If the success of a model depends on it's resemblance to a source then how much less than the thing itself does a model have to be? If a model is always something like it's source isn't it always also something more, namely a model? The argument, I suppose, is that a model is more in total than anything it could represent: it has to be both an abstraction of another thing (1/2) and it's own thing in it's own right (1). That's the math. A model of a thing is 1 1/2 times more of a thing than the whole original thing. I'd like to show you all this new 3/4 scale model of October 12 that I made.
Pictured here with Thomas Lawson, former editor of R E A L L I F E magazine, and ex-Afterall