There was a similar debate when PE marched onto the arena.
Resin conversion sets also triggered a debate.
One old goat here in Stockholm claimed that merely assembling
factory produced parts was not “modeling” at all.
“Real Modelers” started from standard materials and built something from scratch.
2 Likes
I’ll admit it’s not really an ethical question at all,I suppose the ethical part was more related to ready made models in competition than 3D models which still have to be assembled and painted and since posing the question, I have realised that cast resin models can come with very few parts these days.
I myself have no horse in this race, I don’t enter competitions and will source whatever I want from whatever is available as there are many things in 3D and ready made that are not available in kit form but I get my greatest pleasure in correcting kits and the challenges that presents. I was just wondering what people who do enter competitions thought.
1 Like
We haven’t discussed the ‘ready made’ aspect at all.
BUT
A long time ago when I judged a few (less than handful) contests the rule was that the model had to be built by the contestant. This would cover the ‘ready made by a factory’ case as well.
Buying a ready made model and repainting was probably allowed, modelers who do this presumably also enhance details.
Competing with a model built and painted by someone else was not allowed.
Competing in the same class again with a model which has won prizes in that class
was not allowed. Win a medal in ‘armour 1/35’ one year and then include that model
in a diorama next year was ok.
From another modeling “arena”
Many years ago I read a story in a magazine about radio controlled ship models.
One of the classes forbids the use of factory produced parts. You didn’t have to cut your own screws or make your own electric motors or RC-equipment, there has to be some limit. Buy sail material but cut and sew your own sails.
He had started working with photo etching at home. He designed the pattern (flat sheet metal) for a dome shaped ventilator, similar to this:
He also made the stamping tools to turn a flat piece of metal into a dome.
The finished dome has round holes but stamping will stretch the metal so the etched holes
had to be oval (longer in the horizontal) so that when they were stretched (in the vertical) the oval holes would be stretched to circles. That took some trial and error to get right.
He also electroplated the finished brass dome to get that chrome look.
In short: A LOT of work to get the finished product.
At the competition he was disqualified because none of the old goats could believe that this achievement was possible. They could not show which factory produced part he was suspected of using but their belief was strong. That was the last time he competed.
3 Likes
there are a lot of ready made models that are commercially available kits, made and painted in a factory, or buying one that someone else has built, doesn’t that rely on the honesty of the person entering? (Which I suppose is where the ethics come in) people judging or taking entries can’t be expected to know all available models and their heritage, I know some that won’t even accept ready made as models and so they are not on the radar. Admittedly I have only ever seen a handful of ready made models in competitions and never one that has won.
2 Likes
I’d suggest that there are at least two related, but somewhat parallel issues at work here. The first is the question of whether or not there should be some constraints or limitations on how much of the work displayed must be the individual work of the modeler (either construction or finishing). The second is the question of what is (or should be?) the actual purpose, goal and objective of the model show, itself.
I’d further suggest that the answer to the second question is the key to solving the first question. Bear with me… It’s a philosophical chain of reasoning.
I’ve undergone a rather radical change in my personal thinking about scale model shows and the organizations that host them.
Waaay back when, (in my misbegotten youth in the '70s, '80s, and into the '90s), I confess that I was very strongly motivated by the competition aspect of model shows. I often built models on a self-imposed time schedule that was in synch with upcoming shows so that I would finish my latest build(s) in time to enter them. I also followed a somewhat self-imposed “competition season” along with limiting myself to only ever “competing up” in the rank order of shows - local, regional and national - never entering the same piece of work in the same show more than once and never entering a piece that had won an award at a higher ranked show in a subsequent lower ranked show. In short, I admit to being a pretty serious “trophy hound.” However, I was always a member of whatever local model club was nearest to where I lived, so in addition to participating in the shows as a modeler, I was always either working the show as a hosting club member or volunteering to help the hosting club as a guest.
“You gotta be willing to give back to the system if you expect to get something from it.”
However, over the years, my thinking and attitude towards the “competition” show format changed. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most influential was taking on leadership roles in local model clubs that hosted those shows. Over time, it became apparent that the emphasis on the “competition” side of things was detrimental to promoting and encouraging the “social” side of things. What’s more, the competitions, as events, produced very little return in the way of recruiting new members or developing real improvements in the levels of skill and craftsmanship in anyone. Guys simply didn’t improve their skills as a direct result of their participation in the competition. (Some few, of course, do improve, but the reasons for that had almost nothing to do with the shows, per se.)
At the same time (especially as the internet really started to spread in the '90s), more and more members of the modeling community at large discovered that they could find guidance, mentoring, coaching, and specific “how to” information with just a few clicks of the mouse. No need to go to shows and hope to learn something by “osmosis” (since the winners generally didn’t go out of their way to share knowledge AT THE SHOW) and also no need to join and attend local model club meetings. These trends saw the decline in club and society memberships and, with that, a decline in the “volunteer” participation in the shows with fewer and fewer folks stepping up to assist with judging (especially). A “me-me-me” attitude developed among show patrons feeling like, “Hey, I PAID my entry fees, so YOU OWE ME - not the other way around.” Show patrons had less and less skin in the game since fewer and fewer were members of local clubs expecting reciprocal assistance at their own shows.
So, I would now submit that the answer to the second question, what are we trying to accomplish with hosting the show should now be to create an incentive to participate that goes beyond the mere recognition of the very small number of “winners.” “Losers” who get nothing from their patronage will eventually cease to patronize. You can’t reasonably argue any more that the “best way to learn how to build better models is by entering model competitions.” That is simply nonsense, and anyone who hears you say that knows you’re blowing smoke up their rear ends.
