Midnight Railroader wrote: shawnee wrote: 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."
shawnee wrote: 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.
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.
Well, one definition of an art form might be something that isn't predominantly displayed in a basement.
or put another way...
Saying that MR is an art form is like saying frisbee belongs in the Olympics.
Now I did say I do love my trains...
One the Sellios thing, I'm kinda glad it wasn't just me because while his work is an extraordinary achievement in its own right, and while I know he is a MR giant, when I see the photos in the MR books of the Franklin & Manchester it always somehow seems overdone. It just looks too fanciful to me.
Now that said, I wish I had the overall modeling skills that he has in one fingertip. The man can build a model. But I wondered...and maybe there is some historical or milestone-like reason for this...why does he get so much press for his layout? Yeah, sure it's quite nice, but is he that towering a MR figure?
A layout that really blew me away when I saw it, simply as an example in comparison, is Lance Mindheim's CSX South Florida layout in the 08 Great Model Railroads. What incredible depth and detail, such a fascinating reflection of life. Stunning in just a 16 foot layout, but so much more interesting to check out, to me so much more engrossing than something more fanciful. Well, i guess that's just MHO. To each his/her own.
Ya'all sure model trains can't be art?
http://carendt.com/scrapbook/page76/index.html
Have fun with your trains
shawnee wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: shawnee wrote: 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."Well, one definition of an art form might be something that isn't predominantly displayed in a basement. or put another way...Saying that MR is an art form is like saying frisbee belongs in the Olympics.
Ping-pong is an Olympic sport.
marknewton wrote: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.
Any layout that claims to be a "objective representation of reality," will fail if put to scrutiny on that point, because every layout built is, of necessity, the builder's interpretation of reality. If you don't accept that, then you must believe that two people building a realistic interpretation of a scene would generate identical results.
It was in the major thread on this subject about 38 months or so ago that I butted heads with Mark Newton. (We have patched things up...) I have altered my opinion since then, and feel that, while the hobby requires skills and disciplines to come together, it isn't any one of them. Its strength, if it won't make you snicker or gag, is in its gestalt. It is greater than the sum of its parts. It reguires skills that are found both in industry and in art, but it is neither. Instead, it is a rendering of a design that fits the builder's notions and conclusions based on a mix of ignorance, compromise, skill level, willingness to learn, and learning, itself. Since each of us brings a unique mixture of those variables (and likely others I have missed), it is no wonder we see the variety in layouts that we do. These creations are marvelous, and some garner more attention and praise than others, but so do certain beers.
So, Mark, after all this time, I agree with you. It's not art. I owe you a beer.
-Crandell
To play the devil's advocate here. Back in the thread a long time ago that was mentioned by Crandell I asked my sister the Art Teacher and fairly well known local Artist if she thought Model Railroad is an Art. Her answer was given with no reservations, "Of course it is"! On the other hand, what does she know? She was an Art teacher for 32 years and has been a professional Artist for over 40 years..........
Wikipedia has some interesting things to say about what an Art is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art (link activated courtesy of selector.) (Thanks! - Ray)
Most everything that they say seems to support that model railroading can be properly considered an art. As a musician and music teacher, I used the following as a definition of Music (which I hope you agree is one of the "Arts"). "Music is organized sound" So is a bunch of people sitting around playing drums, improvising what they do to be considered music? I would say yes. Many of you would disagree I am sure. I also used to use the example where a student comes home from school after a great day and puts on the latest song from "The Silly Dead Bunnies" or whatever group is "in" right now and cranks up the volume! The Mother comes into the room and yells, "Turn that noise off!" So for the student it is music and the mother it is noise......... The same is very true for all forms of "Art".
The answer then for all of this depends very much on a personal definition of what is or isn't "Art".
