vsmith wrote: Is one better than the other? No, not really, because like art, it just depends on what your personal tastes prefer. We've seen that discorse taking place right here.
Is one better than the other? No, not really, because like art, it just depends on what your personal tastes prefer. We've seen that discorse taking place right here.
I would hasten to direct you back to some of the basic reasons why, beginning toward the latter part of the 19th century, many artists suddenly began branching away from realism and divided themselves into a hodgepodge of differring, often highly unrealistic (from a laymen's viewpoint), styles of expression.
The same reasoning applies here.
In regard to the Furlow quote that appearred in the Taos Daily News, is that really how you would go about characterizing your fellow modelers, or what the hobby is base on, if interviewed by the media? Furlow's apparent outlook, unless offered for affect, suggests someone with little respect for fellow hobbyists, viewing them more as a bunch of rich, immature, dolts from which he can extract money, than anything else.
Those seriously involved in the hobby that I've encountered over the years most often view themselves as immersed in a type three dimensional art form that requires talents and a degree of creativity well beyond that possessed by most laymen. And that's also how I would characterize the hobby/serious hobbyists if I were asked such a question for publication purposes.
CNJ831
CNJ831 wrote: vsmith wrote: Is one better than the other? No, not really, because like art, it just depends on what your personal tastes prefer. We've seen that discorse taking place right here.I would hasten to direct you back to some of the basic reasons why, beginning toward the latter part of the 19th century, many artists suddenly began branching away from realism and divided themselves into a hodgepodge of differring, often highly unrealistic (from a laymen's viewpoint), styles of expression.The same reasoning applies here.CNJ831
..because the artists found the highly formalistic restrictions imposed on them from there academic peers to be so constrained and stifling that they rebeled against it?
So what your saying is that this:
is more valid than this:
or this:
To me each as as valid as the next, it depends on your own personal tastes as to which you prefer over the other (the Thomas Hart Benton for me )
All of this "hodgepodge" were offshoots of that rebellion...persoanally I think the art world is FAR better off for this "hodgepodge' against what was the accepted norm that if everyone had just stayed inline, the same hold true for model railroading, thank God for guys like Furlow, Selois, Allen, Olsen, and others who will tilt at the windmills of conformity. It keeps the hobby from getting stale.
Have fun with your trains
While I may not care for some of his output, I do like the Carbondale Central layout that was incorporated in 6 HO Railroads You Can Build. That layout combines creativity and new approaches with a working track plan. I liked the foam construction, the urban landscape, and the compact space they layout uses, all things I've tried to incorporate in my present layout.
I'm not quite sure what CNJ is getting at; I thought one of the main reasons for the rejection of realistic representation in art had much to do with the development of photography.
And how can you not pick The Starry Night?
Gary
...guys like Furlow, Selois, Allen, Olsen, and others who will tilt at the windmills of conformity.
Pffft. Buncha amateurs
New around here, but I'd like to go on record as a Furlow fan. I have an old and frayed copy of his SJC book that I wouldn't part with for any amount of money. I enjoy his work - it's fun. Remember MR's old subtitle: "Model Railroading is Fun"? Yes it is. Or at least, it's supposed to be. Like John Allen, John Olsen and others before him, Furlow opened the eyes of many would-be modelers as to what was possible in the hobby.
Strict prototype modeling is great, but it isn't everyone's cup of tea. Nor is it 'lazyness' or a distaste for research that leads many of us into freelancing; it is simply the desire to create a novel instead of a history book.
In a novel, the writer picks and chooses the elements of reality that he wishes to include to forward his story. The goal is a certain believability - not realism. Same with a freelanced model. My own Cibola & Grand Valley Ry is based on elements from the V&T, but transports the whole scene to the Colorado/Utah border in 1936. Why? Why not just model the V&T? Simple: I like the scenery better in Colorado and Utah and wanted my road to interchange with my other favorite, the D&RGW. The solution: invent a gold strike in the La Sal Mts and thus the need for a railroad to get there. A great deal of research is required to make such a scenario believable.
