Well Bill, you make an excellent argument, and your post is very thoroughly thought out, and I understand the position you have taken–that if we’re going to “open that door” of “what is ‘artisitic’ vs ‘realistic’?” regarding aggressive weathering, then we have to be prepared to accept the ridiculous with the sublime.
Hmmm. Well, it’s an excellently argued position, but I’m not sure I agree with it. [}:)][;)]
I think that there are certain “standards of plausibility” within even what I would consider “artistic interpretations”–believe me when I say that I’m no “Art-for-the-sake-of-Art” purist! I mean, what I usually take away from the “That’s not realistic” camp is that the vehicle in question would not have suffered the amount of weathering that has been depicted. Fair enough–to me, that itself is the “artistic” decision. The decision to model something as realistically as possuble if it would have, could have seen a large amount of service and abuse.
Hold on now–yes, I recognize the perception/possibility of “irony” there again. But to some degree, it’s like the old “What is Pornography” question–“I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it”. It’s worth remarking that I don’t think any one of the “Weatherheads” here hae remarked that they have thought that that Jagdpanther was “realistically weathered”. Theoretically, I suppose, it might’ve tried to bust its way through several metal-reinforced concrete building walls, but then again, the schurzen wold be missing, would they not? I mean, that’s only one possible way I could see how the deep gouges rendered there in some very improbable places on that model would have even been possible? And while I’m not here to argue/postulate exactly what the modeler was “seeing” in that, to me, that model just seems to be weathered with more gleeful enthusiam and abandon rather than with thought and serious consideration or planning. IMHO, this reflects a modeler who happened upon the techniques involved, but who has not learned yet to use/master them with the degree of discretion necessary to effect a good rendering of “extreme” weathering.
As far as “artistry” goes, howeer, that will always be a very personal interpretation and opinionated call on anyone’s part; I however admit my unwillingness to extend into the “license” involved into the realm of “implausible”. When I use the term “implausible”, the paradigm I’m using is one of viewing real vehicles which are used in outdoor environments, (construction vehicles, trucks, rail cars etc–which I perceive as having a “collective level” of degradation which included paint fading, streaking, and paint chips from normal usage–the latter of which which are not as the modeler has depicted them on this model. I have seen a lot of heavily-weathered models–but never one so “artistically interpreted” as this one! And the fact that it was chosen as a “winner”, in my opinion merited a commentary on that distinction which, in my opinion at least, it did not deserve compared to SMJ’s. And it’s worth mentioning that even now, when I have had the benefit of seeing even more of the models there in competition, I feel that way even more strongly!
“Caricature” was a great way to describe it, IMO. And I see your point, but parry and thrust a second tahm! LOL! [swg] As you said, “A never-ending battle”…[oX)][:D] These debates willl go on and on forever, I suppose, and I think that they serve a valuable purpose, as new modelers are logging in all the time, and discovering their own styles and preferences through the debates posted here like this one. [#toast]