IMHO model railroading is an Art and a lot more. Crandell said."It is greater than the sum of its parts. It reguires skills that are found both in industry and in art, but it is neither." I agree except that I consider it to be both. Moderailroading is Art, Science, History, Electronics, Carpentry, Model Building, Engineering, and much more.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
selector wrote: It was in the major thread on this subject about 38 months or so ago that I butted heads with Mark Newton. (We have patched things up...) I have altered my opinion since then, and feel that, while the hobby requires skills and disciplines to come together, it isn't any one of them. Its strength, if it won't make you snicker or gag, is in its gestalt. It is greater than the sum of its parts. It reguires skills that are found both in industry and in art, but it is neither. Instead, it is a rendering of a design that fits the builder's notions and conclusions based on a mix of ignorance, compromise, skill level, willingness to learn, and learning, itself. Since each of us brings a unique mixture of those variables (and likely others I have missed), it is no wonder we see the variety in layouts that we do. These creations are marvelous, and some garner more attention and praise than others, but so do certain beers.So, Mark, after all this time, I agree with you. It's not art. I owe you a beer.-Crandell
...to your own system of belief, as noted, others dont necessarily share that belief.
As my above pic demonstrates, model trains can be seen and utilized to create art. What that art is, whether its art to you or not, is totally in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe that is the lesson, once again; that the hobby can be many things to many people. Live and let live, help when we can, share ideas, point out inaccuracies if folks ask for a realism check....the usual banter we enjoy around here. Same, same.
selector wrote:Maybe that is the lesson, once again; that the hobby can be many things to many people. Live and let live, help when we can, share ideas, point out inaccuracies if folks ask for a realism check....the usual banter we enjoy around here. Same, same.-Crandell
vsmith wrote: selector wrote: It was in the major thread on this subject about 38 months or so ago that I butted heads with Mark Newton. (We have patched things up...) I have altered my opinion since then, and feel that, while the hobby requires skills and disciplines to come together, it isn't any one of them. Its strength, if it won't make you snicker or gag, is in its gestalt. It is greater than the sum of its parts. It reguires skills that are found both in industry and in art, but it is neither. Instead, it is a rendering of a design that fits the builder's notions and conclusions based on a mix of ignorance, compromise, skill level, willingness to learn, and learning, itself. Since each of us brings a unique mixture of those variables (and likely others I have missed), it is no wonder we see the variety in layouts that we do. These creations are marvelous, and some garner more attention and praise than others, but so do certain beers.So, Mark, after all this time, I agree with you. It's not art. I owe you a beer.-Crandell...to your own system of belief, as noted, others dont necessarily share that belief.As my above pic demonstrates, model trains can be seen and utilized to create art. What that art is, whether its art to you or not, is totally in the eye of the beholder.
Midnight, you got me there. Yes, ping pong - table tennis to the Chinese - is indeed an Olympic sport. See what a precipice we hang upon?
VSmith...with due respect, the pic you posted was not one of model railroading, but of an "artist" who flung together a bunch of junk, some or all of which was model railroad stuff. It doesn't do much to illustrate the point that MR itself is an art form, had virtually nothing to do with a true MR layout itself. In fact I think it has more relevance to the comment on my earlier post in this thread about a toilet bowl on a pedestal in an art museum.
Can MR be creative and artistic? Yes. Is it an art form? I really think it's skewed to think so. Probably splitting things too carefully here, but perhaps there is a difference. I think an art form has something to do with perspective and relevance - or at least striving for relevance and perspective - within the context and reflection of a greater culture. I don't think operating model trains fits that bill.
Interesting discussion though. I respect you all.
shawnee wrote:Can MR be creative and artistic? Yes. Is it an art form? I really think it's skewed to think so. Probably splitting things too carefully here, but perhaps there is a difference. I think an art form has something to do with perspective and relevance - or at least striving for relevance and perspective - within the context and reflection of a greater culture. I don't think operating model trains fits that bill.Interesting discussion though. I respect you all.
Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh yes! Interesting. You see I have been only thinking in terms of "building" a model railroad, as in benchwork, trackwork, scenery, buildings, creating logos, perspective, prototype looks and feel with artisic license and compression to create the "scene".......... Operations..... Hmmmmmmm. A different reference point entirely. It might be compared with Ballet which expresses a story or emotion through dance which is by and large "orchestrated" using choreography. It might bear some comparison, but in that aspect I would not see model railroading so much as an art.
Interesting how we may appear to be talking about the same thing but thinking very differently............. Very interesing and as you said, "I respect you all" and each of you has a right to your point of view!
One of the winning entries to our last contest (Wrong Side of the Tracks) has ended up in a museum at Cornell University. You can see the model on our site & there will also be a photo of it in the new Walthers catalog on the "Structures Introduction" page.