For myself, I look forward to any new Furlow articles in MR with great anticipation. His work may not be realistic - or even believable to some, but it is very artistic. And that's good enough for me.
Dave
Cibola & Grand Valley Ry
vsmith wrote: ...because the artists found the highly formalistic restrictions imposed on them from there academic peers to be so constrained and stifling that they rebeled against it?So what your saying is that this:(snip)
...because the artists found the highly formalistic restrictions imposed on them from there academic peers to be so constrained and stifling that they rebeled against it?
(snip)
I do not wish this to degenerate into a discussion of the various schools of art and theory but stop and think for a moment and reconsider just why, after many centuries of attempting to depict reality, the direction of art suddenly took a dramatic turn at the close of the 19th. Just perhaps could it have been more about the rise of photography than a rebellion of young artists against the old school teachings?
Honestly, are you at all aware of just what your second image actually depicts or is meant to represent (Starry Night)? I'd say that 99% of art lovers haven't even the slightest clue. That's because, on the face of it, it is so stylized and distorted that it borders on pure fantasy and the viewer is left to wonder what it actually represents, if anything at all. Likewise, how many times has it come to light that certain "modern" and inventive paintings have been mistakenly hung up-side-down in musuems for years, before someone figured out that the artist meant them to be displayed otherwise?
Anyway, enough. I'll leave this thread to you folks to hash things out from here.
Did I ever tell you guys about the time Malcom Furlow took me out to go get a drink with him?
We go off looking for a bar and we can't find one. Finally Furlow takes me to a vacant lot and says, 'Here we are.' We sat there for a year and a half — until sure enough, someone constructs a bar around us. Well, the day they opened we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burned the place to the ground. Furlow yelled over the roar of the flames, 'Always leave things the way you found 'em!'
~ Jason
J Campbell wrote: Did I ever tell you guys about the time Malcom Furlow took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can't find one. Finally Furlow takes me to a vacant lot and says, 'Here we are.' We sat there for a year and a half — until sure enough, someone constructs a bar around us. Well, the day they opened we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burned the place to the ground. Furlow yelled over the roar of the flames, 'Always leave things the way you found 'em!'
CNJ831 wrote: Honestly, are you at all aware of just what your second image actually depicts or is meant to represent (Starry Night)?
Honestly, are you at all aware of just what your second image actually depicts or is meant to represent (Starry Night)?
Ummmm...yes, I did chose it afterall, I've seen the original
garya wrote: While I may not care for some of his output, I do like the Carbondale Central layout that was incorporated in 6 HO Railroads You Can Build. That layout combines creativity and new approaches with a working track plan. I liked the foam construction, the urban landscape, and the compact space they layout uses, all things I've tried to incorporate in my present layout.I'm not quite sure what CNJ is getting at; I thought one of the main reasons for the rejection of realistic representation in art had much to do with the development of photography. And how can you not pick The Starry Night?
The rise of photography was seen as eclipsing the realism painting movement, why paint something when you could just photograph it, so artist began looking for new forms of expression like Impressionism, the "rebellion" had more to do with the stonewalling by acadamia, art critics and the patrons who bought whatever the critics deemed legitimate, who faced with these new forms rejected them, and for years refused to give them legitimacy, it sounds silly today but it was amazing how much of a big controversy a mere painting could stir up in the 19th century. remember Van Gogh never sold a painting during his lifetime. His style scared the pants off his contempories.
Why not Starry Night?, I love Van Gogh, if you've ever been lucky enough to get a real close up look at his work his style is absolutely amazing, but for me theres more emotion and form that speaks to me in much of Benton's work.
vsmith wrote: CNJ831 wrote: Honestly, are you at all aware of just what your second image actually depicts or is meant to represent (Starry Night)? Ummmm...yes, I did chose it afterall, I've seen the original
Van Gogh was apparently a Railfan:
http://www.artistaswitness.com/Railways/railways_lw_13.htm
Shilshole wrote: ...guys like Furlow, Selois, Allen, Olsen, and others who will tilt at the windmills of conformity. Pffft. Buncha amateurs
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
user="Shilshole" ...guys like Furlow, Selois, Allen, Olsen, and others who will tilt at the windmills of conformity.Pffft. Buncha amateurs
Sayz the man with the Pink Lady GG1....
