CNJ831 wrote:I'm sorry, Shilshole, but you are mistaken. It was the great stature of John Allen in the hobby at the time that allowed caricature modeling (and other of his concepts) to be both an acceptable practice and worthy of copying or imitating by others. It became viable only because "the great John Allen" was doing it. Such a level of acceptance in a very conservative period of the hobby would not have extended to any far more minor individuals or groups of the time. It simply would have been glanced at and passed over as far too "different" to be worthy of any serious consideration.CNJ831
I'm sorry, Shilshole, but you are mistaken. It was the great stature of John Allen in the hobby at the time that allowed caricature modeling (and other of his concepts) to be both an acceptable practice and worthy of copying or imitating by others. It became viable only because "the great John Allen" was doing it. Such a level of acceptance in a very conservative period of the hobby would not have extended to any far more minor individuals or groups of the time. It simply would have been glanced at and passed over as far too "different" to be worthy of any serious consideration.
CNJ831
I agree. I started in the hobby in 1971 and the John Allen's stature and influence were very strong. He was a combination of great modeler, great photographer, and philosopher.
Enjoy
Paul
CNJ831 wrote:I'm sorry, Shilshole, but you are mistaken. It was the great stature of John Allen in the hobby at the time that allowed caricature modeling (and other of his concepts) to be both an acceptable practice and worthy of copying or imitating by others. It became viable only because "the great John Allen" was doing it. Such a level of acceptance in a very conservative period of the hobby would not have extended to any far more minor individuals or groups of the time. It simply would have been glanced at and passed over as far too "different" to be worthy of any serious consideration.
Once again, what did occur is history; what could or would have occurred is conjecture.
Perhaps you're simply unaware of how non-conservative and innovative those minor groups and individuals were (and indeed still are), or how little they cared (and care) for acceptance, or how non-monolithic the hobby was (and is), or how the hobby in general was emerging from its conservatism of the '40s and early '50s. The fact is, those minor groups and individuals were giving serious consideration and effort -- and influencing others -- to many of the styles and innovations credited to Allen before they hit the pages of the hobby press and became generally 'acceptable'. The fact is, those minor groups and individuals, as well as the majority of hobbyists, rejected Baker couplers and 15"-radius curves despite "the great" Allen's sanctioning. The fact is, those minor groups and individuals, being Allen contemporaries and equally skilled in caricature, could have -- which, after all, is the subject of this thread digression -- provided the same degree of influence as Allen had they been accorded the same exposure in the hobby press as Sir John.
Simply dismissing the existence of other caricaturists and innovators and their potential influence is, as someone else wrote, absurd.
Whoa up guys there was a lot of old time guys that help get the hobby where its at today.Linn Wescott,Doug Smith,Frank Ellison,Bill Schopp,Mel Thornburgh,Whit Towers just to name some of the pioneers that help get the hobby to where its at today.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Brunton wrote: Spacemouse, Arguing a point with someone about someone else whom they have clearly deified is a futile effort.
Arguing a point with someone about someone else whom they have clearly deified is a futile effort.
Mark
I know... But when someone goes all Condescendal Rice on you, it's hard not to get sucked in.
My fingers are zipped. I think JA was cool, too.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote:CNJ Would it also follow that if Alexander Graham Bell had not invented the telephone we'd still be talking through hollow tubes?
Would it also follow that if Alexander Graham Bell had not invented the telephone we'd still be talking through hollow tubes?
I, too, admire Allen greatly, and I believe he did have a large impact on how the hobby has reached its current state. I don't believe that without him the hobby would not have reached this state, however. Its progress may have been retarded somewhat without Allen, or followed a different path perhaps, but I think it would have gotten here. Some small details would no doubt be different, but overall I think the hobby would have developed in a very similar manner.
Forty-plus years in the hobby, with a reasonably detailed knowledge of the times before that speaking here, by the way (if that really means much anyway).
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
As a point of geography and sorta off topic,BUT. Boxcarmike said"Tom, pardon my ignorance, but what does western Idaho architecture look like?" Tom actually said North Idaho. If you"consider a map of Idaho there is no east or west Idaho only north and south. Boise is South ID and the rest of the state is North ID as far as politics and state spending go. As a result the architecture in the southern part of the state is probably new and modern , Ive never been there,and the rest of the state resembles the old western plastic kits that AHC?? put out.
