Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Modeling vs. reality


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

First, it is a hobby and modelers do things for the enjoyment and the "art".  I had a friend (who recently passed) that mainly would do body mods and primer them.  That was it.  

There are models that are "slammed" that the modeler is showing it in parked mode.  We've all seem 1:1's like that.  If the model is a curbside, the intent is in the display.  If detailed, my expectation is that they would have simulated some kind of air suspension.  But then, if not in a contest, what does it matter.

Some of Ed Roth's cars were not really drivable (or for very far), but were certainly art on wheels.

As for myself.  I prefer the models I build to reflect real world, drivable vehicles.  One model I recently completed is shaved and "poppers" would be considered the way to open the doors.  Also, there was no likeable way to add a gas filler cap, so my perspective is that the gas filler is located in the trunk.  This is not unreasonable for several custom or even sports cars of the 60's (reference Ferraris).  But when I make these kind of decisions, I log them and keep them as part of the model description.

In detailing a model, there are many compromises one must make unless you are top flite GSL builder.  I am not just talking about the hanging generator/alternators or too thick fan belts, either.  For example, a current project, the Revell 69 Camaro Pace, has a lot weaknesses that can be left alone or addressed yet still achieve a reasonable looking model.  These would include:

  1. The chassis being for a coupe and lacking the addition bracing for the convertible.  Revell did include the X-bracing for the 55 Chevy.
  2. The engine has only an alternator.  A real 396 CI 375 HP engine would also almost always come with Power Steering (as would many cars) and, in this case, a AIR smog system (which Revell at least has the pump included in their Novas).
  3. The RS grille is not right and needs some work to be more prototypical.
  4. The hood hinges are not prototypical and would require extensive work to make it more so.

Also, most models have, at best, moderate under hood detail like bracing, insulation and latching.  In almost all cases, we modelers tend to ignore it and, in fact, often remove the hood entirely to display the engine compartment.  

Concluding, even if I think the intent and presentation of the model bears a lot to what I may call the "cringe factor" (how is that realistic).  I would have a different view if an individual is displaying versus competing in contest.  Whether I like it or not is less relevant than what was the builders intent and how did they go about achieving it. 

Edited by Exotics_Builder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, CabDriver said:

I forget exactly which one it is, but one of the AMT Fast and Furious kits has Z-shaped driveshafts :D

Check out the RC2 Rides kits, especially the 65 Galaxie with its bent 9" axle tubes. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El Roberto said:

I did not mention anyone's specific build.  Just stating my personal preferences,  is that a problem? 

I personally understood your original post to be about preference. We all have different preferences. I like banjo music. Many people hate it. That doesn’t make either of us wrong.

With that being said my preference for models is arealistic build. When I build a model, I try to make it as close to something that exists or could exist in the real world as I can. I sometimes even try to calculate weight into the factor. That doesn’t mean that I get it spot on every time, but my goal is to create a build that reflects the real world. Things like the mirrors on the snap KW kit, though usually unnoticed, the design out of the box wouldn’t allow the doors to open on the real thing. One bracket attaches to the cab and the other to the door. This kind of thing bugs me. Yet, I have seen some folks take that very kit, do an excellent job with it, and make it look far better than I ever could, bad mirrors and all. My point is that my preference has nothing to do with ability. Of course people say that I like weird stuff.😀 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of this thread while watching Bad Chad last night... impractical! Hard to climb in and out, zero interior space.  Hood and trunk don’t even open. Engine is behind seats, as he lowered body on it he said he hoped it would run well since there was no way to adjust anything with the body on..  it did drive into a building under its own power but can only wonder how it would be on the road!

 

C35F9C66-A3D4-4ACC-A652-07287FD3F5F3.jpeg

5621A0C9-065F-4869-A2C1-9CBC08ED6A0C.jpeg

069C38F4-6018-4EA1-AD0A-9B7D430F5CAD.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My enjoyment in building models is mostly replicas of 1:1 cars; mainly race cars but I can understand someone building a "fantasy" car that may or may not be possible in real life. Maybe it's a vision they have knowing it would never work for real.

Saying that, I have never liked 1:1 custom cars. I'm talking about the ones you see at a car show with everything chromed sitting on stands with mirrors underneath to see more chrome. It's never going to run or drive. That to me isn't real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Tom, my eyes, my eyes!

Looks like an A40 crossed with aircraft conveyor belt truck. 