...and despite 3 pages of discussion , still no "Official" word from our magazine overlords...Oh well, guess they aint heard a whisper either...be nice to hear something from the horses mouth though...
For the record, I liked the Hawthorne the best. While certainly no art connoisseur, I generally lean toward the image's overall feel, rather than specific details.
Not to be combative, but in every hobby I'm involved in, or more precisely on every hobby forum I've visited, there are always certain individuals who take it upon themselves to police the validity of the members of the 'community' and uphold the high and lofty ideals of the 'serious' members, while attempting to re-educate the poor unwashed who merely wish to gratify their base urges and enjoy the hobby for what it is and what it can be.
Often I wonder if they're the same person giving the same opinions on every message board, but no, that's not possible, since no one has that amount of spare time available after mounting the highest heights of hobby greatness. Too sarcastic perhaps, sorry.
Why must one be 'serious' about a spare time hobby?
If that's one's scene, then have at it, and enjoy to your heart's content, but to expect everyone to strive to the same level of 'correctness' and to subtly hint that to not do so makes one less of a member in the chosen society is rather pompous and self-centered.
Denigrating others does not oneself raise.
Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it's disturbing to find the same trends in many hobbies where most members just want to enjoy their spare time, not be beaten over the head.
kcole4001 wrote:Why must one be 'serious' about a spare time hobby?...Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it's disturbing to find the same trends in many hobbies where most members just want to enjoy their spare time, not be beaten over the head.
Why must one be 'serious' about a spare time hobby?...Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it's disturbing to find the same trends in many hobbies where most members just want to enjoy their spare time, not be beaten over the head.
vsmith wrote:Mark I also dont think theres much repressed jealosy, those who (like me) are jealous of Furlows particular skills are usually pretty up-front about it, but I do think in certain circles his work does provoke a certain amount of fear, because his approach is an unknown quantity to them, so radically different from what they are use to seeing things done, that it spooks them.
Mark
I also dont think theres much repressed jealosy, those who (like me) are jealous of Furlows particular skills are usually pretty up-front about it, but I do think in certain circles his work does provoke a certain amount of fear, because his approach is an unknown quantity to them, so radically different from what they are use to seeing things done, that it spooks them.
vsmith wrote:Going in the polar opposite from Furlow, with the Domino modular system (no or minimalist scenery), I've seen the same kind of anti-fervor in discussions about that approach as well. So its all relative to your particular POV, one persons passion is another persons poison.
Going in the polar opposite from Furlow, with the Domino modular system (no or minimalist scenery), I've seen the same kind of anti-fervor in discussions about that approach as well.
So its all relative to your particular POV, one persons passion is another persons poison.
vsmith wrote:..because the artists found the highly formalistic restrictions imposed on them from there academic peers to be so constrained and stifling that they rebeled against it?...
marknewton wrote: kcole4001 wrote: Why must one be 'serious' about a spare time hobby?...Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it's disturbing to find the same trends in many hobbies where most members just want to enjoy their spare time, not be beaten over the head.That cuts both ways. Those that are serious about their hobby don't want to be constantly denigrated by the "poor unwashed". :-)Cheers,Mark.
kcole4001 wrote: Why must one be 'serious' about a spare time hobby?...Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it's disturbing to find the same trends in many hobbies where most members just want to enjoy their spare time, not be beaten over the head.
I quite agree, Mark.
I realize that defending one side tends to put oneself in one camp or the other, at least to the public view offered. I am somewhere in between the two extremes, as are most from what I've seen.
I truly believe that this hobby has plenty of room for everyone, and all points of view are equally valid, even if only one person adheres to a particular methodology.
If one doesn't like Furlow's work, that's perfectly understandable and is within anyone's right to do so. If one doesn't like his attitude, that's got nothing to do with modelling. Calling him names is hardly appropriate.
