News about the TOS 11-Footer
- Thread starter MGagen
- Start date
But different people are bound to disagree on what's worth preserving, which is why it's good to try to honor every perspective rather than favor only one.
It's not like Ed Miarecki was a vandal deliberately trying to damage the miniature. In his view, he was honoring it and the intent of its makers. Think of his work as an alternative artistic interpretation. Maybe it was a mistake to impose that interpretation onto the original miniature itself, but as a creative work in its own right, surely it has as much right to be acknowledged as any of the various fan designs. Now, maybe only a small portion of his physical work will be preserved for history's sake, or maybe it will be preserved only in photographic records; but it's still part of the artistic history of the artifact -- part of the conversation, if you will, over what the Enterprise should look like. And the fact that the miniature has inspired that conversation, that there are so many diverse opinions and such lively debate, is itself a historically and culturally interesting phenomenon.
Maybe. But part of voting responsibly is getting as much information as possible before deciding. There's no need to rush to a conclusion. The experts themselves have only begun to evaluate the miniature. And only after they've done that will they begin discussing the possibilities of how to handle the work. So why are we in such a hurry to register our votes? Personally I'd rather wait for more information -- follow the process rather than trying to race ahead of it.
Not with a million crazed fans breathing down the restorer's necks.
Good point. Why do amateurs always assume they're better qualified to decide these things than the actual experts in the field?
"Experts" like Miarecki?
For him to do what he did and think it was a good job is a fine example of incompetence.
^And what exactly are your qualifications in the field of art restoration?
I know crap when I see it Mr. Know-it-all. Miarecki DID NOT make the 11 footer look "nicer." He changed it to something it never was.
I know studio props are rarely as mint and precision as they appear onscreen in film and television, but anyone with a decent pair of eyes and a modicum of familiarity can see what Miarecki did was nothing like what the miniature was when it was being filmed.
He deliberately made changes and additions that were not intended to be there.
My friend Tom did the new electrical box for ship for the Miarecki refurbishment, and his comment on the paint job was, "I don't know what Ed was thinking."
And jumping back to the topic of Photos from the 1991-92 Ed Miarecki Enterprise restoration from a few years ago:
And jumping back to the topic of Photos from the 1991-92 Ed Miarecki Enterprise restoration from a few years ago:
It's the ``Star-Spangled Banner'' that the National Anthem of the United States refers to; the giant flag which yet waved over Baltimore two hundred years ago this week, at a moment when the conquest of Canada had developed not necessarily to the United States's advantage.
Something less than four-fifths of it still exists, however, with many pieces of it cut off and given away, or taken, as souvenirs, mostly in the 19th century. Most of what was taken were the ends of the strips, but one of the fifteen stars is long-gone, its fate unknown. Attempts at stabilizing or restoring it in the late 19th and early 20th century didn't do much for keeping it from getting faded by light and distorted by gravity (the flag was hung in the National Museum of American History for years), although the backing did mean there was a side less exposed to light and dirt when the flag was finally freed from the backing in the 1990s. Also that there were literally millions of stitching holes poked into what remained of the original flag's material.
While the flag is on display in a quite nice, climate- and light-controlled display now, the Smithsonian isn't making any effort to replace the lost portions of the flag with new material. This is despite the facts that we know with remarkable certainty what the state of the flag when it was a working item --- and did the thing which gave it historic renown --- was, and that the damage which has been done to it can only really be described as vandalism.
The Smithsonian's web page for the Fort McHenry Flag is at http://amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/; I don't seem to be able to find a convenient picture showing what remains of the flag versus what it originally had been.
I have seen the flag in the Museum of American History many times. It is inspiring.
The flag was not vandalized in the traditional manner. The flag owners cut small clippings from it as souvenirs/gifts.
But a flag is not a machine or structure. Cloth does not allow for easy, seamless restoration. The same can be said for George Washington's uniform also on display.
A machine or structure can have replacement parts constructed that are exact and
will fit on the original perfectly.
That said your example is interesting and relevant.
The flag was not vandalized in the traditional manner. The flag owners cut small clippings from it as souvenirs/gifts.
But a flag is not a machine or structure. Cloth does not allow for easy, seamless restoration. The same can be said for George Washington's uniform also on display.
A machine or structure can have replacement parts constructed that are exact and
will fit on the original perfectly.
That said your example is interesting and relevant.
Come on, you guys. I already asked once to keep the personal stuff out of it, okay?
Thanks.
I would be okay with a compromise. The top of the saucer is in its original condition right? So this should be preserved that way. I´d like them to restore one entire side of the ship to its original studio condition (as far as possible), and show the various conditions it was in over the years on the other side. The different (missguided) restorations ARE part of its history.
I can't imagine how that could even be done. The unfinished side is unfinished. The finished side has to be done one way or the other. If you mess around with different things on the one finished side then all you have is a goddamned mess...which it is already.
Last edited:
The best solution in that case would be to display the flag as currently preserved over top of an image displaying the flag as it was in its prime, even if it's a very basic computer-generated image. I think the issue with that is the thing is so massive already!
Interesting that the photos largely focus on the rebuild and not the paint job/gridlines that most people take issue with.
Edit: Interesting to note this as well:
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=18643
The notes on this page indicate that the Enterprise refit model here was also done by Miarecki. It looks fantastic! What went wrong with the TOS model?
Last edited:
First picture of restored Enterprise released!
Thanks--I felt a bit sick, so the non-stop vomiting is helping out!
First picture of restored Enterprise released!
Thanks--I felt a bit sick, so the non-stop vomiting is helping out!
Appealing to "authority" Christopher?
Keep in mind that from time to time, some "amateurs" are used for their expertise in various fields--including restoration of film props. Some have spent their lives studying and/or gaining access to film props, original plans and have interviewed those responsible for building the objects.
In other cases, some would go on to become recognized experts (ex. special effects artists, model builders, et al).
In the case of theMiarecki work, it--like the early 70s restoration--did not match the final revisions made for production of the regular series.
Do we say generations of fans who studied the miniature time and again all mistaken in their criticism?
If we don't start from the presumption that authorities are rather authoritative when speaking about topics in their particular fields of study then we're doing something wrong. Authority can be wrong, of course, but --- if I have a question about the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, and I ask Dwayne Allen Day and some guy I know from Usenet and they give different answers, I'm more confident that Day's answer is correct because I know him to be a space historian who's been studying the Manned Orbiting Laboratory for years.
What aspect of studying the Star Trek models leaves one particularly qualified to decide what kinds of preservation and restoration work should be done to best showcase the history of an artifact?
And why are they better qualified to offer opinions than people who dedicate their working lives to the problem of keeping historical artifacts in the best possible conditions that balance their histories, their cultural value, and the things which historians and the public of the future are most likely to want to have preserved?
The thing is even "authorities" have limits to their knowledge, but if they're real professionals they'll do their due diligence to make sure they've thoroughly investigated all the available data and make decisions based on that. So, while I don't expect anyone at the NASM to know the picayune details of the history of the Enterprise model, I do hope whoever is in charge will do some serious homework to inform the choices they make.
Last edited:
Similar threads
