Projects not always work out the way I planned. Sometimes it is due to bad draughts, sometimes it’s caused by the limitations of the material I use and the scale, and sometimes it’s my own (lack of) craftsmanship. This is an example of three of those causes.
Attachment 315617 Attachment 315618
There was nothing wrong with Chapman’s draught of what he calls a ‘schuit’ (Plate XLIX in Architectura Navalis Mercatoria, 1775). In Holland a schuit was actually a small local vessel of which the size and shape varied per region. The word indicated a function, more than a type. We would have called this vessel a ‘boeier’. I have some doubts about the ungainly shape of the cabin’s roof in Chapman's drawing, but that’s just a detail. There is nothing wrong with the plan.
Attachment 315619
The problem started with the scale. Like my other paper models, this one was planned to be 1/77, for good comparison with other contemporary ship types.
This led to a hull with an overall length of only 11 cm. This appeared too small, at least with paper as material in combination with my clumsy old fingers (although I enjoyed painting Neptune towed by a sea horse on the 2 cm long leeboards).
Attachment 315621 Attachment 315622 Attachment 315623 Attachment 315624 Attachment 315625
I made this model to fit with my other models and to be placed in a view of an old Dutch city, all of course Photoshopped by my son. But it appears that in contradiction to my other larger models, the illusion of reality could not be realized. It’s a cute little model if watched in my showcase, but in pictures the material shows it’s a model. Perhaps I could make the appearance crisper if I used plastic as a material for several parts of the construction, but that does not feel right.
Attachment 315620 Attachment 315626
I would have liked to insert the boat in an (unfinished) picture like this, exchanging the vessel in the foreground for this luxurious little yacht, but in this case it won’t work.
Pity.
Oh yes, and here is some more (finished) artwork. Who said photography did not exist in the 17th century?
Attachment 315627 Attachment 315628 Attachment 315629
Attachment 315617 Attachment 315618
There was nothing wrong with Chapman’s draught of what he calls a ‘schuit’ (Plate XLIX in Architectura Navalis Mercatoria, 1775). In Holland a schuit was actually a small local vessel of which the size and shape varied per region. The word indicated a function, more than a type. We would have called this vessel a ‘boeier’. I have some doubts about the ungainly shape of the cabin’s roof in Chapman's drawing, but that’s just a detail. There is nothing wrong with the plan.
Attachment 315619
The problem started with the scale. Like my other paper models, this one was planned to be 1/77, for good comparison with other contemporary ship types.
This led to a hull with an overall length of only 11 cm. This appeared too small, at least with paper as material in combination with my clumsy old fingers (although I enjoyed painting Neptune towed by a sea horse on the 2 cm long leeboards).
Attachment 315621 Attachment 315622 Attachment 315623 Attachment 315624 Attachment 315625
I made this model to fit with my other models and to be placed in a view of an old Dutch city, all of course Photoshopped by my son. But it appears that in contradiction to my other larger models, the illusion of reality could not be realized. It’s a cute little model if watched in my showcase, but in pictures the material shows it’s a model. Perhaps I could make the appearance crisper if I used plastic as a material for several parts of the construction, but that does not feel right.
Attachment 315620 Attachment 315626
I would have liked to insert the boat in an (unfinished) picture like this, exchanging the vessel in the foreground for this luxurious little yacht, but in this case it won’t work.
Pity.
Oh yes, and here is some more (finished) artwork. Who said photography did not exist in the 17th century?
Attachment 315627 Attachment 315628 Attachment 315629
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire