Malcolm Furlow in recent issue?

[downtowndeco]

 Just so we're clear I was commenting on his model railroads, not his paintings.

Randy

DD

[vsmith]

Thats cool with me, Lee, I do get your POV.

I'm beginning to suspect that Furlow never finished the layout after the 2003 articles, looks like he turned to full-time painting at a dedicated studio about the same time and I would suspect that wouldn't leave much time for model railroading building. Shame (for some of us ) if thats the case, as that layout promised to be a real mind-bender, but you have to follow your bliss, and if thats led away from railroading then...oh well.

[Geared Steam]

Devils advocate here; 

What if Furlow modeled in N scale?  

[kcole4001]

Would that mean his paintings would be smaller as well?

[Dave Vollmer]

I was about 10 years old when Furlow did the San Juan Central layout; as a kid I was enthralled.  I even destroyed much of my own HO trains trying to emulate his weathering style.

...but the more I learned about real railroading and real trains, the less plausible his work seemed to me.  Much of his equipment would have been whitelined and dismantled in place.  Much of the bridges he built would not even support their own weight let alone the weight of a passing train.

 Several family trips to Colorado put the narrow-gauge bug in me and I dove head-first into studying the RGS.  By college I was well on my way to amassing an RGS roster in HOn3.  By that time I began to realize Malcolm Furlow's narrow gauge and the real RGS/D&RGW/DSP&P were not even in the same zip code.  Real railroads, no matter how impoverished, still had to obey the laws of physics and to abide by some sense of safety.  Nonetheless, I enjoyed his SJC series, and he writes a good story,

Now, is he an artist?  Yes.  I prefer his modeling to his painting (again, as Lee says, just because someone's willing to pay a lot for something doesn't make it great), but his modeling to me doesn't represent anything I'd expect to see in real life.

Is he a model railroader?  That depends.  Some folks define model railroading by operations.  I don't, but even if you do, I recall he wrote an extra chapter in the San Juan Central book about developing an operating scheme.  But his later work, in one case amounting to no more than a pile of bridges on a diorama, walks the line between a layout and a static model.

Malcolm Furlow is one of the more controversial figures in the hobby.  I would agree with the argument that he was very heavily influenced by John Olsen, but in my opinion he took John's style, already highly interpretive, and pushed it past the limits of plausibility, no always in good ways.  I used to enjoy this very much, but now what I enjoy more than anything is a well-executed, plausible scene based on some reality.  Pelle Soeborg's modern UP/BNSF is an example of this type; the antithesis of Furlow.

Obviously the semi-fantasy world that Furlow helped inspire (one could trace the roots of which back to John Allen) appeals to many, and I won't disparage that.

Since several cans of worms are open already, I'll peel back the lid on this one:  Consider the analogy of the military miniature modeler.  There are those who will dither over the proper colorway for the speckled camouflage on a German Fallschirmjäger uniform on D-Day, and then there are those that model elves and dwarves and that sort of thing.  If the Model Trains Weathered guys are the former, then Furlow is the latter.  Is either more valid or more fun?  No.  But I find myself more likely to be the former these days.

[vsmith]

Just call me a Latter Day Hobbit then...

[C&GV]

Just call me a Latter Day Hobbit then...

Me too.

Middle Earth needs a nice narrow gauge raiload don't you thinK? How 'bout the Rohan, Gondor & Southern (RGS)?

[kcole4001]

Perhaps there's a little of that in all of us (well, maybe not the 'ONE TRUE WAY' guys).

For example: I plan to run a Galloping Goose on my layout, since there's finally going to be a standard gauge HO version available. Hardly a prototypical bit of equipment for Eastern Canada, but I've always liked the Geese, and I'm not likely going to model Colorado or the Rockies anytime soon.

[twhite]

I always liked Furlow's sense of 'whimsey' in his modeling.  It's nothing I'd want to do, but in a sense, he seems to have taken 'reality' and expanded it.  Remember, he's primarily an artist, and a moden one, and a lot of 'modern' art seeks to take reality into the subconscious.  That's neither good nor bad, it's the approach of an individual.  It's an 'idealized' conception.  Take for instance, the western movies of John Ford--almost everyone agrees that he's probably one of the greatest--if not THE greatest director of that particular genre in film history.  But not because he made 'authentic' westerns, but because his vision of the western was personal--one that might not HAVE been, but one that possibly SHOULD HAVE been.  

Or the musical works of the composer Aaron Copland.  They're an amalgamim of styles that he synthesized during his long career in working with various musical genres.   Are they "American?"  Of course they are.  They're as "American" as the West, the Great Plains, New England, Jazz and folk-music CAN be.  They're combined into a very pure, original form of music that still excites concert-goers today. 

Furlow seems to have taken the folksy 'quirks' of small short-line and narrow-gauge railroads and done the same thing--condensed them into their idiosyncrasies for people to either enjoy or ignore, as they see fit.  I find Furlow's vision both charming and exciting.  And totally inappropriate for me.  But it's the vision of an artist that sees things in his own way, not mine.  And I admire and respect him for it. 

Would I copy him?  No.  No more than I would try and copy John Allen's Stegosaurus "Emma" as a yard-switcher.   But can I appreciate his whimsical vision in a hobby that is broad enough in its approaches to encompass it? 

You BETCHA!

Tom

[marknewton]

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.

In that case I'm an extremist. I wasn't being entirely flippant when I made that remark about the "poor unwashed".

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.

After some consideration of that idea, I'll have to disagree. To my mind, this sort of all-inclusive approach drags everything down to the lowest common denominator.

If someone has built a layout that bears no resemblance to reality, or to any known railroad, and it operates in a manner unlike any known railroad, then to me that isn't model railroading. The multi-era, multi-prototype roundy-roundy is not valid to me.

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.

I wasn't aware that I had. But then, if the quote attributed to him is correct, I think his attitude is a legitimate topic for discussion. Much as I hate to say so, but on this I agree with CNJ831 - Furlow strikes me as an entepreneur/self-publicist first, and modeller a poor second, if that.

 There are no rules...

That's merely your opinion.

Mark.

[vsmith]

After some consideration of that idea, I'll have to disagree. To my mind, this sort of all-inclusive approach drags everything down to the lowest common denominator.

If someone has built a layout that bears no resemblance to reality, or to any known railroad, and it operates in a manner unlike any known railroad, then to me that isn't model railroading. The multi-era, multi-prototype roundy-roundy is not valid to me.

Mark.

Mark, I think you need to clarify this position.

Are you saying that all Freelance, non-prototype railroads are invalid? ...or just those that dont use some sort of boundries based on realistic elements common to most railroads?

So in your book if someone built a large, nicely sceniced, realistic looking point to point operations based layout but was running all Thomas the Tank Engine stock, would that be invalid?  After all it is based on an actual prototype, a fictional one for sure but in practice the railroad as written was based on several very real locations, with all the various industries and spurs to be serviced is probably every bit as legetimate as any other real railroad as a modeling subject, maybe more as theres more variety than most real lines which often only had a handfull of industiries to be service.

Now, if the railroad layout was exactly the same, still running British profile engines only instead of Bachmann Thomas stock, it was all Hornby HO scale locomotives? Does that make it any more legitiamite? If so, how?

I'm curious to hear your POV

 

[kcole4001]

That's merely your opinion.

Correct. And thinking that only your way of modelling is valid is merely your opinion.

And each opinion is equally valid, no more or less.

Prototypical correctness is necessary for the hobby, at least as a paradigm of sorts, to lead the way as an example of better modelling, but no one has the right to tell me, or anyone else, how to spend their free time, or that the way they spend it is not "valid".

That is pure arrogance, and does a disservice to yourself, and your point of view regarding modelling.

[marknewton]

Are you saying that all Freelance, non-prototype railroads are invalid? ...or just those that dont use some sort of boundries based on realistic elements common to most railroads?

Yes Vic, that would sum up my view nicely. But, I hasten to add, they are simply invalid TO ME. Perhaps it's because I've spent my entire working life on the railway, and far too much of my spare time as well, but I can't relate to layouts that don't have some basis in reality. I don't automatically put "freelance" layouts in that category, since there are so many I could cite that are very realistic. FWIW, my own modelling could be classed as freelance, since I've taken elements from a number of locations and railroads, and combined them. But like other freelancers whose work I admire, I've taken care to ensure that all the elements work together to make a plausible whole.