Let the rivet counters count rivets if that's what they enjoy, and let those who wish run 1890s steam pulling autoracks if they like, just don't tell others that that's the only way to really be a valid participant in the hobby.
There are no rules, other than those you impose on your own efforts (and those of physics, naturally)!
I'm no art major, but I've seen better work airbrushed on Heavy Metal record jackets.
To me the piece looks like a high school yearbook illustration. Colorful, not badly executed, but not terribly deep. To compare that tripe with a VanGogh is quite a stretch.
That being said, I don't think you can deny that Furlow is accomplished in his craft, but I think his work is more akin to Dept. 56 schmalz than scale modeling.
Just as I described his pop-slop painting, his model railroads are imaginative and technically well crafted, but there's no thought behind it. (You could just as quickly say that Tony Koester's work is exhaustively thought out, but might be missing the significant element of imagination).
Most of us live in the world between, where the physical restaints of our train rooms force us to compromise away large chunks of reality, but our desire to model or operate at least somewhat realistically makes us consider how the layout will operate ahead of how it will look.
Furlow's approach is based purely on the aesthetic. Most of his track plans offer little of interest to an operator, and his scenery designs include civil engineering gymnastics that would make any real railroader queasy. (I realize that Colorado narrow gauge lines were pretty gymnastic in their own rite, but even they preferred a nice level tangent whenever practical!
Is there value in his work? Yes. It obviously fires the imagination of many modelers. There's nothing wrong with pushing the envelope of any art form.
Is he a model railroader? Nope. Not in the purest definition, which is one who models the equipment, landscape and operations of a railroad. I think it's more appropriate to say that he is an artist who uses scale models, including operating trains as a medium to tell a story. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
For many years my parents built miniature scenes in 1":1' scale, including antique shops, general stores, grandma's living room, etc. While the scenes were full of detail, evoking nostalgia or other sentiments, they were far from what could be consider "scale models" They were a delight to behold, and clearly gave my parents joy to create and display them. I think that's Furlow's main contribution to our hobby. He clearly enjoys what he does, and he challenges us to find ways to achieve that kind of enjoyment in our projects.
While his work is not my cup of tea, I can certainly recognize why he has a following, and indeed, defenders. I can also say that while I feel he carries weathering and detail to an extreme, there are still lessons to be learned, and techniques to be shared.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
I think that perfectly describes the whole issue.
Very well put.
Well Lee, to each his own then I guess...
BTW the "high school air brush" sells in the high 4 figures, and he's apparently selling them, so he's obviously doing something more right than either one of us...
vsmith wrote: Well Lee, to each his own then I guess...BTW the "high school air brush" sells in the high 4 figures, and he's apparently selling them, so he's obviously doing something more right than either one of us...
You're right, it's all in the 'eye' of the beholder (being a fan of Impressionistic and modern art, myself). Sometimes, the 'ear', also. I remember some years ago when I was accompanying a vocal recital in Great Britain, one of the 'Doyennes' came up to the singer and myself and asked what the recital would consist of. I mentioned a song-cycle by Debussy, and the Doyenne screwed up her Veddy British face and said, "Oh dear, I hope not TOO much Debussy, he's so EROTIC, you know--" The singer smiled very sweetly at the British Prune and said very quietly, "I'm afraid you mixed your alphabet, Madame, the word is spelled with an 'X' not an 'R.'"
While the Doyenne was figuring that out, we went on stage. Ended up with a very large ovation. Debussy and all.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Just because there's a fool willing to be parted from his money doesn't make the piece he bought good.
I can think of at least one occasion where a priceless masterpiece was sold in a yard sale for $10.
There are also legions of people who bought internet stocks in the 90's that are still licking their wounds, while run of the mill dull stocks like railroads and Coca Cola continue to pay handsomely.