Is it art? In my book, yes. Sculputure perhaps.
Randy Pepprock
Downtown Deco
shawnee wrote: vsmith wrote: selector wrote: It was in the major thread on this subject about 38 months or so ago that I butted heads with Mark Newton. (We have patched things up...) I have altered my opinion since then, and feel that, while the hobby requires skills and disciplines to come together, it isn't any one of them. Its strength, if it won't make you snicker or gag, is in its gestalt. It is greater than the sum of its parts. It reguires skills that are found both in industry and in art, but it is neither. Instead, it is a rendering of a design that fits the builder's notions and conclusions based on a mix of ignorance, compromise, skill level, willingness to learn, and learning, itself. Since each of us brings a unique mixture of those variables (and likely others I have missed), it is no wonder we see the variety in layouts that we do. These creations are marvelous, and some garner more attention and praise than others, but so do certain beers.So, Mark, after all this time, I agree with you. It's not art. I owe you a beer.-Crandell...to your own system of belief, as noted, others dont necessarily share that belief.As my above pic demonstrates, model trains can be seen and utilized to create art. What that art is, whether its art to you or not, is totally in the eye of the beholder.Midnight, you got me there. Yes, ping pong - table tennis to the Chinese - is indeed an Olympic sport. See what a precipice we hang upon? VSmith...with due respect, the pic you posted was not one of model railroading, but of an "artist" who flung together a bunch of junk, some or all of which was model railroad stuff. It doesn't do much to illustrate the point that MR itself is an art form, had virtually nothing to do with a true MR layout itself. In fact I think it has more relevance to the comment on my earlier post in this thread about a toilet bowl on a pedestal in an art museum.Can MR be creative and artistic? Yes. Is it an art form? I really think it's skewed to think so. Probably splitting things too carefully here, but perhaps there is a difference. I think an art form has something to do with perspective and relevance - or at least striving for relevance and perspective - within the context and reflection of a greater culture. I don't think operating model trains fits that bill.Interesting discussion though. I respect you all.
In a sense the Medusa's Head (the art piece illustrated) is in sprit not really any different than any of the small singular structure static dioramas where any RR equipement used are left unpowered as elements of part of the display. Its only much larger, just one way to look at it...
vsmith wrote:PS in regards to Olympic Level Sports...Baseball will be eliminated after this summers games, yet badmitten and trampoline remain...go figure.
...and the world's largest participation sport, bowling, still isn't in the Olympics!! Ironically it was in a couple of Olympics, and would have become a permanent sport (a sport I believe has be in three consecutive Olympics to move from a demonstration sport to a permanent sport) but L.A. dropped it for the 1984 Olympics in favor of I think beach volleyball or kayaking??
BTW as to the original post...I didn't read every posting so might have missed this but it seems to me a picture by Malcolm Furlow - not an article, just a picture - was in a recent MR (say within the last year??)
Midnight Railroader wrote:Any layout that claims to be a "objective representation of reality," will fail if put to scrutiny on that point, because every layout built is, of necessity, the builder's interpretation of reality. If you don't accept that...
then you must believe that two people building a realistic interpretation of a scene would generate identical results.
shawnee wrote:... I wish I had the overall modeling skills that he has in one fingertip. The man can build a model.
vsmith wrote:...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.
That's it in a nutshell, I suppose.
After more thought, it's Furlow's scenery I like, not any potential operation possibilities (if indeed there are any) or the relation, or lack thereof, to reality.
Art evaluation is something so individual, it really can't be qualitatively argued, IMO, but to each his own I say.
That said, a fully integrated layout (realistic scenery, structures, details, and operation) will certainly be more influential and interesting to most, yet virtually all layouts worthy of publication will have something that can inspire most of us.
Is Furlow up to the caliber of John Allen? Certainly not, and he shows no such dedication to the hobby, either, but I still enjoy his work for what it is.
In the end we all have to follow our own heart and build what we want to see, not what anyone else prefers.
"Is it dead yet, George?"
"Don't poke it, it might just be sleeping!"
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!
