It may be on an armour discussion board (Missing-Lynx), but it's more aircraft related:

Please note that this is not my work!



Please note that this is not my work! (In case you missed it above...)

Details here:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1275916208/Rolling+Thunder

Cheers,
Tony

Very good work/craftsmanship.....however.........

It's not something I would do or even want in my collection to display. To me, and this is just me, I would not want to create a diorama or scene like this. It's just a bit too disturbing and macabre.

I know that others may feel differently and that's their right but it just ain't my cup o' tea. It in no way diminishes the modeler's talent, however.

Jeff

...it IS the reality of war.

I felt it was a very somber reminder, and like you I see the excellent workmanship.

Semper Fi, Don

It's very nice work, but I agree with you. I wouldn't want to be looking at that regularly. Additionally, any aircraft that came apart that badly would not show much left of the pilot, especially posed in a way suggesting he got out of the cockpit and somehow crawled away. This plane disintegrated and so would the crew.

Except it's based of an actual photograph that pretty much looks the same.

And thats the problem I have. The way the pilot is posed he would slide off the aircraft. I think the modeler would ahve been better off posing the pilot like the photo shows and also adding the lower part of the g-suit.I;m not tyring to be critical but you look at this dio and it says, the pilot got out, was able to take off his G-Suit, climb up on top of his aircraft and then sucome to his injuires. You look at the pic of the real thing and you get the sence that the pilot was lucky to get out, flair his body up against his plane and then the inevitable happens.
I;m not discounting the craftmanship, it's the story the modeler is trying to tell that I have a problem with and with Dio's that a huge part.

Jim

I wasn't really worried about nitpicks, more the point that in the photo the pilot(?) wasn't disintegrated.

Hi Mike,

The forward fuselage impacted at a low speed (for an aircraft crash) into a rice paddy. For a jet crash it is remarkably intact. This is not a Cessna, which will crumple into a ball in a crash like this, the 105 was tough. The pilot was in his seat and wearing a helmet, fairly well protected, plus there is a good bit of fuselage to his right side that has to collapse before the cockpit collapses. The injuries he suffered (crushing of the right face, right arm, right leg, can't see the torso to determine visible injuries) look very consistent to many pictures I saw from North Vietnamese files while doing POW/MIA work (which contain many pictures such as this), not to mention the crash sites I've been to. There is a distinct difference in these North Vietnamese pictures of remains from a high speed impact compared to a low speed impact such as this.

There is nothing inconsistent with the picture other than the pilot was drug from the wreckage and placed on the fuselage for propaganda purposes, which actually is very consistent with the North Vietnamese during the war.

Regards,
Don

Yeah, never said there was any inconsistancy.

Hi Mike,

I know you didn't mention inconsistent, but you did question why the pilot wasn't "disintegrated". My reply was just to say that the pilot's remains are very consistent with an impact as shown in the picture, or rather, that there is no inconstancy with the picture. From my experience with these issues, the pilot's injuries are what you'd expect from such an impact.

Regards,
Don

I didn't say anything about the why the pilot wasn't disintegrated. You should read the whole thread, you've completely lost the context. I was replying to someone who said that the scene would not have happened because the pilot would have been disintegrated, I just said it was based off an actual photo, although we don't know whether the pilot was extracted or had ejected and was brought to the scene. However, since the c/p seems to be relatively intact it's likely the pilot's body would have been too.

Mike,

My apologies, I missed that you were talking about the diorama, not the picture.

Still, some in these threads think the pilot's injuries (and they are talking about the dead pilot, not the diorama figure) aren't severe enough, that is what I was discussing. It wasn't directed at you, it was just my observations based on five years of POW/MIA work.

Cheers,
Don

Hi Mike,

I know you didn't mention inconsistent, but you did question why the pilot wasn't "disintegrated". My reply was just to say that the pilot's remains are very consistent with an impact as shown in the picture, or rather, that there is no inconstancy with the picture. From my experience with these issues, the pilot's injuries are what you'd expect from such an impact.

Regards,
Don

......from the photo, that the pilot survived the loss of his craft, ejected and was dealt with on his capture; brought back to his plane for documentation and propeganda purposes. Not an uncommon occurance.

Gary Adams
IPMS #5495

"If flying were the language of man, then soaring would be its poetry". anon.

, allegedly obtained from the NVA archives, with the pilot slumped over the nose, but on his stomach, rather than his back (with his uniform considerable more shredded). I suspect that he could well have been placed in this position by the NVA for a staged photo, as it is highly unlikely that he would have been randomly thrown into this position. The actual circumstances of his demise must therefore remain something of a mystery.

But there is an actual photo...

Byron

.

you would have found out that the colors in the water do not represent blood. They are the builders representation of of the fluids (fuel, hydraulic and other oils) leaking from the aircraft.

that it would more than likely just be really muddy water instead of all that red. I agree that it's an amazing dio but it looks more like somebody's chummed the water for sharks than oil and stuff leaking from what's left of the aircraft.

BTW my second cousin flew Thuds in Vietnam. Google his book, "The Light on the Star" by Steve Dotson.