I believe it was Abe Lincoln who quipped "You can fool some of the people all the time..."
wm3798 wrote: Just because there's a fool willing to be parted from his money doesn't make the piece he bought good.I can think of at least one occasion where a priceless masterpiece was sold in a yard sale for $10. There are also legions of people who bought internet stocks in the 90's that are still licking their wounds, while run of the mill dull stocks like railroads and Coca Cola continue to pay handsomely.I believe it was Abe Lincoln who quipped "You can fool some of the people all the time..."Lee
Really, Care to enlighten us on what constitutes "Good" art?
I had no idea I was dealing with THE sole authority in the whole world on what constitutes "good" art? I had no idea I had to run by what I like past you in order for it to achieve true legitimacy. So all those people who buy various types of art that they enjoy are just fools if it doesnt meet the Lee standard?..Wow!
I think you should be very carefull as your comment comes off as very arrogant and has likely damaged your credibility with many here, like I said earlier, just because you like raisin bran doesnt give you the right to pee on someone elses cornflakes.
I think you would have been better off saying that you know what you like and it aint that, but to issue a blanket judgement like that, well...
I dont dare to consider my own tastes in art or music to be of any golden standard other than my own and I clearly state that whenever I give my opinion, just as I dont care for several different styles of art (burn, Wyland, burn!) I wont condemn those who chose to buy it if thats what they enjoy looking at, its purely subjective.
Similarly I dont care for many approaches to model railroading I see espoused here on this forum, but why should I dump on so-and-so because his layout is not what I enjoy doing, he's got every right to do it, no matter how nuts I think they are.
vsmith wrote: wm3798 wrote: Just because there's a fool willing to be parted from his money doesn't make the piece he bought good.I can think of at least one occasion where a priceless masterpiece was sold in a yard sale for $10. There are also legions of people who bought internet stocks in the 90's that are still licking their wounds, while run of the mill dull stocks like railroads and Coca Cola continue to pay handsomely.I believe it was Abe Lincoln who quipped "You can fool some of the people all the time..."Lee Really, Care to enlighten us on what constitutes "Good" art? I had no idea I was dealing with THE sole authority in the whole world on what constitutes "good" art? I had no idea I had to run by what I like past you in order for it to achieve true legitimacy. So all those people who buy various types of art that they enjoy are just fools if it doesnt meet the Lee standard?..Wow!I think you should be very carefull as your comment comes off as very arrogant and has likely damaged your credibility with many here, like I said earlier, just because you like raisin bran doesnt give you the right to pee on someone elses cornflakes. I think you would have been better off saying that you know what you like and it aint that, but to issue a blanket judgement like that, well...I dont dare to consider my own tastes in art or music to be of any golden standard other than my own and I clearly state that whenever I give my opinion, just as I dont care for several different styles of art (burn, Wyland, burn!) I wont condemn those who chose to buy it if thats what they enjoy looking at, its purely subjective. Similarly I dont care for many approaches to model railroading I see espoused here on this forum, but why should I dump on so-and-so because his layout is not what I enjoy doing, he's got every right to do it, no matter how nuts I think they are.
Yep, minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open........... (Or the Despair.com version: Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.)
Of course having an open mind means that a person might learn something new......... I have to admit that I have learned a great deal about the hobby from many here at this forum and elsewhere. (Of course sometimes that was just "how not to do something.....") But an open mind goes a long way toward success in the long run. Not to mention that if there were only "one" proper and correct way to build a Model Railroad, what a boring and sad hobby this would be.
Just my 2¢.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
Straight up the guy is an artist. No two ways about it. That we've got a 3 page thread where people are about to come to blows proves it.
For the record I really like his modeling style. You don't have to like what he does, you don't have to respect him but the very fact some here are getting mad that others even like his work shows that his art (modeling) scares them. Any time art scares someone it is good. Very good.
Randy Pepprock
Downtown Deco
Randy, I aint ready to throw anything, I was just rather surprised by the comment, especially given how subjective art is, I had no idea there any such designation as "good art" or "bad art" anymore, I thought that notion went out the door with the Nazi's anti-"degenerate" art and the Stalinist Soviet "Social Realism" movements which attempted to codify what constituted acceptable "good taste" in art by decree.