Bill in Lewiston ID
Two things to note, Bars Mills dioramra was constructed and advised on by Mike Tyick, and if you've seen his work in th mohe model press, you' see it's heavily influenced by Selios, so the scenes have extra details and clutter, but today there are still rundown areas along the row where this holds truth.
Secondly, the urban modeling of the Rennselaer Modelers is based on the fifties, when railroads still kept yards and row clean and weed free, and freight service was still strong, especially in the northeast, an area they model, but look on there web site for photos of certain cities, especially circa '72, by Tony Steele and you'll see some rundown urban decay that fits right in with those kits. There is a prototype for many of these models, how you use them is the question.
CNJ
CNJ831 wrote:Aaah, but the point is that it is precisely your lack of familiarity of the hobby's history, which happerns to have been of great interest to me for years, which so severely limits your perception and understanding where it concerns the matter at hand. [...] Take about a decade or two to study the hobby's evolution in depth, Chip, and you'll be in a much better position to comment on what could and couldn't have happened.CNJ831
Condescension aside, there's a canyon between what did/didn't occur vs. what could/couldn't have occurred. Our own little NMRA division in the late 50s/early60s had a group of modelers whose efforts equaled those of Allen (PBHN), including his caricatures and attention to detail, and exceeded him with respect to steam loco sound. Were his models their inspiration? Perhaps, perhaps not -- their collective imagination introduced to us the aforementioned sound, as well as portable operating dioramas, well before these concepts became widely known, so their caricature efforts certainly could have been a self-inspired afterthought. What they did lack was JA's exposure in the hobby press, save for MR articles in '59. For my money, Chip's both wrong and right: John Allen (PBHN) deserves tremendous credit for many facets of the hobby, but there were plenty of others out there who could have provided, absent JA, the same inspiration with respect to caricature modeling and other innovations credited to him.
SpaceMouse wrote: CNJ831 wrote: Yes, Chip, but with your limited time in the hobby and lack of any familiarity with its past, I'm not surprised by your doubts.However, the fact remains that early on the hobby was strongly influenced by a handful of giants, without the influence of some of whom it might have evolved in a decidely different way. JA was certainly one of them. Were it not for his stature in the hobby as the master model railroader of his day, it is very unlikely that caricature modeling would ever have had much validity back in the 50's and 60's. And since virtually all of the modern proponents of this sort of modeling will readily admit to how seeing images of John's work has strongly influenced there own efforts, had John never existed it is very likely any caricature modeling today would be looked upon as nothing more than some hobbyist's bizarre aberation.CNJ831 My lack of familairity aside, it seems very doubtful that in the millions of hobbists that have built model trains throughout history that not a single artist would have immerged as superlative without John Allen borders on the absurd. It simply gives him too much credit.
CNJ831 wrote: Yes, Chip, but with your limited time in the hobby and lack of any familiarity with its past, I'm not surprised by your doubts.However, the fact remains that early on the hobby was strongly influenced by a handful of giants, without the influence of some of whom it might have evolved in a decidely different way. JA was certainly one of them. Were it not for his stature in the hobby as the master model railroader of his day, it is very unlikely that caricature modeling would ever have had much validity back in the 50's and 60's. And since virtually all of the modern proponents of this sort of modeling will readily admit to how seeing images of John's work has strongly influenced there own efforts, had John never existed it is very likely any caricature modeling today would be looked upon as nothing more than some hobbyist's bizarre aberation.CNJ831
Yes, Chip, but with your limited time in the hobby and lack of any familiarity with its past, I'm not surprised by your doubts.
However, the fact remains that early on the hobby was strongly influenced by a handful of giants, without the influence of some of whom it might have evolved in a decidely different way. JA was certainly one of them. Were it not for his stature in the hobby as the master model railroader of his day, it is very unlikely that caricature modeling would ever have had much validity back in the 50's and 60's. And since virtually all of the modern proponents of this sort of modeling will readily admit to how seeing images of John's work has strongly influenced there own efforts, had John never existed it is very likely any caricature modeling today would be looked upon as nothing more than some hobbyist's bizarre aberation.
My lack of familairity aside, it seems very doubtful that in the millions of hobbists that have built model trains throughout history that not a single artist would have immerged as superlative without John Allen borders on the absurd. It simply gives him too much credit.
Aaah, but the point is that it is precisely your lack of familiarity of the hobby's history, which happens to have been of great interest to me for years, which so severely limits your perception and understanding where it concerns the matter at hand.
