Are We all on the same page?
I believe a lot of the problems we see now, particularly
among the artisan classes (custom, artist resin and custom
glaze), happen because we have a similar situation in those
divisions. Judges are coming to the table with two divergent perspectives, but unlike the situation with collectibility, many entrants—and even some judges—are unaware
that this is so. It is a problem that has developed over time,
which might explain why it is less obvious than the one that
caused problems in the factory finish classes.
Let me see if I can explain it a little. The artisan classes have
traditionally used realism as a guide. Back when I was learning to judge, we would say “spaghetti legs” were bad because that horse would die with those grossly deformed legs.
I would have told you then that was a more serious fault
than, say, being over at the knees, because the first was a
problem with realism. Putting “real horses aren’t like that”
faults ahead of “those are not desirable” faults was not controversial then, and it is not controversial now.
What has happened since that time is
that we have quite a few judges who
have become quite sophisticated
in their understanding of all those
“horses aren’t made that way” issues.
So much so that they are looking at
classes and never getting past that part
of the equation, because there are so
many things that can go wrong when creating representational miniatures. Once
they understood it and could see it, they
could not un-see it. Yes, horses still had to
be plausible for the breed listed, but that
was about possible, not about preferable to
“Three...or One?”
horsemen or breed registries. That’s because what they could
see is a higher level fault than the niceties of type and conformation. Even a poorly-conformed horse is a realistic horse.
Meanwhile, you also have another large group that have not
acquired that kind of in-depth understanding. They could
look at the same class, and while they might pick up on the
large errors (the spaghetti legs we all were taught to see), a
lot of what the other group saw is truly invisible to them.
They might look at the same class and say, “Wow, the entries were all so close I had to resort to personal preference!”
And to them, they were close. And they would be mystified
that the other group seemed not to be taking into account
superior breed type because tho were placing “plain” horses over “typey” ones. They wonder if the judge even knows
what a proper such-and-such is supposed to look like. And
in turn, the other camp wonders if the type-focused judges
have any grounding at all in the proper construction of an
equine hip.
And that is how we got to a place where we have two different groups using two different systems. Some of that reflects
an evolution in how some hobbyists view showing, shifting
towards a more miniaturist approach while others have preferred to retain a role-playing flavor. The model horse hobby
has always been a hybrid of those two things, but for some
the balance has changed to favor miniaturism more strongly.
I believe that larger shift is why we have begun to see two
different approaches in judging. I have used acronyms of the
primary criteria for these two different schools of thought:
ABC (Anatomy, Biomechanics, Color Accuracy) and B&C
(Breed type and Conformation). In the graphic on the following page, I have tried to capture some of the differences
between these two ways of thinking.
I want to stress that while my own judging approach is
squarely in the ABC camp, I do not think that either is right
or wrong. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.
But they are different, and combining the two
in a panel-judge system will produce
the same confusing results that the
mix of breed and collectibility
did years ago. It is time to ask
our judges and our showholders to think about which system
they are using, a