Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is a big part of our PR problem, although a bit different from what I originally posted about.

Noel, you have not answered my question about Rembrandt's Night Watch and my diorama Capturing The Moment? Why is one art and the other not? (ignoring the size difference.) The diorama (as a whole) is not a kit. It is a composite of many elements to create a scene and tell a story. The idea is as original as the Night Watch and similar in concept.

All the fore thought which goes into doing a model, is virtually the same as a that for a painting. Inspiration, choice of subject, research, and point of view. The final choice in how it is to be displayed is also an important element.

Taken as a whole, Capturing The Moment is a grouping of many different elements. The placement of each element was carefully considered for visual effect in much the same way Rembrandt posed his figures if the Night Watch. Even if it is nothing but Found Art, it is original in concept. So, please explain WHY this is not an art form.

No one can force you to be considered and artist. I am only pointing out by accepting what we do as art, we will appeal to many who at first thought we are only a group of children. The simple changing of a word here would make a big difference.

Dak

IMG_5167.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am on topic. The topic is Public Relations - how IPMS is perceived by members and non-members. What could possibly be more important in cultivating a favorable perception of this organization than our members demonstrating sensitivity about such an important episode in history as the Holocaust? Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David: I believe you're getting bogged down in your own argument about art. This entire discussion centers on our PR problem, which in turn hinges on how people outside of IPMS perceive us. Whether or not we see ourselves as artists doesn't really matter. What matters is (from your perspective) is whether being seen AS "artists" will help us overcome the PR problem, or re-enforce the already existing problem. I don't see how being artists helps much.

Let's refocus and try looking at it this way: Let's say we're a society of DANCERS (yet a different art form). Lot's of people like to dance, some more than others, and some are better at it than others, be it through a natural talent or practice. THAT can be exactly equated to building models. Now, as a dance society, I believe IPMSUSA would be equated to and viewed as (for ex.) "ballroom" dancers: a group who know what they're doing and are serious about their craft. I do not think IPMSUSA would be looked upon as a DANCE CLASS, where people go to learn how to dance and get better at it. So, we would NOT look appealing to join to the "average" person who likes to simply hit the clubs and dance. There would actually probably be an intimidation factor of not being ready or worthy to be a part of a group so far "above" their own level. No matter how much they might respect and admire IPMS (as dancers) for being good at that "art", it does not help us overcome the PR problem that EVERYONE is welcome and IPMS IS a place to learn and become better at your craft.

You are quite correct in that much of the general public probably looks on building models as playing with toys. But, we're not concerned about the general public...we're concerned with changing the minds of model builders who are not IPMS members. THOSE people do not look at the hobby as being merely for kids, or playing with toys. But MOST of them also are not as "invested" as we are in the hobby. The PR problem for that group of initial joiners is for them to see us as a group that WANTS beginning and "average" modelers (which is actually what most of our membership considers themselves, artist or not).

No matter how we view our hobby, no matter whether we're artisans or merely plastic hackers; there are 2 PR problems to overcome: the idea that we are an "elite" group that requires a level of expertise to be a part of (the intimidation factor); and the insidious reputation (deserved or not) we have as accuracy anal color nazis.

 

GIL :smiley16:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:

I am on topic. The topic is Public Relations - how IPMS is perceived by members and non-members. What could possibly be more important in cultivating a favorable perception of this organization than our members demonstrating sensitivity about such an important episode in history as the Holocaust? Nick

The general public is not reading these long forums. Additionally, who died and made you the moral judge of exactly what is an appropriate.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil, you are correct, at least to some degree. But as I noted, some model builders and their families feel model building is not an appropriate adult behavior. It is a staple of sit-coms to talk about how pathetic model builders are.....usually train people....and we need to over come that attitude.

I know some feel we are intimidating. I don't really understand this aspect because participating with top flight modelers is a draw for me. Perhaps we should take a more aggressive approach. If you want to build better models, then be part of an organization that builds good models. The current 'ahh shucks, we ain't special" attitude isn't working all that well.

I have to wonder where and when the idea started we are an elite group. I noted IPMS and most of the local chapters, don't require an audition to join or have a probationary period. Nor does anyone have to win at other contests to qualify to enter the National. However, it does cost quite a bit to attend a National, if it is far enough away you need an hotel and I know that intimidates some. However, I doubt we can change that.

One thing that would help is for more members to write articles for the Journal to show more diversity in subject matter. For example, I do cars on occasion, but I'm not a car guy, so any article I pen is not going to impress the car guys and make them want to join the society. If you can post here, you can write an article for the Journal.

Another thing that could fight the intimidation factor is to change contests to consider skill levels. Let the entrant pick the level which she/he is comfortable. Other groups do this.

Also, we could make more effort to recruit female members. Also, advertise at colleges: show how model building relates to architecture, engineering, history, theater, and yes, art.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil  has summed up the PR problems in his last paragraph, but there is another. Many people outside the society still have the notion that we are just aircraft modellers. Why this still persists after fifty odd years is anyone's guess!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ghodges said:

No matter how we view our hobby, no matter whether we're artisans or merely plastic hackers; there are 2 PR problems to overcome: the idea that we are an "elite" group that requires a level of expertise to be a part of (the intimidation factor); and the insidious reputation (deserved or not) we have as accuracy anal color nazis.

Ok, so we have clearly identified the problems. So, what do we do about them?

My solutions is a specific Public Relations campaign to address these issues and show they are not true. For example, I am considering creating a free handout for my local store on basics for improving your model.  For example, many novices don't think about seams and mold marks and can't understand why these things are important. It would not talk about contests, but merely promote what most groups accept as good, basic work. This sort of thing could be done on an individual basis. It could both promote the local chapter as well as the national one.

A re-design of the regionals and Nationals..... and possibly local chapter contest like Scalefest and SoonerCon…to allow the entrant to choose her/his skill level for the contest. Say levels....Novice, Intermediate, and Master. For those who feel intimidated, it gives a more tempting way to get their feet wet than swimming with the big dogs.

Thoughts, anyone?

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people outside the society still have the notion that we are just aircraft modellers. Why this still persists after fifty odd years is anyone's guess!

This misconception is due to ignorance of the organization or just plain discriminatory behavior by poor losers, pure and simple as explained previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rusty White said:

This misconception is due to ignorance of the organization or just plain discriminatory behavior by poor losers, pure and simple as explained previously.

This is only partially true. The individual which prompted me to start this string is an excellent figure painter and hardly can be considered a loser. I agree some... and Rusty knows exactly who I'm talking about....are sore losers and trying to blame everyone but themselves for their problems. But you can't say that about groups like AMPS, for example.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing we need to do for our own PR is talk up modeling when ever you can. Modeling is a solitary hobby mostly done by yourself in your hobby room so a Society like IPMS/USA is a great way to make new friends and meet people with like interests.

My own experience came over 33 years ago when I joined my local club and was the only automotive modeler in the group. Took some time to get in with the group but I helped myself by inviting other automotive modelers I met along the way - 6 to 8. Some stayed and some left rather quickly and life took it toll also.

PR is up to all of us and we have a harder time now than ever before due to the need for instant gratification that seems to be the norm today. Having recently moved to Hawaii, I was invited to an neighbor's BBQ to meet families in our neighborhood. During a conversation on history I asked the neighbor if he built models and found out the he and his oldest son had just begun doing just that. So I offered to be a resource for questions. That is how PR should be done - get out and ask.

Have a nice day and build a model.

David Von Almen, Gentleman Modeler (now in the islands)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dvonalmen said:

The first thing we need to do for our own PR is talk up modeling when ever you can.

Absolutely! It has always amused me that so many act ashamed that they build models. It is an art and people should respect it as such, but they will not if people keep acting like wall flowers.

Toujours de l'audace!

Dak, renaissance modeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 3:26 PM, Dakimbrell said:

I agree we judge on craftmanship, but as I noted, what is good craftmanship depends a lot on what you consider the proper style. I have learned there are numerous styles and can judge models based on the style of the workmanship. Some cannot. To me, a un-weathered model is poorly done. I also feel the same about a model without a figure with it. Super clean models are boring to me and come across as amateurish, but some feel differently which is fine.

Hi DAK

        I'm still on p.1 of this thread but this "The above quote"  jumped out at me and may have already been addressed. I have to disagree on this one point because no where is Style mentioned in the judges handbook. Style is a personal "Like" and we don't judge likes. How is any entrant to a contest to know what a particular judge likes in whatever style and then how do they build to that judges preferences' ?  You use weathering of aircraft as an example. I too prefer weathered aircraft BUT it has to be subtle. Now aircraft weather differently based on numerous factors up to and including factory fresh. Same with most other models in other major classes. So to say a model not being weathered is a sign of poor craftsmanship is in my mind not adhering to the judges handbook. I have seen some very impressive non weathered models. An example was a 32nd scale F-18 at Columbus Nats in 15 where the builder had opened up everything as it rolled down the assembly line and was painted as such. Or the 48th B-1 in the same contest. You can go further back in time to the 70's when Arlo Schroder and Mr. Lee were running roughshod over the aircraft entries with their beautiful scratch built entries that were not weathered very much if at all.. Many National best in show winners have been un-weathered. So in closing good craftsmanship is spelled out for all of us in the Handbook. We as judges apply these guild lines to the entries in making our decisions or should be. Is this always the case? No! and that is where I feel we can get better as judges.    