In his time, while certainly having others who copied his examples, JA was the original and only purveyor of real significance of the sort of caricature modeling we are discussing in this thread. Eliminate him totally from the hobby's development in the 50's and 60's and today you would see a distinct alteration to many different modeling concepts.
Not only was JA clearly responsible for caricature modeling as we are discussing here but also for creating the concept of incredibly dramatic scenes of vast chasms spanned by towering bridges, floor to ceiling scenery and (somewhat excessive) weathering. JA was a master photographer by profession and could bring photographic techniques, concepts and tricks to the hobby never dreamed of by any other layout builder of the day. Little wonder that John is remembered with such awe more than forty years after his modeling efforts ceased. And, as I've already pointed out, it was specifically JA who decidedly influenced the modeling styles of Selios , Furlow and a host of others (all who admit openly to it) who have influenced today's hobbyists regarding this aspect of modeling.
Take about a decade or two to study the hobby's evolution in depth, Chip, and you'll be in a much better position to comment on what could and couldn't have happened.
jecorbett wrote:You are right that it wouldn't be a caricature but it might be perceived as such by some.
The FSM kits I have seen fall into the category of unusual but not unrealistic.
marknewton wrote: jecorbett wrote:In my town of Utica, OH, there is a somewhat rundown old feed mill with a rusting sign on top, junk on the loading dock, overgrown brush, etc. and if I were to scratch build a model of it faithfully, I'm sure there would be some who would look at it and call it a caricature.If you were to scratchbuild a model that accurately portrayed the mill's dimensions, proportions, colour, details and architectural style, then it wouldn't be a caricature, no matter how cluttered or dilapidated it was. It's the kits that distort these elements, or have structural features that couldn't exist in reality, that are caricatures. Cheers,Mark.
jecorbett wrote:In my town of Utica, OH, there is a somewhat rundown old feed mill with a rusting sign on top, junk on the loading dock, overgrown brush, etc. and if I were to scratch build a model of it faithfully, I'm sure there would be some who would look at it and call it a caricature.
You are right that it wouldn't be a caricature but it might be perceived as such by some. Structures such as this are not the norm but they do exist and many kits that represent these types of structures are incorrectly described as caricatures. The FSM kits I have seen fall into the category of unusual but not unrealistic. They have character without being caricatures. Structures such as these evolve over time and the owners of such structures apparently give little importance to appearance and are more concerned with function. I don't intend to make wide use of these unusual structures on my layout but there will be a few and that won't make my layout the least bit caroonish.
andrechapelon wrote:The Bar Mills scenes show a caricature of a declining urban industrial area. As a caricature, they succeed brilliantly. As a realistic portrayal, they fail miserably. For one thing, there's too much cramming things together [...] There's too much in the scene(s). The number of buildings should be cut down considerably and the scene be allowed to breathe.
I've seen declining industrial areas in a number of cities, both domestic and foreign. They don't look like that. Not in New England, not anywhere else.
CNJ831 wrote:However, the fact remains that early on the hobby was strongly influenced by a handful of giants, without the influence of some of whom it might have evolved in a decidely different way. JA was certainly one of them. Were it not for his stature in the hobby as the master model railroader of his day, it is very unlikely that caricature modeling would ever have had much validity back in the 50's and 60's. And since virtually all of the modern proponents of this sort of modeling will readily admit to how seeing images of John's work has strongly influenced there own efforts, had John never existed it is very likely any caricature modeling today would be looked upon as nothing more than some hobbyist's bizarre aberation.CNJ831
I also have trouble with this statement. I feel it's like saying that, if Jackson Pollock hadn't started spattering paint (), that no-one else would have, nor been as successful at it. I don't think many things happen in vacuo- people are influenced to some degree or other by their surroundings.* There are just SO many talented people doing various things (including model railroading) that thoughts are bound to converge at one time or another.
*For much better examples than I could give by myself, I happen to LOVE the way that James Burke has elaborated on the concepts of discovery and change in both this book/TV series "The Day the Universe Changed", and several TV series' called "Connections".
Bob grech wrote: Has anyone build a caricature-ized craftsman kit as a tributre to the memory of John Allen?This scratch-built Engine House was inspired by John Allen. http://www.gdlines.com/GD_Galleries/Structures/index.html
Has anyone build a caricature-ized craftsman kit as a tributre to the memory of John Allen?