Cheers,
Dave

Very impressive, I always shake my head when people get offended by diorama's about war that don't show happy scenes of people enjoying themselves. It's war, this stuff occasionally happens. I've only ever done one diorama, a crashed plane and I showed the pilot dead in the c/p with some blood and burns. Brought it to a LHS to show the owner(I bought the stuff for it there) and some guy went off on me about my disgusting inclusion of the pilot. I just asked him what does he think happens when a plane crashes?

Actually the "story" could be told just as well without the figure.

Having been on the scenes of several small plane crashes not as devestating as this one, I will tell you a pilot would not be in this condition after such a trauma.

Part of the "story"? Possibly posed for the propaganda value of a photograph?

This war is still too recent in many of our memories to be comfortable with a scene such as this.

All in all, amazing modeling just not all that comfortable to view....yes, it is war, but so are other events of war we shy away from in our modeling.

Just simply my opinion.



Gary Adams
IPMS #5495

"If flying were the language of man, then soaring would be its poetry". anon.

I won't post it directly because it's somewhat gruesome, but you can see it here.

Cheers,
Tony

It is, in all likelyhood, a posed picture. Amazed at the lack of physical trauma on the pilot after such a break-up.

Thanks, Tony.

Gary Adams
IPMS #5495

"If flying were the language of man, then soaring would be its poetry". anon.

then dragged or trucked over and posed with the plane?

look at the pilot's body - those sure look like rifle butt marks on the pilot's head and cheek to me... Also, IIRC, one of the first things the NVA did to captured pilots was to remove their boots, to make it harder to escape. There is no indication of any part of a chute pack on the body, and a body in that good of shape should have been still strapped into an ejection seat in any event, if he really was in the a/c at the time of impact.

Byron

It obvious that it's posed, whether or not they brought the pilot to the wreck or extracted him we'll never know. My eyesight isn't good enough to discern rifle butt marks from that distance on such a grainy photo but I can see his leg is twisted quite badly, doubt they had to remove his boots to keep him from running.

will get here:

http://www.cdiorama.com/suggest.php?search=rice%0D%0Afields

Nice, big not-so-grainy picture...

Byron

the same sentence describing the picture you provided.

I just happen to be an American - I'm assuming that you can use Geobyte's IP Address Locater just as easily as I can, so there's no particular reason for me to be coy about it.

Also, I spent the first 13.5 years of my adult life as a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force. For your '4-1-1', this particular photograph (and the diorama it inspired) evokes exceptionally strong emotions in me, which I have taken great pains to downplay, as this is an international forum, and a whole lot of the readers come from places and backgrounds which give rise to equally strong emotions in the opposite direction.

If you had read the post(s) I was responding to, you might have understood it for what it was - a somewhat downplayed and genteel 'slapdown' of somebody who did not follow (for whatever reason) the trail of hyperlinks back to the original derivative photograph, which was horribly clear (nice, big...)

I've already gone on record here that I'm of the opinion that the diorama is tactless, albeit professionally executed. For the reasons stated above, that's as far as I am willing to go in this forum.

But if you think I think that any photo depicting the propaganda use of a murdered fellow Air Force officer is 'nice' in any sense, you'd better think again.

Are we clear?

Byron

Hi Tony, this is not directed at you but to other posters (thought it was better to place this response here rather than further down).

I've been to many jet crash sites doing POW/MIA work. Looking at this picture it is absolutely apparent the pilot was placed on top of the wreckage for propaganda photographs.

But, look at the wreckage--the forward fuselage separated in flight and impacted on the right side going straight down with the pilot most likely seated inside at impact. The wreckage is crushed on the right side, much like Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie.




This is actually a low-speed crash (the wreckage is remarkably intact), more indicative of inflight disintegration with wreckage falling straight down at terminal velocity after all forward velocity has decayed.

The pilot has a great amount of injuries to his right side (face, right arm mangled, right leg mangled, can't see the torso to determine injuries) which is consistent with being in the cockpit at impact. The pilot was possibly incapacitated by the event that destroyed his 105, or his ejection seat was damaged making ejection impossible. Many possibilities, but these are my thoughts.

Regards,
Don

that picture, man, that tells a story. Never seen it before but it's up there with the napalm girl, the burning british soldier, Basra and dead Uday for The Sobering Realities of War prize.

nm

As if that man actually ended up there from that wreck,
His blood is where ever he was beaten to death by the people that captured him, not around that wreck.

There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

But I said a prayer for that poor man tonight.
May he be in a better place.
Danni

If the band you're in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon: Pink Floyd

I agree with the guys that it's likely hydraulic fluid. Mil-H-5606 hydraulic fluid of that era was about the color and consistency of automatic transmission fluid. Even single-engine fighters carried gallons of the stuff in their lines and reservoirs. It would make a huge slick in a water-filled rice paddy.

Royce
USAF Retired

that all such scenes could have ended with an intact pilot looking up toward the Sandy flying cover and the jungle penetrator being lowered by the Jolly Green. Then again, I wish there were no shoot-downs. Then again...

If this just represents reality of War, how about someone doing the reality of an Airliner crash with lots of dead people, kids, stuffed animals and body parts strewn all over the place? Bad taste is bad taste. Horror and SciFi Films today show people eating people, guts hanging out and then blur out a butt crack! Where has our sense of propriety gone? This dio is extremely well done and in extremely bad taste as well as disrespectful to the families of the pilots lost during the war. I do understand the free speech issue though but you wonder.... Just MHO.
Best Regards, Ron

I would say that I would look at the modeler's intent in portraying such a scene.

