have been a little unfair to the Navy’s TFX variant, the F-111B. Perhaps I was. So, in an attempt to atone…
The issues the Navy had with TFX were said to be that the airplane was too big and too heavy to operate off the decks of the carriers. But if you read the accounts made during the F-111B’s early sea trials, it doesn’t seem to be the case. Without trying to re-write what has already been written, I’m going to direct you to Tommy Thomason’s excellent blog, “Tailhook Topics” and his entries on the F-111B, starting with this one: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2009/03/f-111b-carrier-trials.html .
As for the “too big and too heavy”, here’s Tommy’s piece that compares the F-111B and its eventual replacement, the F-14A: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/01/f-111b-versus-f-14a-one-more-time.html.
So, it appears that the airplane was capable of the job. Tommy points out two pertinent points in the second link, however—first, the Hughes radar and missile system development was a few years behind the development of the aircraft, so had the F-111B had gone into full production it would have been initially without the AN/AWG-9 and the Phoenix missiles. It was another case of desire outstripping technology—similar issues plagued the Convair F-102, a supersonic interceptor that couldn’t break Mach 1.0 in its original form. It took application of newly formulated aerodynamic data and a redesign of the fuselage to make it barely supersonic. All the while, the fire control system development was fraught with issues, and these issues led to not only the Convair F-106, but also the McDonnell F-101B interceptor version of the Voodoo.
The second point Tommy makes is that the Navy was wise to unburden itself from TFX, since the airplane they would have received (like the airplane the USAF *did* receive) was compromised by trying to accommodate both the Fleet Air Defense and low-level supersonic interdiction missions with the same airplane—it just so happened that the airplane performed the Air Force’s mission better. That should have surprised nobody, since TFX started as a USAF project that was being adapted to also fit the Navy’s mission.
While there were deficiencies with the Tomcat as well, there were other facets of the F-14A program that made it a better fit for the Navy. Plus, it was supported by the Navy’s mid-level commanders, unlike TFX. In short, TFX suffered in the Navy due to the NIH (Not Invented Here) theory—the Navy had previously held full dominion on the design and production of their weapons systems, and TFX took that away because it was a system dictated to the Navy by the Pentagon and managed by the USAF.
And yeah, I’m sure I probably missed a few items. Again, if you want to know more, go dig. The information is out there…
And if you have an interest in the F-111B (or any other Naval Aviation subject, for that matter) and have not read Tommy’s blog, you really should. In addition to “Tailhook Topics” there is a sister blog, “U.S. Navy Aircraft History”. Check them both out, won’t you?
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
As of right now, the South Carolina Scale Model Mega Show will go forward on the weekend of 18/19 June (Friday the 18th is a set-up day, the show happens on Saturday). Last week, we added the title of “2021 IPMS/USA Region 12 Regional Convention” to the show, and we’re looking forward to that.
Our contest format this year will be unlike anything IPMS or AMPS has seen on a regular basis. We decided to move our show to more of a social event and exhibition. We’ve combined what we think are the best aspects of the Military Miniatures Society of Illinois (MMSI) show and the AMPS scoring system. Entrants will pay a small fee that will allow them to display as many models as will fit in a ~30 inch square space. They can designate one of their models for judges’ evaluation and scoring, and they can select their skill level at the same time. Two teams of two judges will evaluate and score the model, and the score earned will be used to determine if the model earns a medal. Better still, the score sheet and written judges’ feedback will be returned to the entrant to be used to aid them in becoming a better modeler. Medalists will be eligible for Class awards (best aircraft, etc.) and Best of Show award. There will be several Special Awards available, too. The best part of this format is that there will be chairs behind the displays so that the entrant can sit and talk with folks who are admiring their models, share techniques, and enjoy themselves. We’re hoping it is a more relaxed environment where modelers can gather and admire models. After all, that should be what the hobby is about—models not medals.
If you’re in the area, come on by and spend some time with us.
Thanks for reading. Until next time, be good to one another, stay safe and healthy, and as always, I bid you Peace.
Comments