     Apologies if this has been beaten into proverbial dead horse.. I'm new to the thread and this is fresh road kill for me. So the horse is still fresh ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 7:26 PM, ghodges said:

Personally, I like the skill level idea. I remember my very first contest of ANY kind...which just happened to be the 1978 IPMS Nationals in Atlanta. To say I was in over my head was an understatement!

The skill level idea does open up other cans of worms.....

1) The first "gut" reaction would be that we need to triple the categories.... needing one each for the levels of "novice", "intermediate", and "master". That's not really true of course, since you could design the novice AND master cats to be more general on the theory that those two will have the least amount of people in them by comparison.

2) "The awards costs would be too much"....true, if you simply tripled the standard Nats awards....but why do we have to do that? IF (and I say IF) we were to go to 3 levels of competition, then you have 3 levels of awards: Certificates for the novices, ribbons for the intermediates, and medals/plaques/trophies (whatever) for the masters. This saves money AND also gives an incentive to move up in the rankings.

3) "There'll be a resentment to being "ranked" by your building ability within IPMS"....could be....but then isn't there an un-official ranking among IPMSers now? Don't we all KNOW who the honchos are? And based on our own personalities, don't we either admire or resent their "celebrity" and ability to repeatedly win? And if IPMSUSA was to allow you to select the ranking you compete in to BEGIN with (until you rise by dent of winning), then how could you complain about having to compete on the level you chose?

4) "Creating  a MASTER CLASS of builders will create resentment among the lesser members"...sort of a caveat to the above...and I think it's disproved by the many other societies that DO have "master modelers". They're generally admired and the desire to join THEIR ranks is the general reaction to being in their club, competition, and company.

I'm not sure it could be done at this late date, but I do think the idea has some merit. If YOU think back on your decision to join your local club and IPMSUSA, I'm betting there was some intimidation you had to overcome. "I can't join them...THOSE guys are good and know what they're doing"! It's the same when it comes to contests....you have to overcome the intimidation of going up against "honchos" and learning to swim in the deep end as things are designed now. Adding skill levels lowers the level of intimidation, allowing newer members to start in the shallow end if they feel the need to build their confidence before stroking for deeper competitive waters.

 

Gil :smiley16:

Good points Gil

               Something that just popped into my head as it relates to the National and multiple levels. Again apologies if this has been mentioned as I am still on P.1... But if we do as suggested then we are doing more than tripling out levels, we are tripling our workload as judges. As it is now we go to a category makes cuts. That first cut "usually" gets rid of 75% of the category in relatively quick amount of time then we start nit picking ;-) .. Ok lets assume those 75% (O boy I'm in trouble now) that don't survive are your entry/beginner level that would be in another category in a new multi tiered system. So now you are having to go back and in essence re-judge those that don't survive a first cut in a traditional system. That can be daunting since most of those have a lot more errors to quantify. That will take a huge amount of time. I personally have struggled over trying to pick a 3rd place over any 1st vs 2nd . As a matter of fact 95% of the time it has been my experience that 1st sets itself apart. But I digress, triple the cats and you'll triple the workload. Triple the workload on Friday night and you'll loose a lot of those volunteer judges .

   Ok, back to finish P.1 of this, LOL

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 11:20 PM, noelsmith said:

Interesting to see how much debate goes onto the IPMS USA forum about PR, judging and contest rules etc in different threads.

Certainly do not see this amount of debate on the UK website!  Maybe us Brits are a bit  too laid  back to bother about lengthy debates on our forum. It would certainly be a bit more live!y if there was. I do not think we are any less passionate about our modelling however. But maybe our psyche is just a bit different from our American friends.