In a way, it's good to be made uncomfortable - it makes you think. That's part of the function of "art", even the modeler's art.

Modelers sometime seem to be far removed from reality: they model war machines - aircraft, armor, ships, etc, which are expressively designed to kill human beings and destroy property. You see the objects themselves but you rarely see a depiction of the human cost of using such objects. The primary mission of these objects of war have gotten separated from their aesthetics - how neat they look, the actual number of rivets along panel line (or not), whether that wing had a bulged access panel or not, etc - all the modeler trivia which ignores what the primary reason for that machine's being is. It's like looking at a sword and having an endless discussion as to how beautiful it is, how well made it is, etc and totally ignoring that it was designed to kill people.

I for one would rather see one well-done (but maybe bloody) diorama than 100 soul-less machines. I once saw a WWI figure diorama which showed a German soldier climbing out of a deep muddy trench over the rotted body of another soldier. That is a more realistic depiction of the reality of war than anything else I can think of. Is it bad taste? Depends on the intent of the modeler. The subject matter may shock, but it may well also embody a historical truth, and some lessons on what modern warfare does to people.

Is there anything in war which is in good taste?


John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

and many others. Of course photography is an art form that can take the horror to its highest levels. The easily identifiable image of a person being shot at close range.

Any diorama about war implicitly or explicitly shows the horror. All those dioramas I have seen of nazi troops in a Russian town. Nice use of men and equipment. The untold story is that if there were Jews in the town, they were taken to the woods and shot in front of a mass grave. If there were Partisans, they would be hung up with wire.

http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2006/Manet/detail_the_third_of_may.htm






There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

But, as you may know Goya was a political firebrand, most of his work was political and religious commentary designed to upset/shock folks seeing it and somewhat disguised as allegory in other pieces (his prints especially) to keep him from being arrested and shot himself! The work you display here is a studio piece not based on specific individuals and is illustrative because there was no photographic record of the event in journalistic terms. We have forgotten (well, those that don't study history) the reasons for the shooting but it survives (I would argue) as great art because of its formal aspects, not its subject matter. There have been lots of other scenes drawn/painted like this that have not survived as well. Just think of all the gory war art done during WWII. In Picasso's piece he purposefully created an abstract, symbolic form to keep it from being an illustration, which would have made it a cheap shot in my opinion. That's why it has survived as such an iconic piece, no blood, no gore but the violence is there like no other. All Nico did in my opinion is copy a photo and change it to make it more offensive. It is as I tell my students, a "conk on the head" rather than a tug on the heart.
Best Regards, Ron

His horrors of war prints show bodies hacked up, hanging from trees, impaled, etc. There is nothing hidden or nothing the viewer can hide behind.

But he didn't copy from photos, offend individual's family members and he was being journalist/commentator in purpose. Commentators can be argued with. Everybody seems to be defending Nico's "art" and it cannot be compared to Goya IMHO. I had another student this last semester who was doing paintings of piled bodies to protest a war in South America and I asked her to find another way to express herself so that it was not just a copy of the type of imagery that Goya and others have used. I also told her that to stand the test of time it had to be universal in its concept in physical location and over time, it had to moving not just shocking. I love Nico's craft BTW.
Ron

I am a University teacher in art. I had graduate students this year who were dealing with the horrors of the wars in Lebanon. They didn't take cheap shots or use shocking imagery but still managed to show the results of war and humanity's resilience in overcoming "Man's Inhumanity to Man". I wonder how Nico or you would feel if your family was involved in a fatal auto accident and I did a diorama showing your family's mangled bodies in the twisted wreckage. It would be historically true and might cause people to think about auto safety but it would be insensitive in the least and in very bad taste and harmful to you at worst. I don't think that any of us that study history or build models, or in my situation was there at Korat in '67, need to be patronized with the kind of sophistry you offer, or reminded of the horrors of war through these kinds of tactless displays. It isn't art, sorry, it's mindless, shocking imagery designed to do just that, shock. I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree with your conclusions. We who model the machines do have souls we just don't feel the need to display or prove it to everyone. It's called humility.
Best Regards, Ron

I see a bunch of burned/knocked out tanks on HS and ML and no one complains about them...ie; no burned bodies...try putting a few of those around the tank and watch the Ghoul Police come out in force.
Ken

Doesn't sound like you are agreeing with him.

So it's OK if it's an NVA pilot?

and he needs to consult a textbook written by academics who've spent their lives defining "Art" (only starting with Kant, of course), before he even attempts his work? And most of all he should never, ever offend anyone with his bad taste (Please no fungus on the fruit!)? Is this what you teach your students? Oh, and all "Art" must be spiritually and morally uplifting? (Sorry Jackson Pollack, you're a drunk)

Does this cave painting (15,000 BCE) depicting a dead man from the caves of Lascaux disturb you?


Probably run over by a Bison. He was someone's relative.

