Modellers often describe colour related issues as a "Can of Worms", usually as a preliminary to drawing their own particular conclusion in one of those published celebrity builds which are avidly followed and where, by dint of modelling expertise, the sometimes contrarian choice of paint colours is often taken as some form of definitive guide. This is not always appropriate. In colour terms the plaudit "That looks good" is not always synonymous with "That is accurate" or even "That is close enough".
"Can of Worms" is usually taken to mean "a source of unforeseen and troublesome complexity". What it doesn't really mean is "different opinions in the absence of hard data". That is just speculation and/or disagreement. The arguments and counter-arguments involved might be based on hypotheses which might include elements of complexity - or not. What it certainly doesn't mean is an absence of data per se. But because we live in an online world where it is much easier to present an opinion as a hypothesis, or to promote a hypothesis via an opinion, the distinction between complexity and the simple unknown is sometimes blurred. As a consequence the vacuum of the unknown is all too often filled with unverifiable assertions and counter assertions. Over time these become confusing to anyone trying to ascertain the base data - or lack of it. It is the speculation that often becomes the can of worms, not the base data or absence of data which for an objective mindset usually remain unchanged.
A case in point is the Brewster Buffalo. As built for the RAF we can presume with some confidence that it was painted in colours intended to represent the RAF Temperate Land Scheme (TLS) of Dark Green, Dark Earth and Duck Egg Blue (Sky). Nothing complex or "can of worms" about that. What we don't know is exactly what those paint colours were like or how far they differed from the MAP Standard colours. AFAIK there are no accessible extant paint samples, no colour photographs, no factory paint specifications and no paint company swatches (at least not Fuller). There are contemporaneous descriptions, subjective as well as subject to interpretation, and there may be contemporaneous colour paintings. Speculation about the probabilities and possibilities around these unknowns is not a can of worms - it is just speculation.
Some modellers understandably approach builds where there is an absence of solid colour data with trepidation and there is these days a more evident need for reassurance - or consensus - about the colours to be chosen. Whether this arises from some harsh judgements or snide comments at model shows I couldn't say but the notorious "colour police" waiting to pounce on the wrong RLM seem, at least online, to be an urban myth. Sure there is debate and disagreement, often heated, over colours, but very rarely is a model displayed online criticised harshly for its paint choices - even when it deserves it. Nevertheless "can of worms" often appears as a plaintive, to discourage a mythic storm of criticism (it seldom discourages a storm of heated discussion). But ask yourself, next time you comment on model colour, whether approval or disapproval rests on the "decorator principle" ("I like the pretty colour you have painted your model. I'm going to do the same") or the "accuracy principle" ("I think the colour looks correct, based on the verifiable data available"). Nothing really wrong with either, except when they pretend to be each other.
Some modellers understandably approach builds where there is an absence of solid colour data with trepidation and there is these days a more evident need for reassurance - or consensus - about the colours to be chosen. Whether this arises from some harsh judgements or snide comments at model shows I couldn't say but the notorious "colour police" waiting to pounce on the wrong RLM seem, at least online, to be an urban myth. Sure there is debate and disagreement, often heated, over colours, but very rarely is a model displayed online criticised harshly for its paint choices - even when it deserves it. Nevertheless "can of worms" often appears as a plaintive, to discourage a mythic storm of criticism (it seldom discourages a storm of heated discussion). But ask yourself, next time you comment on model colour, whether approval or disapproval rests on the "decorator principle" ("I like the pretty colour you have painted your model. I'm going to do the same") or the "accuracy principle" ("I think the colour looks correct, based on the verifiable data available"). Nothing really wrong with either, except when they pretend to be each other.
In modelling the expression "can of worms" is not just misused, it is over used. It is a cliché. And it is all too often, sadly, a cloaking device for ignorance. So choose colours and paint your Buffalo with confidence, in the freedom and joy of objective interpretation - not in the angst of seeking a consensus of speculation. Just my two cents worth . . . . .
0 comments:
Post a Comment