Noel

      Well we are passionate about our hobby. Granted maybe to much so. But "You knew it was coming" I would rather have this debate and get it out and talked about rather than just accepting whatever goes. I was watching a video of a British national judge being interviewed and was asked about judging. His last comment really struck me as very odd "and maybe a reason for your side of the pond to have more discussions" but he ended his remarks by saying that in the end its what the judges like. That really got me bothered since how is an entrant to know what any particular judge likes? maybe that's allowed for over there but as an possible future entrant I would never enter a contest knowing that the winners are whatever the judges decide what they like.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 9:36 AM, Dakimbrell said:

Back on topic, I have been doing a little local research and found those who grinch the most about IPMS being too picky, etc, also don't make much effort to fill out the comments/note section on an entry form. One guy said he didn't understand what the box was for? When people do weird things, they need to note and explain them.

We talk about only judging craftsmanship and not accuracy, but these things often over lap. We don't like seams and globs of glue because the are not accurate. I recently had some AMPS guys say the weathering was overdone on a model, yet all the weathering was based on specific photos which I should have included with the entry sheet. Or is heavy weathering poor craftsmanship?

Dak

Whooo Hooo I'm on p.2 now...

   Dak

             Totally agree with your first paragraph.... Now You said that "we don't like seams and globs of glue because they are not are not accurate", No! We find those as build errors in the process of building a model. Not as accuracy issues. Accuracy is more in the historical context, not the process of construction or finish. As to your overweathering of said tank if the emphasis is directed at a really muddy tank IE one that's bogged down in ALOT of mud that carries over onto the tank then my question is are you in essence trying to tell a story with the tanks struggle to get out of a mud bog. Or do you have a tank on a nice piece of wood sitting there dripping in mud? If it's the first then it makes more sense, if it's the latter then you as a judge start to wonder if this is just a screw up and is the entrant gaming the system but overloading it with mud to cover all the mistakes? I'm not an armor judge but have talked with many and do dabble in the dark arts of it LOL.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 6:48 PM, Dakimbrell said:

How realistic a technique is done is a question of accuracy. Which is what I am saying, the two often go hand in hand. We may not judge how many rivets are accurate, or the shade of paint, but a big glue glob along the wing root is both poor craftmanship AND (generally) not accurate. However some glue globs in some places might be. Fogging around the edges of some canopies might also be accurate.

My point is the builder needs to let the judges know if this is done deliberately. Encouraging more people to fill out the comments box is something which could pay us back with happier entrants and better informed judges.

Dak

Dak

      Honestly I'm not picking on you and agree with the gist of what you're saying. But I think your use of the word "accuracy" is what bothers me. It is spelled out in the handbook that we don't judge accuracy. Errors in the build process are not accuracy issues. What we judge is the application of any finish from factory fresh to heavily weathered. I'll use autos as an example of the pristine. Paint needs to be smooth and without any blemishes as orange peel Ect. Now the other end of the spectrum is Armor that can go to a flat factory fresh product to once emerging from a mud bog.  Is the one that is covered in mud covering so much of the model you have a hard time telling what type of tank or vehicle it is? if that's the case then I would argue that the weathering is poorly applied unless it's in a diorama representing it's emergence from a mud bog. So in essence its about application not accuracy . A muddy tank is accurate, a factory fresh tank is accurate. A rusty tank is accurate. It's how those various forms are applied that's judged. Weathered aircraft for example, if someone applies a wash and you see pooling in corners then that's a ding as the wash wasn't applied properly. I have seen panel lines with wash applied that were airbrushed over. That's a ding because it wasn't done in the correct process. Heavily applied paint in cars or orange peel is dinged but could be considered "accurate" because a lot of cars out there on the road have orange peel. That's why we don't judge accuracy. It's impossible to know everything about every possible subject. And I agree if the modeler is trying to convey something other than the norm then they need to alert the judges, YOU ARE ABSOLUTLY SPOT ON! but the slippery comes when modelers know they have messed up and try to cover up mistakes with excuses. Well the real aircraft leans in real life so that's why I modeled it as such. Yeah right you just weren't about fixing it because we all know Models are supposed to be square and plumb to the naked eye.

      Your main point of reading the rules would go a long way as to what judges look for. It's like you said,  as an entrant they have to be convincing not only with their work but with their documentation. If a team has a question about a build they do or should be looking at the entry for per the head judge as he tells us every year to read the forms..  

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 12:26 AM, noelsmith said:

John Walker has just given in my opinion one of the most succinct views about percption of IPMS in general, members and non members attitudes, and how competition is viewed both from outside and inside this organisation.

Dak's last post about modelles not joining IPMS because they are cheap and lazy is a bit strong. He is missing the point as there are many an excellent modeller out beyond IPMS who make models purely for enjoyment to their own style and not have to be hide bound by any competition rules. Also, there are people out there that cannot afford the latest big kit that is released. On my retirement pension you can count me amongst those folk, but I still remain a member since I joined back in 1974.