I always thought art was entirely dictated by personal tastes, whether that runs from Matisse to Dogs Playing Poker, whatever brings you pleasure looking at is "good" art. There's just "art I like" and "art I dont like" the reasons why or why not are not necessarly important, "art I dont like" can be explained to me, but in the end if my gut reation remains unchanged, it still falls into the "art I dont like" file regardless of how good the technic, or subject, or how big a mucky-muck the artist is.
I'll go out on a limb and give a personal example, I hate Wyland. he's the guy who paint whales and undersea scenes, now its not that there anything wrong with that subject or anything technically wrong with the paintings, its just that some of the subjects he's painted rubs me the wrong way, namely I went with friends to his gallery in Laguna Beach a few years ago, and while looking thru the highly idealized completely never seen in reality assemblage of various sealife allcohorting under the perfectly clear blue sea like a scene from a Disney animated move, I came across one in particular, same subject only inserted into it were naked babies riding dolphins...I thought I was going to puke, its was to me sooooo contrived and kitchty I had to keep myself from laughing, I hated it and it made me hate everything in the gallery.
Now given that, would I fault anyone else for buying it? no. Why, just because I hated it, doesnt give me the right to pass judgement to what someone else might like. If someone wants that painting, they buy it and it makes them happy looking at it everyday, then thats great for them. I havent changed my viewpoint but I'm not about to walk up to someone and call them a fool for buying it. Thats there choice, not mine to impose.
You'll notice no where in this conversation have I tried to "convert" anyone to like Furlow's art, I just said I liked it, someone says "I DONT like it" and to me, that fine, I accept that he doesnt dig it, thats his right and I dont want to take that away from them so I'm not going to force any sort of "err of there ways" education as to why they should like Furlows artwork, but then to make a comment about fools and there tastes, to me crossed the line between mere opinion to making that same "err of there ways" judgement about other people.
One thing I do find hilarious that for all the Nazi fluster, their much hated "degenerate" art now commands prices in the multi-millions, while the stiff, codified Nazi and Stalinist tastes (which were very similar) in art have been relegated to the dustbin of history.
...and still no "official" word from anyone at Kalmbach, guess they havent heard a word from Furlow since 2003 either...
Vsmith. I wasn't addressing you specifically so please don't take anything personally. My point was is that Malcom is pushing the buttons on some people. In fact, his take on model railroading seems to push almost everyones button. People either like his work or hate it/think it's silly. That, to me, say's he's doing something right, artistically. He stirs a passion in people.
Like any human endeavor, art is indeed very subjective. However, one thing that cannot be denied is there are some things that resonate with a broad spectrum of people more profoundly than others.
The Pyramids of Giza or the Empire State Building have made an impression on humanity as a whole. Your local strip shopping center probably has not.
The example of Mr. Furlow's illustration (a more apt description than "art"), while modestly interesting, will likely not outlive the paper it's painted on. Outside of his narrow circle of admirers, I don't think he makes much of an impression, if I may use the pun, on the wider culture. It seems to me he's simply mimicking some of Andy Warhol's work, (the vivid colors) and not very well. The work lacks originality, depth, and any emotional connection (at least for me.)
That's not to diminish the enthusiasm for anyone who likes this sort of stuff... They certainly sell a lot of posters like this at Spencers and at various "head" shops... so there's obviously a market for it. The Walt Disney Company makes a fortune mass producing "experiences" and luring you to their parks to empty your wallet in anticipation of seeing something real. In the end, you might have liked it, but there probably wasn't much in it that expanded your mind or nourished your soul. It is what it is, but it's not on the same level as gazing into the Grand Canyon or experiencing a 3,000 year old ruin.
And to establish some credentials here, I don't consider myself an authority on art by any stretch, but I've studied aesthetics, marketing, and popular culture. I'm also an illustrator myself, which I regard more as a craft than an art. (I think model railroading carries more artistic weight than anything I've drawn...). To that end, Furlow's modeling is indeed artful.
Consider that Norman Rockwell never considered himself anything but an illustrator. While all of his works share the same technical excellence, very few of them are considered bona fide works of art.