Okayyyy... How to discuss this without coming across as a whiney sore loser? Something seems seriously flawed in the judging at the Australian Model Expo.
Let's get some important details out in the open before we begin:
- I only have experience of the Melbourne Expo, I can't claim from experience that this happens elsewhere.
- I mean no disrespect to any particular model makers whose works I may discuss or critique in this post. My gripe is with the judging criteria, not any individual's hard-crafted work. If you placed, and you are reading this, then respect, you did well my friend - honestly.
- Full disclosure - I entered a diorama in each of the two categories I discuss. Thus, I am not impartial, but after years of seeing this happen again and again, I feel justified in questioning the system.
- I know that at some point modelling is an art form, and opinions are subjective, although the judging criteria claim to be as objective as possible.
- I mean no disrespect to any individual judges, who are fellow modellers who volunteer their time to do this. They're not the bad guys, they make the Expo happen. But the process is another matter entirely.
Right, with those caveats out there, let's get stuck in.
I have heard a lot of discussion on Facebook about the ... unpredictability ... of the results at the 2017 Australian Model Expo. And I think something stinks.
Yes, there were some absolute showstoppers that won their categories. The 1/32 Beached Submarine, the Hungarian Tank diorama, the Native American warrior in the figure category - these were all world-class and deserved to win. Honestly, these were rightful winners.
Some of the second place, third place and Commended results were
surprising.
Take the
Single Model Military Diorama category. The Beached Sub was first place, and it was amazing. This rightfully won.
 |
| Truly impressive. |
Second place went to a Russian tank. It's fine, technically I can't spot anything wrong with it, but there is no way I would say this is an inspiring diorama, that it is telling a story. Imagine if you were describing this to someone who hadn't seen it. There are a couple of guys standing in front of a tank. Okay, what else? Some cornstalks. What's the point though, what's the scene, what's the story?
Third place went to a crash-landed bomber. We are definitely telling a dramatic story here, so I give full credit there. There is some well-crafted battle damage. But the actual model itself is very amateurish. The paint chipping is everywhere, it is overscale, it is blobbed on with a paintbrush. The less said about the painting of the figures, the better. Apparently this placed so well due to its fidelity to reference photos. (Also, according to the rules of this category models should have a maximum of 6 figures and I count 7, but I'm not going to be pedantic about that, that seems more of an initial scrutineering error than any judging issue)
 |
| Slightly blurry pic, sorry. |
 |
| Look at the gap between the front plexiglass bubble and the fuselage! |
One Commendation went to a piece called "Beauty and the Beast". I don't know if the destroyed Tiger tank's tracks are close to a reference photo, I assume they are, it looks reminiscent of photos of Tigers destroyed by Allied airpower. But holy crap, the painting of that figure scares me. That face!
The second Commendation went to a small Vietnam War diorama. It didn't tell much of a story, but it was very evocative of a time and place, the build was very accomplished and the groundwork was great. So full credit there.
Here are the other entries in this category that didn't place at all:
A wonderful Pacific wreck diorama. There were some build issues, but for storytelling, imagination and innovation, it was second only to the winning sub for me.
A North African / Middle Eastern abandoned missile launcher. A flawless, complex build. Slight dust on the base frame, I assume that could have been brushed off.
A really stunning 1946 VK1602 Leopard "paper panzer", weathered
just right. Again, a flawless build.
Now I can't vouch for any references that any of these unsuccessful entries provided, but thinking over these results, it seems to me that you can make a poorly painted model, really poorly finished, and just plonk it on a base not bothering to tell a story, and as long as you have stayed faithful to a goddamn photo of the original you will succeed. Leaving aside the sub which rightfully won, none of the other four models which made it to the second round of judging deserved to be there.
Poor build quality? No problem.
Inferior figure painting? Essential to a diorama if you ask me, but no problem here.
Not telling any kind of story? Not an issue.
______________________________
It was a similar story in the
Open Military Diorama category. The winner, "They Need the Bicycle", really did deserve to win, it told a poignant story and had the best European forest groundwork I have ever seen in person on a diorama. Those pine trees - wow, just wow.
 |
| This photo doesn't do it justice. World class. |
Second place was a Horten jet in a workshop. Again, it was amazing, and truly worthy. Those cluttered workbenches are just spot on.
 |
| Holy crap, this was well done. |
Regardless of whatever bullshit criteria the judges had to work within, these two dioramas would have won, and rightly so.
