QUOTE: Freedom? It should be more about what's a hobby and what's history. Are we to model assinations or planes flying into buildings?
|
|
If it so pleases some one, then it is within their right to do so. Certainly not by force, but at least by choice. What if someone wanted to model moments that changed history and took a more fatalistic approach? The murder of Caesar, Assasinations of Lincoln, Ferdinand, Beckett, Kennedy, the British firing on the mob at Concorde, executions of Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Anne Boelynn, James I. We could even site period examples, while not styrene there is paintings of violence, Rape of the Sabine Women, Crucifiction of Christ, The Roman Triumph over Gaul, the statue of the dying Gaul, murder of David, the Macejowski Bible (13thc. illuminated Old Testament) is loaded with death, carnage and rape. When Picasso painted Guernica, he was doing the same thing. For whatever reason, it was painted, he did it. It is considered one of his greatest and most poignant pieces. I'm sure there were those that felt he was "out of bounds" both in his style and subject matter. But nonetheless it is done. The outcry against Life's photo shoot of the dead marines floating in the surf in the Pacific was quite the uproar. Yet it is an important piece of photo documentation and served a purpose on several levels. What the department of the Navy first feared would cause public outrage and fear they later used as a means to instill nationalism and patriotic fervor that helped "hype" enlistment and "Our Job isn't over..." or using similar images as a means of propaganda "Don't let this happen to your son, loose lips sink ships..."
Models or dioramas as a history lesson carry little weight. Few want to "detail" to that level as evidenced by the rivet counter bashing here in the forum as well as the objections to kit inaccuracies which is an interpretive representation not a factual representation of a vehicle or piece of machinery. This is not history but art. Which is a subjective thing. (I reiterate my statement of one mans art is another mans graffiti.)
I am not saying that what we do is not historical nor is it unable to be used as a means of teaching history or representing history. It must be put into perspective. (History is written by the victors and is as accurate as they want it to be). Dioramas are similar to movies in that they represent the builders view, attitudes or interpretation of a scene. Ask school kids who Edward I was and they'll say he was the bad guy in Braveheart. A movie that so fantasized the characters I rank it with Lord of the Rings for historical legitimacy. Sure he was a bastard at times, but he also created the bailiff, bond, judge, jury and sheriff system that was the progenitor of what we currently use in modern legal systems. The guy had several universities built, brought the fork to the northern European medieval dinner table, propagated a guild system which was the basis for modern unions, set down a system of laws that were copied by modern democracies to this day and unified England. A bit different than the "prima nocta" tyrant in the movie. Dioramas have the same effect. While an effective aid I wouldn't give them that much importance in the recording of history.
While it may not be the popular choice, and I would certainly feel awkward for the guy that brought one to a show, a diorama of an airliner smacking into the side of the WTC is not above doing but may be socially below acceptance. As would any controversial subject. History, like art, is both a matter of perception as well as interpretation. It is rare that fact and recounting match up exactly and there should be a great deal of emphasis put onto the statement “As I remember it…” Perception is subjective, i.e. one mans freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Revolutionary vs. Rebel. We backed the Contras in South America, yet they committed the same atrocities and crimes that the Sandanistas did. Seems like we sponsored terrorism, the very same thing we went traipsing into Iraq and Afghanistan for. But at the time we were calling it “Backing Democracy”. But I digress….
This is a hobby. It’s an art form. It’s a dalliance or a past time. Does it have a responsibility to accurately record history? That in my opinion is impossible. But it can be used as a valuable tool for teaching, reference and association. So long as it is done in context. And with the spirit for which it is intended. The reasons above.
Mike