Get it? It has to be done like it has never been done in Idea and craft! "Art", especially copied from someone else's work is just craft. And, by the way, all art is uplifting even the "negative" stuff like Picasso's Guernica. Lastly, I love you folks who disparage "academics". Without your teachers you would not only be rude but uneducated as well.
Ron

To simplify a number of books, the Chinese copied styles previously held in high regard.

Art cannot be an interpretation of something the pre-existed in another medium?

So every portrait after the first portrait of George Washington is craft?

Didn't we just go through a flame where many claimed that what we do is art?

So, modeling is clearly low form non-art.

Art can be down right depressing. I am so uplifted by the thought of a Spanish city being carpet bombed by Nazis. It is only uplifting if you commit yourself to no more Guernicas, or perhaps in the case of the diorama no more Viet Nams.





There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

and I respect your opinion. For me, I look in the museums and galleries. There are no copies of Guernicas, of DeKoonings, of George Washington's portrait. If you asked me are my models art I'd have to say no. If you ask me if a copy of a Sung dynasty vase is great art I'd have to say no. I do recognize that all art is built on what has been done to some extent. To me, part of what makes art great is its originality. I do landscapes, I don't consider my art great, it is well crafted I think but it is derivative. I do these for me and don't care about changing the art world. These images are important and meaningful to me. I have seen other handling of the Landscapes that are more "landscapes of the mind" and thus more original than mine.

The reason the Guernica is uplifting to me is that Picasso was, in a way, speaking for all humanity in a universal voice. His image to me was one of hope, that we all recognize war as a horror and we have voices like Picasso's that speak for us in our opposition to man's inhumanity to man. l don't just read it literally. That is exactly why he did not show the Heinkels dropping the bombs. It was the Germans in the 30's but it just as well might be Americans in the sixties ( although I would not equate these politically). There were many drawings done in the concentration camps by the prisoners. I think that amidst all that unbelievable horror the need to express oneself artistically is uplifting. It shows the resilience of the human spirit and the victory, although in those cases Phyyhric, against our oppressors. I recall the picture "Playing for time". These pieces are the light in the dark. That is why they are uplifting.

I do not wish to impose my views on anyone Steve. I think we should all share this site and be civil to each other and respect that sometimes we can only agree to disagree. My only point here is that I think that art that hurts people personally is different than art that provokes. One is mean spirited and the other uplifting even if the images are disturbing. I believe that art that hurts is often the result of the artist not thinking or purposefully trying to hurt. No Flames here please.
Best Regards, Ron

http://www.fogonazos.es/2006/11/famous-painters-copied-photopraphs_06.html

http://www.pdnphotooftheday.com/2009/12/2778

What about when someone paints a picture of a building or other structure? Hopper's pictures are craft?



There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

Even Vermeer use the Camere Obscura. These artist either took the photo themselves or had them taken under their direction as a tool or armature for their work. And still, they interpreted them, they did not copy them slavishly.
Ron

There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

We model the machines man uses to create this kind of horror. Does the "shocking imagery" really serve no purpose? Not all of us can confess to having seen this kind of thing in person. We gain a certain aesthetic pleasure from looking at Spitfires and Mustangs (and Century jets too, I guess ). Is it wrong to be reminded that there's no beauty in the purpose of these machines?

Someone did a diorama a few years ago of the Normandy beachhead that could've been taken from the opening of Saving Private Ryan. I for one wasn't there to see it happen but it's work like that (as well as the movie) that gives me a bit of insight of what it was like. And I, like everyone else, have the right and the ability to turning off the movie or skipping the post/site/link/webpage.

And as an aside, I'm one who believes my hobby is a craft, and not an art.

Ken

Ron wrote:

'Hey, thank you for the lecture on Art John....'

No problem - even a teacher in a university can be lectured, I hope. You're never too smart to learn something new. I make it a point to learn one new thing per day, unpalatable as that may be. Some of the things I learn are absolutely shocking, just shocking, I tell you...

'I am a University teacher in art. I had graduate students this year who were dealing with the horrors of the wars in Lebanon. They didn't take cheap shots or use shocking imagery but still managed to show the results of war and humanity's resilience in overcoming "Man's Inhumanity to Man".'

How nice. Now think of Eddie Adams' famous photo of the Viet Cong suspect being executed by a point-blank shot to the head. A photo could have been taken of the man's body from 100 feet away, but it would not have had the same impact, would it? Shocking? Sure. In bad taste? Depends, doesn't it. Insensitive? To who? The victim's family? I bet it was. So, what do we do, censor every depiction of war because it might hurt somebody's feelings? And think of the children...

'I wonder how Nico or you would feel if your family was involved in a fatal auto accident and I did a diorama showing your family's mangled bodies in the twisted wreckage. It would be historically true and might cause people to think about auto safety but it would be insensitive in the least and in very bad taste and harmful to you at worst.'

Go for it - I could care less. I have more important things to think about.

'I don't think that any of us that study history or build models, or in my situation was there at Korat in '67, need to be patronized with the kind of sophistry you offer, or reminded of the horrors of war through these kinds of tactless displays.'

Patronizing sophistry - first time I've been accused of that. I'll add it to my resume. By the way, since you brought it up - see much combat action in Korat?

'It isn't art, sorry, it's mindless, shocking imagery designed to do just that, shock.'