Noel

        But Dak isn't wrong either. I too have seen what he is talking about. But then I do agree with Mr. Walker too. It's a multi faceted issue.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 6:36 AM, Dakimbrell said:

This is a big part of our PR problem, although a bit different from what I originally posted about.

Noel, you have not answered my question about Rembrandt's Night Watch and my diorama Capturing The Moment? Why is one art and the other not? (ignoring the size difference.) The diorama (as a whole) is not a kit. It is a composite of many elements to create a scene and tell a story. The idea is as original as the Night Watch and similar in concept.

All the fore thought which goes into doing a model, is virtually the same as a that for a painting. Inspiration, choice of subject, research, and point of view. The final choice in how it is to be displayed is also an important element.

Taken as a whole, Capturing The Moment is a grouping of many different elements. The placement of each element was carefully considered for visual effect in much the same way Rembrandt posed his figures if the Night Watch. Even if it is nothing but Found Art, it is original in concept. So, please explain WHY this is not an art form.

No one can force you to be considered and artist. I am only pointing out by accepting what we do as art, we will appeal to many who at first thought we are only a group of children. The simple changing of a word here would make a big difference.

Dak

IMG_5167.JPG

Or

     This post got me thinking DAK. There was a figure put out by "If I recall correctly Andrea" of a Napoleonic figure mounted on a dappled grey horse to celebrate one of their companies anniversaries. The rider was pulling the reigns to the right and twisting to the right and the horse was starting to rise up as if to try and turn right to face a foe. Really cool looking figure that makes me wish I could do it justice and to justify the cost LOL, but my point here is this. That figure WAS based on an actual famous painting that I don't know the name of. So if you have a model of a painting that is considered art then why isn't the same exact subject in 3 dimensions not art?

 

Jim

fc889d2a1b23d7587ac6d5f4c69b32e0.jpg

mpance01.jpg

Edited by JClark
Adding information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow

            Ok, Finally done. Many good points brought up by all. And to defend Nick I too thought that the yellow star comment may be going off the rails.

            We have a multi faceted problem that while some see as a problem others don't. Bad PR , bad impressions, ugly anti IPMS images in ones heads out IPMS. Ect. But then I look at the progression of our hobby as a whole. Every year before the Nats I go through all my convention issues of the Journal. I have them all from 73 to today sans 75,76,77,81,90 and 91. Lots of articles to re read in those too. And guess what, the same things were talked about 25,30 and 40 years ago. This leads me to believe nothing will change in those respects. But what do we keep seeing? It's like Gil says, it's hard to argue with success and this show at the national level is pretty successful . And when you have the success we currently enjoy and the profits made then it's a hard nut to bust to try and change things while enjoying thousands of entries every year at the Nats.

         DAK mentioned some publicity things. That may help and probably should be done but any big changes to the convention need to be ok'ed by the membership as a whole. That's what the new survey I believe is trying to accomplish. It is a good sign that we have members wanting to make things better. Even if the things brought forth aren't adopted.

       What I do find maybe a bit comical is the sub groups. It's good thing as it enlarges the scope of modeling as a whole. But then you look at the why part of their creation and scratch your head. Lets use AMPS as an example. They felt left out, disgruntled ect, so they formed their own group and did things the way they felt they should be run. Good for them!! I genuinely applaud them for that. They did what people tell others, If ya don't like it go start your own company, group or whatever. BUT "Ya knew it was coming" those same people come back to IPMS and compete and complain. They have the best of both worlds, they have their subject niche to go to and then IPMS which includes everyone which lends the question, why did you leave in the first place? Because they like competition. And now they have two to go to. We aircraft and ship modelers are left out in the wings with only IPMS. Am I campaigning for more specialty groups? No, just wondering out loud. Our motto is for modelers by modelers so we are rightfully inclusive of everyone and always have been. They say perception is reality but that doesn't make it correct. Just ask any magician that..

  OK, enough rambling from me. Good discussion.

 

Jim 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JClark said:

Errors in the build process are not accuracy issues.

Well, I suppose that is how you look at them, so I stand by my statement. I would never judge the shade of paint, or put calibers to a model, but that big glob of glue is not accurate (generally) and is poor craftmanship as well.

All model building is art. Not all is great art anymore than the doodles on a napkin by Picasso are great art. (regardless of how valuable they are.) At the very least, model building is found art...where you take premade items and turn them into something else. Each model builder brings his own unique take on how something should look. That means the shade of color used, specific placement of markings, application of paint, and countless other little details. For example, that figure you mentioned is based on a two dimensional picture, so you paint the back side...the unseen side...to suit your minds eye.