Edited by keyser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

I was thinking of this thread while watching Bad Chad last night... impractical! Hard to climb in and out, zero interior space.  Hood and trunk don’t even open. Engine is behind seats, as he lowered body on it he said he hoped it would run well since there was no way to adjust anything with the body on..  it did drive into a building under its own power but can only wonder how it would be on the road!

 

C35F9C66-A3D4-4ACC-A652-07287FD3F5F3.jpeg

5621A0C9-065F-4869-A2C1-9CBC08ED6A0C.jpeg

069C38F4-6018-4EA1-AD0A-9B7D430F5CAD.jpeg

Front end from a Crosley. Body must be removed to work on the engine.  How darn hard would it have been to put in a hinged or removable cover ? Dude builds some strange stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cobraman said:

Front end from a Crosley. Body must be removed to work on the engine.  How darn hard would it have been to put in a hinged or removable cover ? Dude builds some strange stuff.

That guy from Nova Scotia?,,, I've seen him in person, he's an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest most of what you described is actually possible.
 

Air bags will lay the chassis on the ground.

 

Enough cutting and reworking of the body can achieve anything. Just take the Japanese VIP cars that scrap the road with static suspension (coil spring and shock), completely redesigned, custom and expensive parts to achieve the -15 degrees of camber. These cars are 100% driven in real life.

 

It may not appeal to everyone but there is actually people doing it safely in the real world.

 

So what’s people thoughts on these new cyber punk sci-fi space floating cars?? I can only assume because they’re not 1:1 they get hate like Gundam models? Personally I love anything that’s creative and has a purpose. Some models are just made to be enjoyed weather it’s because of a great build process or the fact it’s intended to be weathered, so the builder might learn/practice new painting process and techniques. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sandboarder said:

...So what’s people thoughts on these new cyber punk sci-fi space floating cars?? I can only assume because they’re not 1:1 they get hate like Gundam models? 

There are some guys on here who've built wild "jet" and flying cars that have no basis in any Earth technology I'm aware of.

And I like 'em a lot. A LOT.

But they're not built the way they are because the builder just didn't know any better.

They're intentionally outlandish, fancifully representing currently unknown or alien engineering.

That's not the same mindset (or lack thereof) as building something that couldn't possibly work because you have no clue how things work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

But they're not built the way they are because the builder just didn't know any better.

They're intentionally outlandish, fancifully representing currently unknown or alien engineering.

That's not the same mindset (or lack thereof) as building something that couldn't possibly work because you have no clue how things work.

Since both types of modelers build outlandish models which would never work in 1:1 scale, how do you distinguish between those 2 types of modelers (not taking under consideration the kind of model they are building)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, peteski said:

Since both types of modelers build outlandish models which would never work in 1:1 scale, how do you distinguish between those 2 types of modelers (not taking under consideration the kind of model they are building)?

The answer is pretty clear to me, but I'll try to explain it differently.

One modeler builds something that can't possibly work because he's unaware of how things work in reality and/or just doesn't care.

The other guy builds something outlandish while perfectly aware that what he's building is impractical or physically impossible in reality.

It's the awareness that makes all the difference. A too subtle distinction for some maybe, but an important one to me when I look at someone else's (or my own) work.

EDIT: If a man appreciates the skills of Michelangelo and can do work at that level, but chooses to nail a banana to a wall and call it "art", that's one thing.

But if a man who can do nothing but nail a banana to a wall and call it "art" does so, that's something else entirely.

See the difference?

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
CLARITY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should rephrase my question.  By looking at (or a photo of) some outlandish model which would not work in real life, how do you tell whether the modeler was clueless, or knowledgeable, and being creative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, peteski said:

I guess I should rephrase my question.  By looking at (or a photo of) some outlandish model which would not work in real life, how do you tell whether the modeler was clueless, or knowledgeable, and being creative?

I simply rely on my own judgement, based on whatever information is available under the circumstances. I find it's usually a pretty accurate approach.  B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

If a man appreciates the skills of Michelangelo and can do work at that level, but chooses to nail a banana to a wall and call it "art", that's one thing.

But if a man who can do nothing but nail a banana to a wall and call it "art" does so, that's something else entirely.


Good point! If the model builder displays clear knowledge of painting techniques and has modelling skills you should be able to tell if they know how wheels mount to a car. With a little bit of description about the model you should be able to tell why the model was crafted or nailed to the wall. 
 