This scratch-built Engine House was inspired by John Allen.
http://www.gdlines.com/GD_Galleries/Structures/index.html
Excellent job on the enginehouse. It has long been a plan of mine to build one for my layout. It will be at the terminus of my branchline that has yet to be built. I want to build as faithful a representation of the original as my modeling skills will allow me to do. I've been looking for blueprints of it to get the exact dimensions but so far no luck.
Twentysome years ago FSM put out a John Allen enginehouse but it has long been out of production and if one could be found on e-bay or elsewhere, I'm sure it would cost a small fortune.
Shilshole wrote: andrechapelon wrote:It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills [...] Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western.Compare for what purpose? The Bar Mills scenes show an established and declining urban/industrial area with the requisite zero-lot-line development and high rises; the O&W scenes are small town/rural. The Bar Mills scenes succeed precisely because structures in them are crammed together.I think Jay nailed it: 'It's up to the modeler to finish it [a FSM-class kit] the way he or she wants.' Shingles and siding don't have to be pried up, shutters don't have to be dangling, and the paint can be fresh.
andrechapelon wrote:It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills [...] Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western.
The Bar Mills scenes show a caricature of a declining urban industrial area. As a caricature, they succeed brilliantly. As a realistic portrayal, they fail miserably. For one thing, there's too much cramming things together. I've seen declining industrial areas in a number of cities, both domestic and foreign. They don't look like that. Not in New England, not anywhere else. There's too much in the scene(s). The number of buildings should be cut down considerably and the scene be allowed to breathe.
If you want to see some good urban scenery, go no farther than the July, 2006, MR and Bob Smaus's article beginning on page 58. Bob's website: http://www.bobsgardenpath.com/trains.html .
More good urban modeling: http://members.aol.com/wdenton101/index.htm?f=fs (even has a couple of short movies).
Check out the NEB&W website for more even more good urban modeling: http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/ .
For that matter, there's a fellow on this forum from the UK that's got a shelf layout called "Sweet Home Chicago". Unfortunately, I don't remember his full name. Jon, if you're out there, please chime in.
Andre
Are you telling me that if it had not been for JA, there would not have been artists that pushed the envelope of reality? If so, this would be the only medium I've ever heard of where it did not happen.
SpaceMouse wrote: CNJ831 wrote: I honestly believe that, were it not for the clearly intended tongue-in-cheek models of John Allen and a few contemporaries that followed his lead, there would be very little evidence of caricature modeling in our hobby today. Likewise, with few exceptions, I appears to me that the folks who emphasize caricature in their modeling usually do so not as an artistic style but quite purposefully, in an attempt to make their layouts stand out from the efforts of others through representation of a skewed reality. CNJ831 I find this a little hard to buy. You give credit to John Allen for starting the tongue-in-cheek movement, and in a way you are right. But he was just the first who did it well enough, and with self-promotion, to get recognized.For all the seriousness we place upon model railroading, there are quite a few out there that recognize that we are just a bunch of big kids playing with trains. Many will attempt to diffuse some of this "seriousness" with whimsy. The artistic ones will do it well and become recognized.If not John Allen, it would have been someone else.
CNJ831 wrote: I honestly believe that, were it not for the clearly intended tongue-in-cheek models of John Allen and a few contemporaries that followed his lead, there would be very little evidence of caricature modeling in our hobby today. Likewise, with few exceptions, I appears to me that the folks who emphasize caricature in their modeling usually do so not as an artistic style but quite purposefully, in an attempt to make their layouts stand out from the efforts of others through representation of a skewed reality. CNJ831
I find this a little hard to buy. You give credit to John Allen for starting the tongue-in-cheek movement, and in a way you are right. But he was just the first who did it well enough, and with self-promotion, to get recognized.
For all the seriousness we place upon model railroading, there are quite a few out there that recognize that we are just a bunch of big kids playing with trains. Many will attempt to diffuse some of this "seriousness" with whimsy. The artistic ones will do it well and become recognized.
If not John Allen, it would have been someone else.
Quite to the contrary, Chip. I'd have to say that had not JA been the significant practitioner of caricature modeling (a notable part if it used to promote Varney's products) it is doubtful this "style" would have generated any real interest. In an adult hobby that was just as serious then as now, it was only found acceptable because the great JA was doing it and to emulate him tended to make it seem OK. Had it been anyone else but "the master", it is unlikely it would have found any acceptance among hobbyists in the 1950's.