So what? People need a shock once in a while - it's good for the brain. As for whether it's "art" or not, please define "art" for us.

'I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree with your conclusions. We who model the machines do have souls we just don't feel the need to display or prove it to everyone. It's called humility.'

Oh puleeease...


John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Had the intent been merely to model a bit of history, the pilot would have been posed face down, as per the actual photo. However, posing the pilot face up indicates that a Statement is being made. That, plus the fact that the real F-105 in the photo was clearly in SEA camouflage, but modeled in NMF pretty much solely to get the words "U.S. Air Force" onto the diorama.

And as Ron indicated, it is a relatively tactless statement.

Byron

Body barely cold and those damn Tommies are looting the aircraft. (Satire)

http://www.aikensairplanes.com/frontline%20figures/ff-82026.htm



Or this one? Is the intent of the modeler to show that the tank will just roll over the dead body? Or will the British soldier move the dead Jerry out of the way?

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/dio/lapsemy_1.html





There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

The difference is, if the German pilot had lived, the Tommies would most likely have given him a smoke and a canteen and a lift to the rear. I doubt they'd have have broken his legs, put him in a cage, forced him to confess to being a baby-killer and tortured him six ways from Sunday. Is that because the Brits are somehow better or more civilized than the Vietnamese or other Asians? NO! It's because Communism turned the North Vietnamese into beasts, just as Nazism turned Germans into beasts.

Jerry P

The "wake" around his legs and hand are a bit distracting when one considers the rest of the water is flat and stagnant.

nm

It's a sanitized version of a wartime photo... I still think the display, while technically excellent, lacks context and just doesn't say anything other than "here's a guy draped over a destroyed plane". Maybe some additional VC figures in the background including the photographer would help it make more sense to the casual viewer.

Frankly, I'm more interested in learning the ultimate fate of that unfortunate airman- is he still listed as MIA?

Lynn

.

that if the pilot was an NVNAF pilot, or an Asian this discussion would have never taken place?



There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

That Ken is talking about a NVNAF pilot seems obvious and I'd agree with him, seeing as how I'm an American and the pilots of MiG 21s in the Vietnam conflict were the adversary. But I don't see anything with "Should have been a MiG 21" that implies Ken doesn't value the lives of Asians or lumps all Asian pilots together. There are a whole, whole lot of Asian pilots that didn't fly MiGs. Lots of VNAF, South Koreans and JSDAF to name a few. And a lot of Caucasians flew MiG 21s. Your question hints at a very ugly thing. Not that Ken asked me to jump to his defense or anything.

Jerry P

Is the nationality of the subject matter part of the issue?

Valid question to ask given the the issues raised here. With all the other dioramas out there showing dead soldiers, sailors, pilots, etc., this seems to have hit a nerve.

I understand, but I think asking questions is valid. Why is this diorama different from all other dioramas? Biblical question.



There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

But I think you brought up nationality AND race. Nationality, a valid question. Race, not necessarily invalid but it seems to carry an implicit accusation of racism and I didn't see anything in "MiG-21" that hinted at racism or a disregard for Asian lives. I admitted I'd rather see a NVAF plane shot down than an American, but that isn't because the MiG-21 pilot would have been Asian. It's because of the regime the pilot was fighting for, and I'm going to leave it at that because I don't want to get into a debate on the Vietnam war. Let's put it this way; if a plane had to get shot down, I'd rather it be North Korean than South Korean and North Vietnamese than South Vietnamese. Or I'd rather a Caucasian member of the Waffen SS get shot than a Japanese-American member of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. And no, I don't relish the thought of anyone getting shot or shot down.

Respectfully,

Jerry P

Regards

Andy K

--------------------------------------------

www.notaussiefloyd.com

Col Tomb's crash site somewhere...

compared to the grown men who painstakingly labor over the panties and nips of half-naked, child-like girly anime figures. Now that is creepy!

The diorama in the original post does not strike me as particularly offensive. It simply shows a side of war that is generally overlooked in the work of military modelers. Looking at it, I don't come away with the notion that the modeler's intent was that of a "snuff" scene.

Now that is funny....and creepy.
Ron

F-105 = FH-xxx
F-100 = FW-xxx

Hey, somebody had to bring it back to modeling...

I was afraid it might have been an F-84 and that I would be talking about a Sandy and a Jolly Green in a Korean War vignette. Funny how something gets said and we pick it up and run with it. I was wondering if there were any NMF Thuds over there.

And thanks for helping keep it OT

Jerry P


Jerry P

That finish began to be applied force-wide starting in the late 1950s as a corrosion control measure.

Were they all in SEA camo by the time they were flying over Vietnam?

Jerry P

Speaking of the buzz-numbers, I'm pretty sure that silver laquer-painted Thuds did not have gun gas vents. The vents, the dorsal conduit and the afterburner scoops are all more properly modeled on SEA cam'oed F-105s.

and switched to civil aircraft and other subjects.

I'm not really a pompous ass; I just play one on HyperScale!

Michael McMurtrey
IPMS-USA #1746
Carrollton, Texas

Late 2001 early 2001 at an IPMS sanctioned model show.





There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming

I like the do not touch sign.
To paraphrase Barney Frank, what planet does that modeler spend most of his/her time on?

and banned the builder from all future contests.

