Postby sarge » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:36 am
Art is art.
That said, here is an observation very much in the vein of how one appreciates art. It's a very personal thing; I can't stand Monet for example, yet most students are taught to appreciate his work as the essential examples (and arguably the origins) of Impressionism. I get many a raised eyebrow (and do I hear the word "philistine" whispered from lip to ear?) when I say I just don't like his stuff.
In that vein, I have to ask (and no, this isn't a slam on anyone's model or modelling choices), does a masterful weather become moot when one is confronted by a visual flaw in the model itself?
In this case, my eye is drawn away from the finish and jarred by the pilot height off the rail. Now, in person I'd bet the effect isn't nearly so jarring but photography is a merciless thing, especially shot at track level in the case of the pilot height.
So what is better in a model of a piece of history, a balance in all at the "good" level, or one aspect (in this case the weathering effect) beyond "excellent"?
For what its worth, my own eye favours a balanced result, for I now wonder if there is an effect whereby the excellence (in this case the weathering) actually emphasises the anomaly; does my eye desperately want everything to be at the level of the finish?
"Nah, he's just a philistine."