As to a sense of personal whimsy accounting for caricature modeling, I would have to say that, judging by some of the attitudes I've encountered, at least some hobbyist appear to employ tongue-in-cheek/caricature modeling more out of a sense of mild embassasment at being an adult and yet being seen by their peers as playing with toy trains. Rather than truly just taking a lighter approach to the hobby, I sometimes get the distinct impression that caricature modeling is being used in a attempt to demonstrate to outside observers that the hobbyist "is just joking around" and really isn't all that serious about model railroading. Perhaps that outlook is not too surprising considering that portrayals of model railroaders in the entertainment industry in recent years have generally been less than uplifting (murderers, perverts, super villians, and senile old men). Incidentally, this was not the case in the movies or on TV from the 1930's through the early 1960's.
BXCARMIKE wrote: Tom, pardon my ignorance, but what does western Idaho architecture look like? You lost me on that one. Some kits fit in anywhere, unless you're looking for Ben Cartwrights' house.
Tom, pardon my ignorance, but what does western Idaho architecture look like? You lost me on that one. Some kits fit in anywhere, unless you're looking for Ben Cartwrights' house.
I don't know if I have the words to describe the appearance of typical structures in North Idaho - it seems like most structures that you find near the railroad are simple boxes sheathed in corrugated metal.
But, I do know that a FSM factory complex or Bar Mills tavern would look out of place on my layout, no matter whether they're built in like-new or worn-down condition. Maybe these companies do make some structure kits that would fit in, but I have yet to see any in their advertising or at my hobby shop. When I do, I will probably buy one.
Tom
Since when does a modeler have to build a model according to the box art or paint according to instructions? Some modelers license works here people, just because George Selios goes for a total decripit look in his models, doesn't mean you can't make it look new. I recall sometime back, someone built the old Alexander "haunted house" as a new structure, it looked great, why can't you do the same?
potlatcher wrote: After giving this subject more thought, I realize that part of my distaste for FSM and Bar Mills kits is a case of sour grapes. If I modeled depression era New England, I would probably own several of their kits, and would have assembled them in a "toned down" manner so that they were not as cartoonish. I would probably have spread the detail parts out over the whole layout to accent the other structures.But, because I don't model that place/time, I can't justify the cost of the kit and the time to build it when it would seem out of place on my North Idaho-based layout. If either firm would release a kit based on a western prototype, or free-lanced but with obviously western architecture, I would probably run out and buy one today. Again, I would work to play down any cartoonish parts of the kit's design, and the detail parts would be used with several other structures. And, I'd probably have a lot of fun doing it.So I guess our like or dislike of them probably has something to do with our personal vision of how to best represent the world, as we see it, on our layouts.Tom
After giving this subject more thought, I realize that part of my distaste for FSM and Bar Mills kits is a case of sour grapes. If I modeled depression era New England, I would probably own several of their kits, and would have assembled them in a "toned down" manner so that they were not as cartoonish. I would probably have spread the detail parts out over the whole layout to accent the other structures.
But, because I don't model that place/time, I can't justify the cost of the kit and the time to build it when it would seem out of place on my North Idaho-based layout. If either firm would release a kit based on a western prototype, or free-lanced but with obviously western architecture, I would probably run out and buy one today. Again, I would work to play down any cartoonish parts of the kit's design, and the detail parts would be used with several other structures. And, I'd probably have a lot of fun doing it.
So I guess our like or dislike of them probably has something to do with our personal vision of how to best represent the world, as we see it, on our layouts.
Aaaahhhh...enlightenment! It's great when it happens, ain't it?
I think with Campbell the time/place point is important. As I understand it, many Campbell kits were patterned after real buildings, often those found in California (like the Quincy RR buildings). I seem to remember reading that several were based on buildings used at Knott's Berry Farm's "Ghost Town", which was created from either actual old buildings moved there, or reproductions built on site.
Remember most Campbell kits were first offered back in the fifties and sixties, when steam was king (on model pikes) and many layouts were set in the 1920's-40's, usually in a rural setting...plus there were a fair number of "Old West" or early 20th century layouts. The Campbell buildings fit the bill well for modellers of those times. Today urban modelling is more common, and the buildings we see now (or remember from our past) are different than what would be common to a modeller of the sixties (who may have been born in the teens or twenties.)