The incentive now should be something that is DIRECTLY useful (i.e. valuable) in the way of specific feedback to the entrant that can be used to improve his or her skills, knowledge, abilities and craftsmanship. That is, everyone who enters the show should feel that they are getting something back that is worth their time and effort. The universal answers to the question, “What do you want to get from your participation in this event?” is always either “recognition / VALIDATION of my work” and / or “knowledge on how to build better models.”
Once we realize and understand the purpose, goals and objectives of the show (that is, what do we have to “deliver” to the entrants or patrons), then we can envision the answer to that first question: “Should there should be some constraints or limitations on how much of the work displayed must be the individual work of the modeler, either construction (3D or ready-made) or finishing(some degree of pre-finish on ready-made)?”
The simple answer, IMHO, is that there should be as few constraints and limitations as possible as long as the rules can be crafted (and practical judging procedures developed) to recognize and assess whatever amount of individual work the modeler has performed. In other words, as a matter of principle, the VOULME of work doesn’t matter, it’s only the QUALITY of the work done that needs to be assessed.
All the rest is really just about finding the right balance between the available resources for judging (time, numbers of judges, educating the judges) and the practical crafting of the rules that create the standards against which the work THAT HAS BEEN PERFORMED is compared to.
So, “ready-made” models that are, say, just painted and finished by the modeler should not be excluded as a matter of principle, but only if judging them becomes a matter of limited resources or practical limitations on writing rules that can guide the judges in making their assessments and providing feedback.
This is why I argued in my first post above about the need for contemporary model show rule-sets to be updated to account for 3D printing and the numerous, somewhat unique aspects of 3D modeling. Of course, 3D models and 3D modelers should be included as a matter of principle. What is needed are proper rules and not exclusions of model genres and types (and the modelers who build and finish them).
3 Likes
I think the statement is more nuanced than it appears. Entering a contest gets you to the location. The location provides opportunities to see more models up close, talk to fellow modelers and participate in judging. The combination of those things can and often does improve the beginner modeler.
So I agree the competition* itself doesn’t improve the modeler, it’s the other values of a contest provides that can improve a modeler if they take advantage of them.
*The contest format does also play a part with AMPS providing some feed back, where typically on doesn’t at IPMS.
I do agree with the rest of your post.
2 Likes
This is the essential part that, unfortunately, (at least in my experience over many years) just doesn’t take place. The simple fact is that the vast majority of entrants spend very little time actually engaged in modeling discussions with other entrants (outside of their close, familiar peers and friends). It’s a very rare modeler who really makes the effort (and it does take considerable individual effort) to take advantage of the latent potential for improvement of his or her modeling skills that exists at shows.
(I suspect that you, Ryan, are one of those rare individuals who has actually done this over the years. It can be done, but just not usually.)
Despite the ever present and endless calls for “volunteer judges,” the sad, sad fact is that the overwhelming number of show entrants will not step up to help (for reasons I touched on in the post, above). So, the opportunity to learn from the other judges and experience the assessment process firsthand (a process that can be fed back into one’s own work) is missed by most show attendees.
The anonymous nature of the entries as displayed on the tables (a factor in trying to create an appearance of impartial judging - no names on the accompanying table cards) means that it is usually very difficult for a beginning modeler to meet the builders whose work they have questions about. It takes more than a little courage for a beginning modeler to just walk up to someone at a show and start to ask questions.
I have myself, on many occasions over the years, waited at the display tables AFTER the show and the awards ceremony are over just for the fleeting opportunity to tell some builder how much I enjoyed the chance to look at his work. “Who built this model?” The only way to find out is to wait at the table by the model in question until the builder comes to pack it up and leave. By this time, everyone is in a hurry to leave and there’s very little opportunity to talk.
(Of course, if you are “wickered into” the show’s processes and execution, you know how to shortcut this and find the answer to “who built which entries,” but the average show attendee has no idea who on the show staff to ask or what buttons to push… Naturally, in order to learn this side of the operation, you pretty much have to volunteer to become involved in running the show. Again, very, very few show attendees will ever do this.)
Some modelers will exercise a large degree of self-actualized assessment and compare their own work with other works that they have seen (divining lessons from just what they have observed and studied). However, the majority leave the show with only the knowledge that their work didn’t earn any recognition or awards, while having no real idea what they did wrong or what they should have done better.
The one real exception to all of this is… wait for it… the “AMPS Way” which, when said out loud, unfortunately just infuriates those who are acolytes of that other major scale modeling society here in the US. However, it can be honestly said that participation in an AMPS show (ESPECIALLY if the modeler also steps up to spend some time judging) really can produce real improvement in a modeler’s skills, knowledge and abilities.
Unfortunately (a word I’ve had to use all too many times in these posts), the “AMPS Way” has not been extended to the majority of the scale modeling community. Armor modelers in the US are mostly aware of the potential and real benefits of participation in AMPS shows, but armor modelers are only one fairly modest slice of the total modeling community. The “AMPS Way” is not something that most modelers have benefited from.
CAN the AMPS “open-judging with feedback” process be used at all-genre scale model shows. The short answer is yes.
(I would offer up my own modeling club’s annual show as an example of this. We run an annual exhibition that is open to ALL scale modeling genres, and we also employ the entirety of the AMPS judging system. For more details, I’d point you to:
The SC Scale Modeling Mega Show )
Still, back to the original topic, even AMPS needs to update its rules to accommodate and address the unique aspects of 3D modeling (along with the other related issues we’ve discussed).
1 Like