A good modeller should be able to build something with an open mind and when the idea is finished be able to drawn the appreciation of their peers. As the peers we need to have an open mind and appreciate others creative approach to the hobby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

But if a man who can do nothing but nail a banana to a wall and call it "art" does so, that's something else entirely.

I've always thought that damien hirst wasn't an artist, just a mediocre butcher (incidently I read somewhere that he gets art students to make the "art" and he just rakes in the cash. But then there a lot fraud when valuing art. eg. pile of bricks sells for hundreds of thousands in a gelery but the pile in my garden is is classed as an eyesore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The banana was TAPED to the wall.

 

I think it was all done in fun.  Does art have to be serious?

I went to art school.  I learned right away there's no strict definition of art, and that's a good thing.  I don't always understand modern/contemporary art, but I'm glad it exists to challenge my expectations.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stitchdup said:

I've always thought that damien hirst wasn't an artist, just a mediocre butcher (incidently I read somewhere that he gets art students to make the "art" and he just rakes in the cash. But then there a lot fraud when valuing art. eg. pile of bricks sells for hundreds of thousands in a gelery but the pile in my garden is is classed as an eyesore

For centuries, well-known artists often have had assistants to help with their work.

As far as the value of art goes, is there "fraud" in the pricing of built models?  Also, old movie props regularly show up in auction listings.  Their prices are pretty high as well.  Some are clearly based on a toy or model and not scratchbuilt.  What's the true monetary value for a film prop?  Look at a showing of photographs in a gallery.  Matted and framed, they can each carry a price tag of hundreds of dollars.  Seem high for a photograph, right?  An artist's time is worth something though.  Materials add up as well.  Also galleries might want to take their cut.

 

Lastly, I suspect the artists that grab headlines are outliers.  Most artists aren't Hirst or the guy with the banana.  I have the impression that people tend to think of artists as con  men.  I think these people are upset they didn't come up with the ideas first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brian Austin said:

For centuries, well-known artists often have had assistants to help with their work.

As far as the value of art goes, is there "fraud" in the pricing of built models?  Also, old movie props regularly show up in auction listings.  Their prices are pretty high as well.  Some are clearly based on a toy or model and not scratchbuilt.  What's the true monetary value for a film prop?  Look at a showing of photographs in a gallery.  Matted and framed, they can each carry a price tag of hundreds of dollars.  Seem high for a photograph, right?  An artist's time is worth something though.  Materials add up as well.  Also galleries might want to take their cut.

 

Lastly, I suspect the artists that grab headlines are outliers.  Most artists aren't Hirst or the guy with the banana.  I have the impression that people tend to think of artists as con  men.  I think these people are upset they didn't come up with the ideas first.

 

I was meaning this type of fraud    https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2019/03/art-and-money-laundering/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own thought on the bannana was that it was such a tired cliche.   Exhibiting a found object and telling everyone you're challenging the nature of art may have been daring the first time someone tried it a hundred years ago, but now it's about as daring as painting a bowl of fruit.  At least painting a decent still life takes a certain amount of skill.  Now there was a group in the '80s called "the New Academy" that decided they were going to "challenge the nature of art" by doing meticulous recreations of the 18th Century French Academy style.  Some of the results were pretty nice.

Anyway, since this is the Model Cars Magazine forum, and not the Explorations in Contemporary Art forum, back to the original topic.

Personally, when modeling hot rods, I like to try and find out why things are a certain way, of often, the process of finding out is as enjoyable as the actual building.  But that's me.  Everyone has their own ideas of what they want out of modeling, and I'd be lying if I said some of them didn't make me grit my teeth, but you know what?  It's not up to me.   Life is too short to be worrying about whether other people are enjoying models wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, stitchdup said:

I've always thought that damien hirst wasn't an artist, just a mediocre butcher (incidently I read somewhere that he gets art students to make the "art" and he just rakes in the cash. But then there a lot fraud when valuing art. eg. pile of bricks sells for hundreds of thousands in a gelery but the pile in my garden is is classed as an eyesore

I once worked for an artist in Brooklyn - most of my job consisted of signing ‘his’ signature on stuff for him and spray painting canvases and stuff for him.  Was a pretty easy gig for good pay, until Covid happened and put a stop to it...

Guess he’s signing his own autographs now 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...