I'm not really a pompous ass; I just play one on HyperScale!

Michael McMurtrey
IPMS-USA #1746
Carrollton, Texas

at the nats a diorama--I actually viewed this--of an airliner crash, using, IIRC, scattered pieces of hamburger to represent dead pax. A fer sure "fine" individual (who also did the faux pile of Delta Sierra diorama--also saw this one weeth mah own eyes).

Bondo

Wonder where he is today? Talk about one caustic ba$tard.

I am not offended at all by this and I saw it happen.

Why shouldn't this be modeled?

Personally, would have been worse to show the floors on fire and people jumping out of the top floors....saw that too. Not a pretty sight.

Get a grip on yourself.

"I can only please one person a day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow's not looking too good either." - anon

Father did the woodwork, which can explain that it's the only decent aspect of the project. The kid did the tower as it looks cheap and toylike.

it's in poor taste.

I recall seeing a shadow box diorama of Elvis, sitting on the throne, pants down at his ankles, with a bullet hole in the side of his head. What is to debate?

"Some people are like slinkies- they are not good for much, but it's fun as hell to push them down the stairs!!!"

He is a terrific guy who is well respected in this hobby and others.

Is it in good taste? Hell no!

Is it humorous is a twisted way? To some, without doubt. To others, disrespectful and crass. I won't say which camp I fall into. Its no different than many other mediums, though. Many movies these days are both highly disrespectful and very funny. It is a different world these days. We can tear our presidents to shreds in the media and verbally, putting them in league with the devil or our nations enemies, calling them Nazis, frauds, criminals, and idiots.

Do we need to censor this type of speech or models depicting the darker side of war? No. Freedom of expression and speech is a cornerstone of our nation (I'm talking the USA here, as this is where the models in question have appeared). don't like it? Don't look at it, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I believe that the guy who did the F-105 diorama was shooting for poignant and meaningful. Whether or not he missed his target is open for interpretation for each of us. Not crazy about it myself, but I support his right to express himself within certain limits. Yeah, he is really pushing those limits, but I applaud him for trying something very bold and controversial. Imagine what a incredibly boring world we would live in if no one ever pushed the limits.

My two scents! Roy

but its not the same for everyone, and we already have given back too many of our hard won freedoms over the past 9 years. I'm not ready to accept more censorship. I'm not saying that you are advocating censorship, but some here seem to be.

This type of image has been used to make a point (or find dark humor) in cartoons for a hundred years. Political cartoons showing world leaders and celebrities killed and/or humiliated are old hat. Books and movies have been showing callous death and destruction 100 times worse than this little vignette for longer than I've been alive.

I do not want to live in a world where nothing outside the bounds of good taste (whatever the heck THAT is) is allowed. The USA is already one of the most puritanical modern industrial nations in the world. Janet Jackson shows a boob with nipple covered on TV and the FCC has a coronary. Really? What's next? Book burning? Remember the protests over The Life of Brian?

The diorama has succeeded on one major level. It has incited some interesting debate and discussion. How many models can claim that?

Roy

Love the work, but I would have serious reservations about building a diorama recreating a communist propaganda photo.... but that's just me.

.

"Max Flex" The key to Naval Success

If it is, he seems to have a thing for the dark side of war...

This fella hosted the "Womb" dio on his site.

If you find his site he did do another 'death dio'.

Ken

http://www.cdiorama.com/the-womb.php

About the guy.

http://www.cdiorama.com/about.php

The diorama has served it's purpose! It has generated a relatively civilized discussion covering politics, taste, aesthetics and art. I would have to say that based on that alone, it is art.

Personally, I am sorry that it may have come at the expense of the feelings of the family of the original dead aviator. For that reason alone I would not likely have done it. However, we are well to be reminded of the horror of war and it is good that it is one of "ours". I for one have seen tons of photos of dead Germans, Japanese, VC, etc etc. Very rarely do you hear of anyone taking offense. US servicemen took home bones as souvenirs during the Pacific war and the Japanese have to this day been appalled. Spare me a discussion about war crimes committed by Imperial Japan, I know them all, better than most.

For every word of protest regarding the use of these machines and the horror of war, there are hundreds of words of praise, patriotism etc. Perhaps it is time for a little reminder that when one engages in war death and atrocities result, and not just for the faceless bad guys but you and yours as well.

Chris

That is indeed a crucial point and that is why I said that I would likely not have done such a diorama myself. Personally, my own feeling is that such a subject is a bit close to home still, especially for an american audience. There is something a bit macabre about modeling a dead individual that can be connected to a specific recent event. That man may well have living relatives that remember him clearly. For that reason alone I would suggest that it is a bit insensitive.

My point is that we all need to keep in mind that the dead in wars are not just faceless people but men and women with families, lives etc. That holds true whether they are enemies or allies.

When dead human beings become dramatic props in patriotic photos then the true effects of war are lost. Let's bear in mind that the original photo was just that, a propoganda photo using a dead enemy.

Chris

It's a display and without the sleuthing work of a few here on this site, I never would have known or seen a picture of a similar setting. I wouuld have just taken it at face value as a dio that is certainly not your typical run of the mill sort you see on every contest table around. I bet this one gets far more milage in a discusion then the one with the guy taking a leak in the back of the scene. Which IMHO is soooo overdone.