2 hours ago, JClark said:

Well the real aircraft leans in real life so that's why I modeled it as such. Yeah right you just weren't about fixing it because we all know Models are supposed to be square and plumb to the naked eye.

There are a number of vehicles where not all wheels touch the ground unless it is under load. I have seen aircraft that sag to the side because of pneumatic or hydraulic bleed off, when powered down. There are countless things which not all are aware of and the entrant must make the effort to explain things. The judge should not impose his view on the situation. In times past, I have met judges that did claim something is not possible even though the evidence was presented to them. It is hard to discuss this because for every example given someone will find an exception.

We do judge style. It is ambiguous and changes over the years, but a certain look becomes popular...like Verlindenization was in the late seventies...and if the model isn't following that style, it suffers in competition. Its all part of a big picture that people pick up on subconsciously. Certain colors are not appealing, no matter how accurate they are and thus put people off.

The skill level based contest as I have described it over in the Survey string, is based on the entrant's own personal choice as to what level they want to compete at. We would not be creating a Master class. If you feel you are as good as those in the master division, then enter there. It does keep the allow the newbies from being FORCED to compete with the masters, as they are now.

The number of awards needed would not change, if we use a single award system. I.E. you win an award or you do not; there is no ranking of the award as the is now. The awards would be apportioned out based on the number of entries in a class. More models in a class; more awards in a class.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAK > Well, I suppose that is how you look at them, so I stand by my statement. I would never judge the shade of paint, or put calibers to a model, but that big glob of glue is not accurate (generally) and is poor craftmanship as well.

 

 As the book says and it IS what we follow, Accuracy is historical in nature and impossible to enforce since we don't know all about all entries. Calling a glue blob an accuracy is issue is simple not the correct term. Glue blob is construction, 3 national insignia on one wing would be accuracy...This is the kind of thing that gets people confused when we say we dont' judge accuracy when you say we do. That is simply not true or is not supposed to happen.

 

DAK> All model building is art. Not all is great art anymore than the doodles on a napkin by Picasso are great art. (regardless of how valuable they are.) At the very least, model building is found art...where you take premade items and turn them into something else. Each model builder brings his own unique take on how something should look. That means the shade of color used, specific placement of markings, application of paint, and countless other little details. For example, that figure you mentioned is based on a two dimensional picture, so you paint the back side...the unseen side...to suit your minds eye.

 

Agreed, that is why I posted the picture as an example...

 

DAK> There are a number of vehicles where not all wheels touch the ground unless it is under load. I have seen aircraft that sag to the side because of pneumatic or hydraulic bleed off, when powered down. There are countless things which not all are aware of and the entrant must make the effort to explain things. The judge should not impose his view on the situation. In times past, I have met judges that did claim something is not possible even though the evidence was presented to them. It is hard to discuss this because for every example given someone will find an exception.

 

Agreed but at some point if it's not included on a judging form assumptions have to be made. Kits come ready to be assembled in a square and plumb fashion. It's also spelled out in the rules. To use excuses that the real thing may have been leaning to cover up the builders errors is simply gaming the system. Now if the builder purposely leans an aircraft because of an asymetrical load and makes note of it then I guess I could buy that. But to just to come out with that as a general statement as an excuse then that is just going to get the builder into trouble.

 

DAK> We do judge style. It is ambiguous and changes over the years, but a certain look becomes popular...like Verlindenization was in the late seventies...and if the model isn't following that style, it suffers in competition. Its all part of a big picture that people pick up on subconsciously. Certain colors are not appealing, no matter how accurate they are and thus put people off.

 

 If you do then I would say you are doing it wrong. No where are we allowed to judge style. 

 

DAK> 

The skill level based contest as I have described it over in the Survey string, is based on the entrant's own personal choice as to what level they want to compete at. We would not be creating a Master class. If you feel you are as good as those in the master division, then enter there. It does keep the allow the newbies from being FORCED to compete with the masters, as they are now.

The number of awards needed would not change, if we use a single award system. I.E. you win an award or you do not; there is no ranking of the award as the is now. The awards would be apportioned out based on the number of entries in a class. More models in a class; more awards in a class.

