Ship Model Exhibitions
Sid Siegel
Ship models are works of
art that don’t get the respect they deserve, for a variety of
reasons. For one thing, fine ship models are extremely rare,
compared to other works of art. The public has little opportunity to
see good ship models, and even less idea of their relative quality.
Even those most closely associated with ship models, the modelers
themselves, often have limited ideas about their creations and about
the really classic ship models that exist in venues across the
globe. I have seen many poorly labeled displays of ship models. The
worst perhaps was in the finest museum in the world, the Rijksmuseum
in Amsterdam, where a superb 1654 model of the Dutch East Indiaman
Prince Willem is labeled as possibly being a child’s toy. Another
museum exhibited ship models with cursory labels and a poop sheet
that described the labors of ship modelers, suggesting that the
models are just curious manifestations of obsessive/ compulsive
behavior. It seems that ship modelers who strive for accuracy in
their work would want to see accurate labels on their models.!
One problem with labeling ship models is the lack of terminology to
describe them. “Scratch Built” and “kit” are words often used
descriptively. In a way, they demean the models, suggesting that
models can be put together with anything handy, or easily assembled
from a box with a pretty picture on it. Nothing could be further
from the truth. An authentic ship model requires time, research,
expert craftsmanship, and major artistic ability. It is perhaps the
most difficult of art works to execute well, and there are a million
paintings out there for every good ship model. So when modelers get
the opportunity to exhibit their work in a quality venue, they ought
to be ready to supply the sponsoring organization or exhibitor with
information for an accurate label.
Too often, ship modelers give only information on the subject vessel
portrayed. A French book on ship models lists dimensions not of the
models shown but of full-size ships that the models supposedly
represent (and which no longer exist). Presumably the authors found
it difficult to imagine that anyone would care about the models
themselves. Any model on display should be accompanied by brief
information to acquaint the viewer with the subject, not a treatise
on obscure historical details or technical aspects or raw data and
dimensions. How much does the casual viewer of a model need to know
beyond the era and purpose of the ship? If it played an important
role in history, that can be mentioned as well, but brevity is the
soul of wit in labeling a model .
A ship model is a thing. Let’s not forget that. It is not a ghost or
reincarnation but a creation in and of itself, a portrait of a ship.
Somebody made it from a design for a model, or altered the design of
a ship into the design for a model. Is it an original design by the
modeler, or was it created from a commercial design? Ship modelers
know how difficult it is to create a credible model from a
commercial kit, and how much more goes into the work than the
manufacturer supplies. Yet if the commercial design does result in a
good ship model, doesn’t the designer/ manufacturer deserve some
credit? Identifying a model as a commercial design with extensive
modification is an accurate way of describing that work. Technical
details of materials and methods of construction should be mentioned
briefly. This includes method of hull construction (plank on frame
or bulkhead vs. solid hull, etc.) This information is useful to
other modelers who view the work. Interesting and rare woods can be
mentioned for a wooden model, but in most cases, the expression
“mixed media” is sufficient description of materials. We ship
modelers should all learn to sign our work and date it. This is a
difficult thing for modelers to grasp, as they seem to assume that
what they are making is not art and anyway I’m giving it to Uncle
Bernie and he knows who made it. Aside from the modelers’
negligence, however, any exhibitor of ship models ought to include
the name of the maker and date that it was built, if such
information is available. If no attribution can be made, that should
be stated. The vast majority of museums don’t adhere to this
precept, and it is part of the reason models get no respect. Museums
often commission models and maquettes, but the curators seem to
think that since they originated the idea of a having a model of a
certain ship, the model-maker deserves no more credit than the
makers of a park bench. The model may be a superb example of
research and craftsmanship, but the museum gives the modeler no
attribution. Any photograph or drawing gets an attribution, but not
a model. The originality, creativity and ingenuity that went into
the model are discounted as if they are cheap commodities that can
be found anywhere. If ship modelers are willing to accept this
treatment, I suppose they deserve no better.
Philosophy of Ship Modeling
Sid’s article above comes under the general category that I like to
refer to as
“The Philosophy of Ship Modeling”. We hear (sometimes heated)
discussions of similar topics whenever modelers gather. If any of
you would like to contribute an article giving some of your own
ideas, I would be pleased to include it in the newsletter.
---Editor