It's the layouts that look like the contents of a car boot sale dumped on a lump of plywood that don't do anything for me.

So in your book if someone built a large, nicely sceniced, realistic looking point to point operations based layout but was running all Thomas the Tank Engine stock, would that be invalid?

Interesting example - as you've noted, Awdrey based his writings on the prototype UK railways, and his locos and stock were all based on real-life examples. I recently visited an exhibition where there was a layout much as you describe. It was one of the best on display there, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. So, no, I wouldn't regard it as invalid at all. The layout was obviously the work of someone who had some knowledge of how a real railway functions, and had translated that knowledge into a workable, believable model.

But there was another layout there, which featured trains from different countries, different eras, all racing around in circles for no apparent reason, in a scene that was highly implausible, on track configurations that made no sense. That, TO ME, is not model railroading. High-end toy trains, perhaps, but nothing more.

(Having written that, I expect I will be howled down by those who disagree, and the thread will eventually be locked...)

All the best,

Mark.

[kcole4001]

I tend to agree with you on that point in theory, but still include everyone in the hobby by default. I also prefer to see some semblance of orderly movement/traffic. Again, merely my opinion.

I'm sorry for getting prickly, Mark, I see now that I was misreading your intentions in previous posts.

I hope that you'll accept my apology, sir.

[vsmith]

No howling by me Mark, you've described your POV very well.

[marknewton]

I tend to agree with you on that point in theory, but still include everyone in the hobby by default. I also prefer to see some semblance of orderly movement/traffic. Again, merely my opinion.

I'm sorry for getting prickly, Mark, I see now that I was misreading your intentions in previous posts.

I hope that you'll accept my apology, sir.

Kevin, you've done nothing to apologise for. You expressed an opinion, and were prepared to defend it - good on you!

As for misreading me, I should have articulated my position better, and avoided any confusion.

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

No howling by me Mark, you've described your POV very well.

Well, Vic, it wasn't you I expected howls from. I reckon you usually think before you press "post". :-)

All the best,

Mark.

[shawnee]

Very interesting conversation, this thread.

So Malcom Furlow is the Timothy Leary of model railroading?  Ugh.   

I think you can take surrealism and existentialism to a certain point, at which point "everything" becomes art, and thus art increasingly becomes a self-indulgence and we witness toilet bowls on a pedestal in an "art" museum.  Um, ok....the point is? 

To me, surreal model railroading largely misses the mark.  I like it when a layout tries to model something that looks like a real railroad, plausibly set and modeled in a given place and time.  But I guess the point of a hobby however is for an individual to have fun.

On the Thomas Hart Benton thing, interesting to note that in many high art circles, he's considered an illustrator, even a muralist, not an artist - they view him as too cartoonish and without reflection compared to modern realists such as Edward Hopper.  So there's an interesting parallel there.  Note that Jackson Pollack was one of Benton's acolytes, and rejected him completely and took it, well, a completely different direction.

Now this may be inflammatory, but I don't consider any model railroading as a true art form.  It's wonderfully creative, a fantastic hobby, even a folk art perhaps, but I don't consider it a true art form even by the best practitioners.  The point where model railroaders fancy themselves artists based on their layouts is where they lose me in their "seriousness".  That's not to denigrate their fantastic accomplishments, which I deeply admire and respect.  But, ironically, especially since the predominant element among "serious" model railroad "artists" is a slavish devotion to reality without much interpreation, I just have a  hard time with the notion of MR as an art form.  Unless, again, one thinks anything anyone makes can be an art form, which brings us full circle and makes some MR serious realists more like Malcom Furlow than they may be comfortable with.

You know they say, blues music is a folk art, but jazz is an art form.  And this coming from a devoted blues musician.  Blues is great fun, really resonates for me...but would I consider it "art?"  I'm a landscaper by trade, I love gardening, it's extremely creative, something I build and wonderful to look at and sense.  Is it an art form?  I think not.