And then we enter the Twilight Zone again.
Third place was a WWI tractor and artillery train. The model tractor and limbers were fine, the build quality seemed good. But the
diorama quality was seriously inferior. It was a boring, empty composition. The dirt road was almost totally flat, with one small attempt at ruts. The multi-tonne tractor was sitting
on top of the dirt, it has no weight. The trees look like broken twigs from the garden. These are all very important elements of a diorama as opposed to a single scale model of a vehicle.
 |
That tractor should not be sitting on top of dirt like that, its weight should be pushing it down.
Shep Paine taught me that, and if i was important for Shep, it's important for me too. |
There was also a Commended diorama, "Tiger Fright", a small battle-damaged Bren-carrier. There was a nice touch of a bird's nest and eggs in the bocage hedgerow. Other than that, it was nothing at all special. The damage to the Bren carrier didn't look like much, and it was positioned on its base so that the focal point was away from the viewer. Lots of empty dead space at the front.
The last Commended diorama was "Memphis Belle", a jeep covered in B17 aircrew. Very accomplished figure painting, but as a story-telling diorama it is nothing to write home about. I think it's meant to replicate a famous photo from the movie, but if so there are some inaccuracies such as the number on the jeep and some of the poses. I'll be honest: to me, it was boring, but I'll admit that is a subjective view.
___________________
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"
Going over all these, it seems to me that the Australian Model Expo has a serious problem when judging dioramas. There is a misguided insistence on slavishly replicating a photographic reference, at the expense of expertise and storytelling. Poorly finished execution seems to lose less points than a polished, masterful build that (heaven forbid!) tells a dramatic but fictional story.
But I can't be sure of this, because we have no idea how the judges scored each entry...
At the Expo I asked an organiser if it was possible to discuss the results with a judge, in order to take on board criticism and better my results in the future. This wasn't possible, and I get that, it is a busy venue. I was told to join a local modelling club, that I would get a lot of valuable feedback there. He was pleasant, it was a civil and interesting conversation, but not very illuminating.
I have also been told on Facebook that without seeing the references (which only the judges are permitted to see, by the way) I cannot fully appreciate what scores well and what doesn't. That without officially
judging - picking up the model, examining it from every conceivable angle - then I am simply "leaning over and peering at the entries".
Leaving aside the objection of "How the hell else is this artform designed to be viewed?" I have to say that this state of affairs leaves entrants in the dark. Scores are not publicly available, visual examples of best-practise references have never been given, and successful references on the day are not publicly available. You can try to improve your technique all you want for next time, but you are flying blind when it comes to knowing what you scored badly on.
___________________
A proposed solution
I'm not here to bitch and moan (really, I'm not). I'm here to improve my modelling skills, and if I'm being honest, improve my chances of winning next time. Taking on board honest, constructive criticism is essential if you want to develop as a model maker. That's why I'm here.
The current judging does nothing to constructively help people improve. I think even if you disagree with all of my above comments, you'd have to agree on this point. There is absolutely no feedback loop unless you come First, Second, Third or Commended, and even for them there is no supplied feedback on why you got a Commended instead of a Second, for example. Currently, all you know is you won or you lost. This is a problem.
I suggest two changes at next year's Expo:
Suggestion 1
A single page printout on each table showing the itemised scores of each entry, publicly displayed once the results are known and the little "First", "Second" etc stickers have been stuck to the winning entries. This way, entrants and spectators alike can see the itemised, objectively-decided strengths and weaknesses of each entry. Entrants can get an idea of what they need to improve on.
Suggestion 2
All references on the table, publicly accessible. This way, entrants can see how to provide great, relevant references next time. The public can see the inspiration or original photo of each model. Yes, there may be a little queue to see the references at busy times, but it gives an added dimension to the exhibition for people to appreciate. Art galleries regularly display "visual diaries" or preliminary sketches to give added understanding to artworks, so why don't we? Why do these have to be secret, hidden away, for the judges' eyes only?
Result? Feedback and constructive criticism on what needs improving. Two simple solutions that don't take any more of the volunteer judges' precious time, and which actually give added depth to the display for entrants and spectators alike. Win/win.
What do you think? Valid or not? I'd be keen to hear feedback, and if enough people agree with me then I'll present these two suggestions to the managing committee for Model Expo 2018. Please, let me know your thoughts - comment below or email me, so I know whether I'm onto something here or just a sore loser! ;)
Thanks,
Dave
