QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton Bit it's still not art!! [:D][:o)]
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
QUOTE: Originally posted by bcammack Spoken like a true Engineer. Cold, empirical, rational, and probably wrong. [:)] Art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't recall hearing that you were the final arbiter of such matters. Did I miss a memo or something? I find your reference to pomposity to be rather ironic...
QUOTE: Originally posted by bcammack ... Did I miss a memo or something?
Five out of four people have trouble with fractions. -AnonymousThree may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. -Benjamin Franklin "You don't have to be Jeeves to love butlers, but it helps." (Followers of Levi's Real Jewish Rye will get this one) -Ed K "A potted watch never boils." -Ed Kowal If it's not fun, why do it ? -Ben & Jerry
QUOTE: Originally posted by edkowal I don't like to engage in a ridiculous "battle of the definitions," but before you folks get all self-congratulatory, you might want to look up the definition of the word "craft" in those dictionaries of yours...
QUOTE: Mark chooses to see himself as a craftsman, in order, I presume, to emphasize the importance of technical skill in producing a good model railroad.
QUOTE: Chip, Palallin, and Paul, among others, choose to emphasize the more esoteric aspects of model railroading, the more emotional aspect, if you will. Well, fine. But you still have to be good craftsman in order to succeed as an artist. It's only been in the late Twentieth Century and later, that to be an artist, it's sufficient to simply make the declaration: "I am an artist." Before that lamentable situation arose, you had to actually have talent.
QUOTE: And no matter what you call yourself, it doesn't affect your skills. They're either advanced, or they're not. No amount of verbal gymnastics will change your skills. Only practice does that.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edkowal ... But you still have to be good craftsman in order to succeed as an artist. It's only been in the late Twentieth Century and later, that to be an artist, it's sufficient to simply make the declaration: "I am an artist." Before that lamentable situation arose, you had to actually have talent. Remember, if what you produce is not recognizable as a railroad, then you are probably not succeeding in communicating your more esoteric take on the relationship of railroads to the world, or whatever it is you're attempting to communicate. (I'm exaggerating here for emphasis, and am not trying to criticize anyone's efforts.) And no matter what you call yourself, it doesn't affect your skills. They're either advanced, or they're not. No amount of verbal gymnastics will change your skills. Only practice does that. -Ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin The method by which you chose to fake those properties is art by definition of the word
QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art: "art1 Audio pronunciation of "art" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt) n. 6. 1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. 2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7. 1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. 2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER Dictionary definitions are helpful so that we all mean the same thing, or at least can understand what others mean.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edkowal It has been said that discussions degenerate into personal attacks when those doing the discussing have run out of persuasive arguments.
QUOTE: marknewton's comments to the effect that many, or most of the people whose work he admires may not be familiar to most of us in the US was not a slam about US modelers. It is simply a fact that most modelers in the US do not get modeling magazines produced in Great Britain, Europe, Australia, Japan, or other non-US sources. Therefore, we would be generally unfamiliar with both the people, and the general modelling philosophy, of those individuals.
QUOTE: What I have concluded, from my limited reading of British periodicals, is that Mark is following a style of layout that is overwhelmingly followed by British modellers. They try to portray, with as few compromises as possible, an actual prototypical location. Therefore, their layouts differ markedly from what is attempted here in the US. British layouts are frequently a portrayal of a single station, with entry and exit tracks to "fiddle yards" of various types of design.
QUOTE: One result of this type of emphasis is frequently, not always, increased technical standards with regard to trackwork and scenery work.
QUOTE: It's very informative to get hold of one or more copies of Railway Modeller, for instance, one of the main British publications. One of the photos that had me looking twice to confirm that the photo was indeed of a model, not full scale, was on the cover of the November 2005 issue of this magazine. A layout called Tapley, by Colin Chisem.
QUOTE: Lastly, it is possible for someone to have a valid opinion without also having built a model railroad.
QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton ... QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin The method by which you chose to fake those properties is art by definition of the word Not by any defintion I've ever seen. ... Cheerio, Mark. from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art: "art1 Audio pronunciation of "art" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt) n. 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2. 1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. 2. The study of these activities. 3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. 4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. 5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts. 6. 1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. 2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7. 1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. 2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates). 8. 1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. 2. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Printing. Illustrative material." Enjoy Paul If you're having fun, you're doing it the right way. Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:07 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse Yep, Mark, You're an artist. You can deny it untill you're blue in the face, but the proof is in the pictures. I know the ideas rankles you, but you have to face facts. Again, that's only your opinion, not fact. I regard myself as a craftsman, not an artist. Always have, always will. That's my opinion. QUOTE: Nice work. I'm impressed. Thanks for the compliment. I was going to take some more photos today, but I got a callout from work to go to a derailment instead. When I have some more images I'll post them, if you're interested. Cheers, Mark. Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:30 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin "Eschew obfuscation"? *snort* Whoosh - straight through to the keeper! QUOTE: You cannot change the simple fact--and it is fact, not opinion--that you cannot perfectly replicate the 1:1 world in any smaller scale. You scale down physics. You cannot scale down chemical or physical properties. Great use of a non sequitur here, palallin. I didn't suggest at any time that I could do any of these things. All I've ever stated - and it is such a simple concept I wonder why you can't grasp it - is that when modelling an actual location I build everything to 1/80th of it's full-scale external dimensions. That means if a building is 190 feet long in reality, my model is 190 scale feet long, not 100 feet to conserve space on the layout or allow room for something else. I don't claim to scale down physics, chemistry or any other such nonsense. As for physical properties, external dimensions are a physical property - of course I can scale them down, anyone can. Can't you? QUOTE: The method by which you chose to fake those properties is art by definition of the word Not by any defintion I've ever seen. QUOTE: (not conceit, and, yes, I *do* know the definition[s] of conceit). Good for you. QUOTE: I'm sorry that you are so insecure in your modelling that you cannot accept it for what it is. *Laughing* You're the one having a dummy spit because I won't accept your opinions and definitions of my work. You reckon I'm insecure? Then why are you so bloody well determined to get me to agree with your take on modelling? QUOTE: we differ in that I see no reason to disparage the kinds of modeling other prefer, as I don't think anyone's honest effort is "beneath me." Neither do I. The operative word is "ME". Not anyone else. "ME". I don't wan't to copy other nodeller's work, or build fantasy models. If others want to do that, then great, more power to their elbow. What others do is entirely their own affair, and I challenge you to show anywhere in this thread where I've disparaged them for choosing a particular style of modelling. All I've said, and I'll say it again, is that I don't think it is worth MY time or MY effort to for ME to model that way. I personally prefer another style of modelling - which doesn't imply any criticism of the other styles I don't prefer. Can you understand that very simple and non-contentious premise? QUOTE: I will end my participation in this thread by quoting a poem... Your quoting other people's irrelevant poems and opinions doesn't strengthen your arguments. To me, it just highlights how threadbare they are. Cheerio, Mark. Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Friday, January 13, 2006 11:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dwRavenstar Newton, Mayhaps an Aussie won't understand but KMA! You're right, Davo, an Australian would never understand what that stands for. But then again, when we have to insult people we don't use coy euphemisms or infantile abrreviations. QUOTE: (snip)...I've wasted more than enough time on your foolishness. So you won't be posting any photos of your work then? Didn't think you would. Toodle-loo, Mark. Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Friday, January 13, 2006 10:11 AM Now that the conversation has become personal it is time to let it lie. I'ts been a good run. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply palallin Member sinceSeptember 2004 From: Middle o' Nowhere, MO 1,108 posts Posted by palallin on Friday, January 13, 2006 10:03 AM *sigh* "Eschew obfuscation"? *snort* Well, I'll speak as plainly as you desire then: you are wrong, Mark. You cannot change the simple fact--and it is fact, not opinion--that you cannot perfectly replicate the 1:1 world in any smaller scale. You scale down physics. You cannot scale down chemical or physical properties. The method by which you chose to fake those properties is art by definition of the word (not conceit, and, yes, I *do* know the definition[s] of conceit). I'm sorry that you are so insecure in your modelling that you cannot accept it for what it is. Railing about your offended sensibilites, however, will not change the facts. My hide is no thicker than yours, sir, but we differ in that I see no reason to disparage the kinds of modeling other prefer, as I don't think anyone's honest effort is "beneath me." I will end my participation in this thread by quoting a poem I think fits your situation exactly: A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." Stephen Crane, 1899 Reply BRAKIE Member sinceOctober 2001 From: OH 17,574 posts Posted by BRAKIE on Friday, January 13, 2006 8:20 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger QUOTE: But I'll hazard a guess that the only names you'd recognise are those from the US. Snippy generalization about Americans once again noted. Large chip on shoulder noted as well.[:)] "Snippy generalization"? No. It's a simple statement of fact. Some of the modellers I hold in high regard are locals who have no web presence and haven't been published. So I'd hazard a guess that you and Dave Kelly wouldn't recognise their names. Others are only well known in UK finesale circles, again I doubt that many here would know of them. If you regard that as snippy generalization, your skin is far too thin. Cheers, Mark. Indeed..A look through several forums Sunday Night Photo Fun will prove what you said beyond a shadow of a doubt.[:D] Larry Conductor. Summerset Ry. "Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!" Reply dwRavenstar Member sinceJanuary 2005 379 posts Posted by dwRavenstar on Friday, January 13, 2006 7:40 AM Newton, Mayhaps an Aussie won't understand but KMA! Your work, as Chip mentioned, is very nice. Very technically artistic. To explain the Dr. Denton's reference, they are children's sleepwear that have feet at the end of the legs. When you attack only for the reason of attacking you remind me of a tyke stomping his little feet in the sleeper he has just wizzed. He knows he's wrong but he wants attention at any cost. Maybe only Pennsylvanians will get this but you can go wiss up a rope, I've wasted more than enough time on your foolishness. Dave Wyland (dwRavenstar) If hard work could hurt us they'd put warning lables on tool boxes Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Friday, January 13, 2006 12:54 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin Replication and fudging are incompatable, indeed mutually exclusive. In the fudging is the art. In deciding what to fudge and what to not, you determine the shape and nature of the art. Howsoever strongly you abjure art, by your very own admission you are engaged fully in it. What I do not understand is why you insist this is not the case. You seem to be quite offended that you might, even by accident, produce art. Your obvious disdain for art as model railroading is a mystery to me. It's more than a matter of taste, apparently, for your reaction is nearly hostile. You seem to believe that art is beneath you (or any other serious person), you refuse to recognize the manifest contributions of artists to the endeavor, and you balk at according respect to anyone whose views might not coincide completely with your own. The irony is that, as a glance at your pics will demonstrate, you're a fair artist, reasonably competent in the techniques with a decent sense of how to translate reality into art. I think it a pity that you cannot (or will not) acknowledge your own strengths, rather insisting on something that not only is not, but cannot be. Yet more opinion being presented as if it were fact. After wading through this dense thicket of verbiage, my advice to you for future posts is this: eschew obfuscation. [:)] My disdain is for the conceit that model railroading is art. It's my opinion that it is merely a craft. My disdain extends to those, like yourself, who insist that this is the only valid interpretation of the hobby, as you continue to do in this post. You're quite correct, I do think artistic/fantasy modelling is beneath me. I cannnot see any point in creating a poor substitute for the real world, or a copy of another person's poor substitute for the real world, when the real world is a far more diverse and interesting place than you or I can ever imagine. I respect the views of others as much as they respect mine. In your case, that's not very much, since you insist on categorising my modelling in a way that I don't, won't, and can't agree with. You've got a fair bit of hide, presuming to know better than me what my modelling represents. All the best, Mark. Reply edkowal Member sinceOctober 2003 From: Buffalo NY USA 452 posts Posted by edkowal on Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:20 PM In no particular order, some comments. It has been said that discussions degenerate into personal attacks when those doing the discussing have run out of persuasive arguments. One of the most perceptive comments in this thread recently was this one: QUOTE: Originally posted by roadtrp This would all be a lot easier to keep track of if those involved on each side wore different uniforms. Please note the unmistakable analogy to armed conflict. marknewton's comments to the effect that many, or most of the people whose work he admires may not be familiar to most of us in the US was not a slam about US modelers. It is simply a fact that most modelers in the US do not get modeling magazines produced in Great Britain, Europe, Australia, Japan, or other non-US sources. Therefore, we would be generally unfamiliar with both the people, and the general modelling philosophy, of those individuals. What I have concluded, from my limited reading of British periodicals, is that Mark is following a style of layout that is overwhelmingly followed by British modellers. They try to portray, with as few compromises as possible, an actual prototypical