Symbols have power and this one has a lot of it, else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't think it needs to be of a specific person or event to be traumatic. If my father were shot down over Vietnam and was KIA or MIA, that image would be profoundly disturbing to me. But I'd like to think my reaction wouldn't be to demand censorship or compensation for having been offended, it would be to shake my head sadly and walk away.

Someone mentioned the intent of the artist. Is it to move people, to teach a lesson, or to shock just for the cheap thrill of shocking? I'm inclined to believe it's the former in this case.

But like you said Ben, in this case, we have a fairly uncommon scene, presented in a way we are likely to have not seen. Similarly, aviation artists and filmmakers through their research and talent can show us spectacular, heroic scenes of aerial ballet that were previously only seen through grainy gun camera footage. On the other hand, the 9/11 attack is burned into our collective consciousness. Plastic model dioramas are well suited for some subjects and not so much others. And sorry, but there's just no way anything, let alone a plastic diorama, is going to capture the horror, heroism, tragedy, poignancy, etc. in any way approaching the photos and footage of 9/11 we've already seen. In the cheesy (IMO) WTC diorama, it looks like an airplane got swallowed by a red algae bloom on the side of a building. IMO, it just adds nothing to the topic.

I believe very strongly in free speech and that the flip side of rights is responsibilities. But if we feel an artist has crossed a certain line and ignored his responsibilities (and who can define them?), the answer is to turn away and not give them the audience they seek. (Of course, this doesn't touch the issue of a taxpayer's money funding works they find morally objectionable...)

I'm glad that other than a bit of snark, this has been a civilized discussion. Nobody has insulted anyone's mother, anyway.



Jerry P

Now that you've taken your swipe at the evil Man-Des (and yes, I know the derivation), allow me to say that you are arguing apples and oranges. I too have seen countless pictures of dead Germans, Japanese, VC, British, Chinese, Americans, etc...; the pictures sadden me, as they would any sane human being. Picture of Americans fallen in battle do not enrage me, and pictures of their dead enemies does not fill me with glee, as you imply is wont of the typical American.

On the other hand, were I to construct a detailed diorama of the massacre at Malmedy, I could rightfully expect to offend numerous people on both sides of the conflict - it would be tactless and in extraordinarily bad taste, no matter how technically accurate. Same if I made a cutaway diorama of one of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, as the workers were coming in to remove the bodies after the Zyclon B had done its work. It's not the pictures so much, as what you decide to create using the pictures that offends. If I built a diorama of the graveyard at Gettysburg, it would a be a much more tasteful and powerful reminder of the horrors of war than would be a detailed diorama of the actual battlefield littered with thousands of bodies and body parts.

Did US servicemen desecrate the bodies of dead Japanese? Yes they did. And the Japanese people may be appalled to this day, but the fact of the matter is, they weren't appalled by the souvenir bones of the US servicemen that the Japanese soldiers sent home to their loved ones. Oh, I forgot, you don't want to talk about Japanese atrocities, and I can well understand why - if you actually presented all of the facts, it would be harder for you to defend your main thesis that Americans are just a bunch of arrogant, greedy, bloodthirsty, warmongering so-and-sos who ought to stop whining about other people committing atrocities on their soldiers, because it is only just and proper repayment for all of the atrocities that American soldiers first inflicted upon the rest of the world.

The truth is that the barbaric and indefensible practice didn't start until the end of Guadalcanal, when US troops discovered numerous photos of Japanese troops performing exactly the same desecrations upon the bodies of US dead at Wake Island, for exactly the same purpose. That fact doesn't make the US response defensible, but it does put a different spin on the situation than the one you are presenting. And since you are a self-proclaimed expert on Japanese WWII atrocities, you know the facts, too, and that's why I'm calling you on it.

The average American is just as horrified and outraged about atrocities committed by our troops as we are about atrocities committed against our troops, or anybody else's troops, for that matter. I realize that you believe something different, but just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

Byron

Nowhere in my original post did I imply or state that Americans are bloodthirsty atrocity prone anythings. My only point in bringing up the bones thing is that all soldiers do such things. Perhaps I was not clear enough with my comment about Japanese atrocities, but my intent was to put to bed the argument that you seem to be edging toward, that of "if they do it, so can we...." My only apology in this is for my lack of clarity.

I actually applaud your personal attitude about such photos. Frankly we seem to be in basic agreement, except for your sense of offense that seems to begin with anyone edging toward the idea that all sides committ atrocities in all wars.

Please go back to my original post and re-read it. Sorry if my choice of examples offend you, but you could substitute any side in any conflict. My choice was tailored to the audience.

As for Japanese and German atrocities, I do feel I know the subject pretty well. I have a degree in history from that era and have put a fair bit of personal time to study it. I have been instrumental in the installation of a memorial in honour of the victims of Japanese war crimes. I also lived in Japan for a while so I feel I have some insight into the culture. I make no excuses and in fact deplore the excesses of Imperial Japan. That is a whole other discussion, but let me assure you, I excuse nothing.