 

  Not that I am opposed to skill levels but you are adding classes and divisions. You say we would not be creating a master class but then say people could compete there if they so desired? How can that be? If you have 3 different levels of competition the for example you will triple each and every category. And yes awards would triple too regardless of what you hand out since all three levels in each category would have to be awarded. As i understand it and example would be #107A novice, 107A intermediate, 107A master. 3 places for each thats 9 awards as opposed to the 3 we have now for #107A. Also not to mention the time involved to judges triple the amount of categories. But I made my points in an earlier post in this thread on that account...

 

Jim 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, JClark said:

Glue blob is construction,

Really? What makes it an important construction point? I have a local guy that regularly leaves glue globs on his models because he sees it as an unimportant item. He thinks we are silly for being so picky. We are picky because real P-51s rarely have glue globs at the wing root. However, I was recently looking at a real Cobra gunship with enough silicone globs around some panels, it would get bumped for poor craftsmanship.

As for style, check back to a previous issue of the Journal on an article on pre-shading, I think. There are photos of two models of the exact same aircraft. One is fairly pristine and one is weathered much more heavily. The choice of which you like is based on style. It is hard to explain, but two models being equal, but one being weathered and the other not, one will win and one will not. That involves style and the artist's approach to the subject. There are plenty of other elements that come into judging models, but I am not so naive to pretend style is never considered, at all. This is why you need a well mixed judging team. The big trick is to be able to recognize something as style and not as the only way to build an acceptable model.

Currently in contests, we have some categories that are entered lightly or not at all and we arrange for splits in others. The national gives out about 200 place awards. So, in a skill level event, you apportion them based on the numbers entered in the divisions. There are three divisions....Novice, Advanced, and Master. Say the National has 2400 entries, 1200 of them novice, 800 advanced, and 400 master. Using a Single Awards System more awards would be given out in the Novice than the other two. You still only give out 200 awards. Its far easier than trying to keep creating more categories.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dak

            No, again we are picky because you can't leave glue behind while building "A model"... Comparing glue blobs to silicone used on real airframes is quite the stretch. If you want to use putty and paint it to replicate said silicone then that's another matter which should be pointed out on the entry form. Take credit for the effort put in . But calling glue blobs a non construction issue is simply not correct and is used in the handbook as an example of what not to do when building a model. It's not discussed as an accuracy issue. Your local guy is a perfect example of not reading the rules and should not be surprised when he doesn't finish well regardless of what "He feels" is important. It's about what is written down not how everyone feels. AKA the rule of law. You tried explaining that to him to no avail. Well I would say that person can't be reached if they don't want to listen.

          Pre shading vs non pre shading. If you are apply the rules correctly the fact that one is and one isn't won't play into the decision. If it does then you as a judge are picking what you like and again you can't do that. How is any entrant supposed to know what you like as a judge? They loose out because they decided to go pristine and you like weathered? how is that a fair application of the rules? and ultimately to our fellow modeling brethern. Agreed on the mixed judging team. It has many applications to police actions such as those items that you brought up. If it comes down to the team being unable to come to a consensus and needs to talk to the class head about something like this then so be it. That's why we have class heads, to give guidance to the team in making it's decision.

         Ok now I may be beginning to understand your system. No more categories just lump everyone together per division. Ok so we have a budget of 196 categories with 3 places each. That's 588 total awards. Would you now just give a generic award to a model with no place "since there isn't a category" ? And how would you budget those 588 per division and what happens if you run out? Another question,  you say novice would get more awards, I would say that the masters modelers would get more awards since they are much more likely to get things correct , that is if I am understanding your system correctly. I can see where you're going with the multi level but I'm not to sure about scrapping our current system . Another question is if you don't have categories nd are not competing against each other then in your multi level would it be more of an Open system? and if so then you need more awards for the 3 colors in GSB. That's one of the points in open GSB system, there isn't a budget for awards. if you meet the standard accordingly then you awarded one of 3. that's hard to budget for unless you by one award that stays the same year in an out and you have plenty on had with the extras to carry over from year to year. Or do you just hand out 588 awards that do not designate anything other than here is an award. Just trying to understand you system...

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JClark said:

No, again we are picky because you can't leave glue behind while building "A model"..

We are picky because we have chosen this sort of thing as a point of craftsmanship because real things rarely have glue and big open seams. Others, do not see this lack of craftsmanship as a problem. They have a totally different take on what makes a good model. I do not agree with them, nor do I think we should try to accommodate them. I merely use this one guy as an example of different points of view. He has never won our local monthly contest which is judged primarily following IPMS rules.

Accurately modeling globs of silicone glue is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be note on the entry sheets. Preferably, a photo should accompany the sheet to clearly illustrate what and why it was done. No, just claiming a glue glob is something like silicone doesn't cut it.