location. Therefore, their layouts differ markedly from what is attempted here in the US. British layouts are frequently a portrayal of a single station, with entry and exit tracks to "fiddle yards" of various types of design. One result of this type of emphasis is frequently, not always, increased technical standards with regard to trackwork and scenery work. It's very informative to get hold of one or more copies of Railway Modeller, for instance, one of the main British publications. One of the photos that had me looking twice to confirm that the photo was indeed of a model, not full scale, was on the cover of the November 2005 issue of this magazine. A layout called Tapley, by Colin Chisem. Almost none of the modellers whose work appears in this magazine has had work published in US magazines. There are many other fine non-American publications out there. People all over the world do outstanding work. It is not axiomatic to claim that if they haven't been published in the US, they're unknown. Lastly, it is possible for someone to have a valid opinion without also having built a model railroad. -Ed Five out of four people have trouble with fractions. -AnonymousThree may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. -Benjamin Franklin "You don't have to be Jeeves to love butlers, but it helps." (Followers of Levi's Real Jewish Rye will get this one) -Ed K "A potted watch never boils." -Ed Kowal If it's not fun, why do it ? -Ben & Jerry Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:55 PM Yep, Mark, You're an artist. You can deny it untill you're blue in the face, but the proof is in the pictures. I know the ideas rankles you, but you have to face facts. Nice work. I'm impressed. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply 1234567»Last » Subscriber & Member Login Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more! Login Register Users Online chatanuga see all » Search the Community ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Model Railroader Newsletter See all Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox! Sign up
QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin The method by which you chose to fake those properties is art by definition of the word Not by any defintion I've ever seen. ... Cheerio, Mark.
The method by which you chose to fake those properties is art by definition of the word
QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse Yep, Mark, You're an artist. You can deny it untill you're blue in the face, but the proof is in the pictures. I know the ideas rankles you, but you have to face facts.
QUOTE: Nice work. I'm impressed.
QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin "Eschew obfuscation"? *snort*
QUOTE: You cannot change the simple fact--and it is fact, not opinion--that you cannot perfectly replicate the 1:1 world in any smaller scale. You scale down physics. You cannot scale down chemical or physical properties.
QUOTE: The method by which you chose to fake those properties is art by definition of the word
QUOTE: (not conceit, and, yes, I *do* know the definition[s] of conceit).
QUOTE: I'm sorry that you are so insecure in your modelling that you cannot accept it for what it is.
QUOTE: we differ in that I see no reason to disparage the kinds of modeling other prefer, as I don't think anyone's honest effort is "beneath me."
QUOTE: I will end my participation in this thread by quoting a poem...
QUOTE: Originally posted by dwRavenstar Newton, Mayhaps an Aussie won't understand but KMA!
QUOTE: (snip)...I've wasted more than enough time on your foolishness.
QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger QUOTE: But I'll hazard a guess that the only names you'd recognise are those from the US. Snippy generalization about Americans once again noted. Large chip on shoulder noted as well.[:)] "Snippy generalization"? No. It's a simple statement of fact. Some of the modellers I hold in high regard are locals who have no web presence and haven't been published. So I'd hazard a guess that you and Dave Kelly wouldn't recognise their names. Others are only well known in UK finesale circles, again I doubt that many here would know of them. If you regard that as snippy generalization, your skin is far too thin. Cheers, Mark.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger QUOTE: But I'll hazard a guess that the only names you'd recognise are those from the US. Snippy generalization about Americans once again noted.
QUOTE: But I'll hazard a guess that the only names you'd recognise are those from the US.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin Replication and fudging are incompatable, indeed mutually exclusive. In the fudging is the art. In deciding what to fudge and what to not, you determine the shape and nature of the art. Howsoever strongly you abjure art, by your very own admission you are engaged fully in it. What I do not understand is why you insist this is not the case. You seem to be quite offended that you might, even by accident, produce art. Your obvious disdain for art as model railroading is a mystery to me. It's more than a matter of taste, apparently, for your reaction is nearly hostile. You seem to believe that art is beneath you (or any other serious person), you refuse to recognize the manifest contributions of artists to the endeavor, and you balk at according respect to anyone whose views might not coincide completely with your own. The irony is that, as a glance at your pics will demonstrate, you're a fair artist, reasonably competent in the techniques with a decent sense of how to translate reality into art. I think it a pity that you cannot (or will not) acknowledge your own strengths, rather insisting on something that not only is not, but cannot be.
QUOTE: Originally posted by roadtrp This would all be a lot easier to keep track of if those involved on each side wore different uniforms.