As far as your attitude when viewing pictures, again good for you. However, I think it would defy reality to say that your average person does not view the dead of an enemy nation with less sympathy than their own. This whole thread would likely not exist if that was a dead VC at the feet of an American soldier. There are far more and more graphic pictures of Axis dead from WWII in ciruclation than Allied. And it is certainly the case that more pictures/movies/songs/etc glorify war than are against it.

Chris

Chris,

"Perhaps it is time for a little reminder that when one engages in war death and atrocities result, and not just for the faceless bad guys but you and yours as well."

Because this is a vignette depicting a dead American pilot draped in the wreckage of a plane conspicuously marked "U.S. Air Force", during an intensely polarizing conflict, your final statement does indeed sound like a fairly heavy-handed slap at good ole' "American Imperialism". This perception is bolstered by your singling out of US atrocities in the SWP, followed by your statement that you would brook no discussion about corresponding Japanese atrocities.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intent, but it's not a truly wild stretch.

You need to go back and read my post again, too. There is huge difference between understanding why events happened, and the justification of those same events. The taking of souvenir body parts was manifestly not an intrinsic act associated with the war in the European theater. Why not? Did we have a policy of sorting out the brutes and only sending them to the Pacific, while we sent the more intellectual soldiers to Europe? No, of course not! Something significant must have happened to cause such a major aberration. There was a context for this, and my disagreement with your position stems from the fact that you are fully aware of that context, and chose to suppress it, thus 'spinning' and shaping the conclusion.

Again, I am manifestly NOT taking the position the two wrongs make a right - in fact, two wrongs make two wrongs. Period. But I am saying it's also important to keep things in their proper context.

I do not agree with your final point. You are correct in assumption that were the vignette a dead VC lying at the feet of an American soldier, there would be little interest, but not just on the American side. Two soldiers: one alive, one dead. One winner, one loser. Wouldn't even matter that much if it were a live VC standing over a dead American. Same story, and it happened often enough.

Buuuut, if it were an American soldier bent over and looting the body of the dead VC, or cutting off a finger or other body part, you'd better believe it would be a different story, and I happen to think that it would would be defying reality to believe otherwise!

My father was a radio operator on B-24s in the European theater, and fly 26 combat missions as part of the 457th out of Rackheath. On Dec 31, 1944 they lost an engine right outside the primary, got lost, and ended up landing at a small airstrip in France. While they were there, they hooked up with the French Underground, who amongst other things showed them pictures of non-compliant village leaders hung upside down by the Germans literally by their genitals on meathooks. They were taken to the place this happened, and there was still blood on the walls. It was 30 years before he could even talk about it, and he could still barely tell the tale, it had had such a profound impact on him.

He died in 1975; seven years later my mother married a man who had been a Fallshirmjager, and later an American POW. To his dying day, he never had a problem with that, at all - he felt it was a perfectly acceptable way to deal with civilian resistance to to German authority.

So please don't tell me that the commission of atrocities is just a natural and normal part of the 'soldier experience' during a time of war, or that all soldiers 'do it'. I think it's a lot more complex than that.

Byron

You know, we are probably quibbling semantics as much as anything else. Here goes:

-We both agree on the fundamental point that the diorama is a bit tasteless. My only point of praise was that it had an emotional impact and that this is one definition of effective art.

-We both said that we would not do the diorama ourselves and for much the same reason.

-I am hard pressed to agree that the public of any country is equally offended by pictures of dead enemies rather than dead friends. I am also hard pressed to believe that my point is wrong about many more pictures glorifying war are floating around than those against it.

-You main source of offense seems to be that I used an American example of an atrocity. I think there is enough evidence that all sides committ atrocities in war. Some countries are better than others (I would say the US is much nearer the good end of that scale, FYI). In making that example I was confusing in my presentation. You are correct, I expressed myself badly and that was not my intent!! No insult to the US was intended. FYI my wife and about half of my own family are American. We spent out honeymoon following in my Grandfather in laws footsteps over Guadalcanal where he served with the 37th.

-Atrocities are in fact part of the soldier experience, whether as a traumatized witness such as your father or a participant. Most soldiers do not committ them but they are a common result of the overall environment. Mass psychology, mob mentality, individual mental health and of course circumstances all play an issue. Some wars breed more atrocities than others as do some cultures.

To be honest I am not sure that we have enough to continue going over this. As I say, you seem like a pleasant enough person and if you wish to continue we can. Myself, I am ok to say thanks for the thoughts and appreciate them for a slightly different take on a situation.

Thanks,

Chris

....the same thread on ML was almost all positive responses, other than the guy who doesn't like those dirty Vietnamese Commies!

Here's some amateur psychology - the more upbeat response to this controversial diorama in Missing Lynx versus Hyperscale may be due more to the types of people in each forum - I bet that Hyperscale has more aircraft modelers than any other segment, and Missing Lynx caters to armor and other ground subjects.

Here's my sneaking suspicion - there are more actual military ground-action veterans on Missing Lynx and the subject of dead bodies being depicted bothers them less. Also aircraft modeling as a whole presents less opportunities for depicting dead bodies.

It would be interesting to see a demographic breakdown of each website, as to how many are military veterans overall, how many are combat veterans (whether air, ground, sea, etc), what subjects they model, and whether their military experiences affect what subjects they model.


John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)