In the end, I guess the definition of "art" is rather undefined, but IMHO I think there are some logical boundaries and discipline of time that defines an art form, one that truly rises to offer a meaningful interpretation and reflective commentary on humanity and existence.  Thus to me, MR is not an art form.

Love my trains too.

[marknewton]

In the end, I guess the definition of "art" is rather undefined, but IMHO I think there are some logical boundaries and discipline of time that defines an art form, one that truly rises to offer a meaningful interpretation and reflective commentary on humanity and existence.  Thus to me, MR is not an art form.

LOL! Maybe it'll be you that gets howled down for uttering such a heresy!

But FWIW, I agree with you 100%. Railway modelling is many things, but it ain't art.

Cheers,

Mark.

[jackn2mpu]

In the end, I guess the definition of "art" is rather undefined, but IMHO I think there are some logical boundaries and discipline of time that defines an art form, one that truly rises to offer a meaningful interpretation and reflective commentary on humanity and existence.  Thus to me, MR is not an art form.

LOL! Maybe it'll be you that gets howled down for uttering such a heresy!

But FWIW, I agree with you 100%. Railway modelling is many things, but it ain't art.

Cheers,

Mark.

It may not be fine art; I think it's more like performance art.

As long as someone stays true to their vision and self, and doesn't compromise to please others, then that's okay with me. Furlow didn't do that; George Sellios isn't doing that. Neither are guys like Tony Koester, love his work or hate it. Yeah, they've got strong opinions and beliefs, but their's are just one person's view. This hobby of ours is big enough to encompass all kinds of modeling ways and styles. Someone may like the Plywood Pacific of Dave Barrow, some may like the super scenery of Joe Fugate (2 extremes if there ever were any in mrr'ing).

I like Malcolm's work but think Sellios's is overdone. Does that make either of them bad and unworthy of being followed? I don't think so.

[Midnight Railroader]

I think there are some logical boundaries and discipline of time that defines an art form, one that truly rises to offer a meaningful interpretation and reflective commentary on humanity and existence.  Thus to me, MR is not an art form.

Pretty danged narrow interpretation, IMHO. It would tend to disinclude a lot of what is commonly called "art."

[NS AS-416]

In the end, I guess the definition of "art" is rather undefined, but IMHO I think there are some logical boundaries and discipline of time that defines an art form, one that truly rises to offer a meaningful interpretation and reflective commentary on humanity and existence.  Thus to me, MR is not an art form.

LOL! Maybe it'll be you that gets howled down for uttering such a heresy!

But FWIW, I agree with you 100%. Railway modelling is many things, but it ain't art.

Cheers,

Mark.

It may not be fine art; I think it's more like performance art.

I agree with marknewton and shawnee on this.

Can anyone think of an example of a layout selling at auction to an art collector? If this ever happens I am willing to revise my opinion, but not until then.

Personally, I got into the hobby to have fun and relax, not get frowned upon and lectured by rivet counters because I broke their rules.

My 2 cents.

Matt

[marknewton]

I like Malcolm's work but think Sellios's is overdone. Does that make either of them bad and unworthy of being followed? I don't think so.

That's the bit I can't understand. Why build someone else's layout, or more accurately, a copy of it? That's where the art analogy falls down.

Mark.

[NS AS-416]

I like Malcolm's work but think Sellios's is overdone. Does that make either of them bad and unworthy of being followed? I don't think so.

That's the bit I can't understand. Why build someone else's layout, or more accurately, a copy of it? That's where the art analogy falls down.

Mark.

Assuming the analogy was even valid in the first place. There are some staggering logical gymnastics involved to justify a miniature historical railway representation (or miniature modern railway representation as the case may be) as art. History museum or historical society display maybe, but definitely not art.

As to the comment about Selios being overdone here is a thought to ponder: How is faithfully recreating each and every detail of life any less valid than other approaches?

FWIW, the first time I saw the Franklin & South Manchester in MR I thought it was a history museum or transportation museum display. After reading the entire article I wanted to see how close to that level of detail I could get ( and still do ).