12 hours ago, JClark said:

If you are apply the rules correctly the fact that one is and one isn't won't play into the decision. If it does then you as a judge are picking what you like and again you can't do that. 

Not true. Often, both in culling and in the final choices, what the Judges like is always the a factor in picking the winners. This does not preclude all the other elements which are looked at first. In one contest, we had two Tiger tanks with interiors (same kit). One was pristine, no weathering what so ever, with bright polished brass shells in the racks. The other had realistic weathering which is why it placed and the other did not. All the judges agreed as did the head judge. The first Tiger had nothing significant wrong with it, but we felt it lacked something. In the past forty-two years, I have worked with judges that positively hated any weathering because they felt it was a way to hide defects. Also, I have worked with judges who seem to believe mere kit complexity made a model the winner. Others that felt a diorama wasn't good unless it duplicated a picture. This is why a well balanced team is essential to get the best results. When one style is dominant among the judges, the results are reflected in the winning models. It is not uncommon for two different teams to get different results from the same category.

12 hours ago, JClark said:

No more categories just lump everyone together per division.

Who said that? Class and categories certainly help organize things. You are correct, I did misspeak about the number of awards. So, we round off at 600 and split them up according to the number of entries. If 1/72nd Novice aircraft gets 200 entries, it gets allotted more awards than 1/72nd scale Novice ships with only 5 entries. Yes, the Single Award System only uses one award and does not rank the models as does the current systems. You would win an award or not; no quibbling over 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, or Gold, Silver, Bronze. Do you feel we NEED to rank the winners? The award itself could be a medal, like in Phoenix or a big bowling trophy; there is simply no ranking.

Why would Masters win more awards, if the awards are apportioned? The idea is to let the entrants pick a level at which they are comfortable. The Advanced judging would be more strict than Novice and Masters would be more exacting than Advanced. Winning in the Master division would be both more difficult and more prestigious because of that. But a adult entering a National for the first time, would not be forced to compete with the top players, as they are now.

I have been building models since I was four years old and entering contests and judging since I was eleven. I am well aware of the IPMS rules and build most of my models to comply with the rules. I feel this gives me good experience from which to draw.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAK

                 We are picky because these are points of craftmanship... Period. Not because they are not on the real things. Yes we are building models based off the real thing but in the end we are judging models in front of us not the real thing. And the models in front of us need to be constructed in a manner that do not have glue and seams because it's been established that in the course of construction you don't' leave those things behind. If we used your line of logic then accuracy would rule supreme because everything down to glue and seams is all about accuracy. I would strongly suggest reading the rules and application of accuracy.

                 Again "The horse is beginning to smell here" If you pick something you like over something you don't then you are doing two things. 1) Not applying the rules because no where in there does it allow you to do any such thing. 2) You do a disservice to the entrant. … Now you may run your local shows like this and that is your prerogative but it doesn't adhere to the principals laid out in the handbook. You mention two different teams getting to different results. I would say if that's happening then there is your problem . Two different teams doing whatever they want picking what they like and NOT administering the guidelines set for in the handbook. If both teams apply the rules they should both be getting close to the same results. Placements may vary but the same 3 to 4 models should be in the running. So you prove my point that if the rules are not being applied correctly its a utter crap shot and I ask again , how is that fair to any entrant to any contest. It's not a representation of what is best, but it turns into merely what 3 people like. There is a big difference there. One "Your way" is based on popularity, the other , a decision is reached based on rules applied to see which model is more correctly executed .  

              My points on your multi tier system were/are more questions seeking clarity on your proposal. My questions would be (and I'll use your example of 72nd novice aircraft) would that be jet or prop? would there be multiple sub categories 105a,b,c,d...do we use the current category structure like we do now. And what formula do you use to come at total for 72nd novice aircraft? Lets say you have 80 entries in 105 A through D, how many awards are budgeted?  Lets say you place a number on those 80 at 20, what if you run out of awards? Do you get more form other lesser populated categories? If so we already do that. I would also say this about a multi tier system with one generic award, "IE either you get one or your don't'" I don't see it flying with the membership . At least the current survey underway gives options of two well know systems. This would be completely different and I don't think very well received. We have a hugely successful contest/convention as it is now. To can that in favor of something never tried won't happen.  All of these are things each local has to consider when hosting a National contest. Ask me how I know...

  In closing, if you are going to Chattanooga look me up and we can talk about this further ;-)

 

Jim

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...