Matt

[twhite]

I find this thread rather interesting--and more than a little familiar--it seems that several years ago we got embroiled in an argument over whether or not model railroading should be considered an 'art form' or the miniature creation of 'realism' and several of the same posters on this thread explained their opinions--both pro and con--just as fervently and intelligently as they are doing now. 

And as I think as this thread has shown--even back then, nobody convinced anyone else to change their initial stance on the basic argument.  I still think the hobby is what you make of it and what your individual vision of it is. 

'Nuff said. 

Tom  

 

[jackn2mpu]

As to the comment about Selios being overdone here is a thought to ponder: How is faithfully recreating each and every detail of life any less valid than other approaches?

Matt

The thought I was trying to get across, and I guess I didn't express it as I hoped, was that while the FS&M may be a great piece of work, and some people like it, it's not my cup of tea (a bit too gritty and drab). In an art analogy let's take Renoir versus Andrew Wyeth. One may like the one, someone else may like the other. Does that make either painter/artist less valid of appreciation? It's a big enough world - can't both approaches co-exist? After all, it's just opinions, not absolute truths, right?

[marknewton]

I like Malcolm's work but think Sellios's is overdone. Does that make either of them bad and unworthy of being followed? I don't think so.

That's the bit I can't understand. Why build someone else's layout, or more accurately, a copy of it? That's where the art analogy falls down.

Mark.

Assuming the analogy was even valid in the first place.

Well, I've never thought for a moment that it was valid.

As to the comment about Selios being overdone here is a thought to ponder: How is faithfully recreating each and every detail of life any less valid than other approaches?

And on that we differ. I don't believe that Sellios is "faithfully recreating each and every detail of life". To me, Sellios' work is a caricature, a hyper-exaggerated version of reality.

I've seen numerous posters claim that the FS&M is realistic, that the industrial Northeast used to look just like that during the Great Depression, that their boyhood neighbourhood was just like his models - and yet the evidence says otherwise. Yes, Sellios is creating a world based on his own personal vision, and that's great for him, but it isn't an objective representation of reality. Those who claim otherwise are kidding themselves, in my opinion.

All the best,

Mark.

[Midnight Railroader]

[Yes, Sellios is creating a world based on his own personal vision, and that's great for him, but it isn't an objective representation of reality.

In 40+ years, I have yet to see a model railroad that IS "an objective representation of reality." Every one is an interpretation of reality based upon the owner's experiences or feelings..or skill level.

[marknewton]

There are many layouts that are objective representations of reality - all that your post says is that you haven't seen many different kinds of layouts. But then I think you're being deliberately ingenuous.

Mark.

[vsmith]

user="marknewton"]...Yes, Sellios is creating a world based on his own personal vision, and that's great for him, but it isn't an objective representation of reality. Those who claim otherwise are kidding themselves, in my opinion....

All the best,

Mark.

There are many layouts that are objective representations of reality - all that your post says is that you haven't seen many different kinds of layouts. But then I think you're being deliberately ingenuous.

Mark.

But Mark, havent you contradicted yourself?

...if you think about it, EVERY layout falls into this catagory. EVERY layout is an expresion of personal vision, not objective reality. The simple logistics of scale and space prevent the accurate scale depiction of real world locations for all but the very smallest railroads, so each modeler must compromise the reality of a layout and make decisions of what they are going to depict, what they are going to exclude, how they are going to depict it, and how it is going to fit into a given space for it. As a result you can have 10 layout of the same subject yet no two of them are alike, each is a singular vision of the same scene. I have seen this phenomenon over and over again in narrow gauge modeling, good example being the Rio Grande Southern Ophir line which has literally had dozens of fine scale highy detailed highly accurate layouts built of it, yet none of them look alike, some model diffferent eras, different scales, and differing installations, even the engines and rolling stack are modeled vastly differently, some heavily weathered others like new. Dont even get me started on how scenery can vary from layout to layout. Each yeilds a uniquely personal expression of the same subject, so in a sense, none of them offer an "objective reality" because that goal is a moving target and dependant on many variables that correspond to the modelers individual tastes. Hence to me, while an individual layout may strive to represent a specific time or place an "objective reality" if you will, no matter how accurate it is, the collective result though will always be that unique personal vision. Just something to think about.