I think this thread has progressed remarkably well, its full of a great deal of insight and each person has managed to convey their opinion while respecting the opinion of others they obviosly disagree very much with, this has been a great discussion. Thumbs up to fellow forum members here.
Thats admirable considering the rankorous flamethrowing that occured back in '03 when the MF issue first hit the stand, whats funny is that about the same time, the same rankorous flamethrowing happened discussing Dave Borrows minimalist 'Domino" system of layout design. I consider Borrow the polar opposite of Furlow, yet I admire the idea behind the system. Guess we are all getting a bit maturer as we age.
CNJ831 wrote: I find it just a bit laughable that Furlow should be quoted by Posey as saying that "reality is a crutch", since the fact is that fantasy modeling (the only way to honestly characterize Furlow's style) is exactly the approach to use to cover/excuse any and all errors, or deviations from accuracy and realism in modeling.
I find it just a bit laughable that Furlow should be quoted by Posey as saying that "reality is a crutch", since the fact is that fantasy modeling (the only way to honestly characterize Furlow's style) is exactly the approach to use to cover/excuse any and all errors, or deviations from accuracy and realism in modeling.
That's true. But are you willing to admit that it's also true that sometimes artists INTENTIONALLY deviate from established norms to convey something they feel is important?
Isn't it equally possible that the guy spent countless excruciating hours creating a layout that matched exactly what was in his head, including throwing away hundreds of models that didn't meet his standards, reworking scenery elements that were accidentally too realistic, etc?
I know a lot of 8th graders taking their first literature class who make much the same argument as you are making when they read the Great Gatsby for the first time.
So...?
To many "reality" simply is a crutch. I mean seriously, if you've ever tried to model something from your head and not from merely from a kit you'll find its actually FAR more difficult and requires a much greater degree of skill to successfully bring it to reality, as almost everything has to be custom made or modified.
How much more skill was needed to bring something like this fantasy locomotive to reality from scratch than simply painting and weathering an RTR locomotive? Lets be square here, there are very few true scratchbuilders on this forum that I am aware of, it requires a much wider breadth of vision. For Freelancers, to create an entire layout enviroment from your own vision requires a greater imagination, along with the technical skill required to create that vision, where IMHO merely copying something from the proto-reality perspective, while also requiring a great amount of technical skill and planning, to me requires very little actual imagination.
What your falling back to only one side of the same argument about reality -vs- vision we've been discussing here all along.
Furlow is like sushi, to some (like me) its a tasty delicacy, to others its simply raw fish, and for some of those others no amount of cajoling about how tasty it is, we may never convince them to take that first bite, com'on now, try the "Spicy Tuny Roll"
vsmith wrote:How much more skill was needed to bring something like this fantasy locomotive to reality from scratch than simply painting and weathering an RTR locomotive?
I was gouing to mention David Barrow too. Furlow, Barrow (and Allen in his day) cause dissent. And they do it because they are pushing the envelope, which is what keeps the hobby interesting.
Long may people like them stimulate us
Gazoo wrote: CNJ831 wrote: I find it just a bit laughable that Furlow should be quoted by Posey as saying that "reality is a crutch", since the fact is that fantasy modeling (the only way to honestly characterize Furlow's style) is exactly the approach to use to cover/excuse any and all errors, or deviations from accuracy and realism in modeling. I know a lot of 8th graders taking their first literature class who make much the same argument as you are making when they read the Great Gatsby for the first time.
Gazoo--
Don't mean to get this off-topic, but EIGHTH graders reading "Gatsby?" That's a LOT to throw at them at that age, even if they were studying at a private, accelerated Academy. I didn't read "Gatsby" (my favorite novel, BTW) until college, and at the high school at which I teach, we introduce it in Junior English--though I'm glad to hear that most of the students love the novel at around sixteen or so. And this is a private College Prep high school.
Wow, I bet those eighth graders are BOGGLED!
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!
marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:How much more skill was needed to bring something like this fantasy locomotive to reality from scratch than simply painting and weathering an RTR locomotive?Maybe not the best example to use in support of your argument, Vc. Isn't this one of Rowland Emmett's engines?Cheers,Mark.
Yep, that particular engine is now available as a resin kit in Britain somewhere in the 7/8" scale vicinity, but I used it as it to me illustrated what I was getting at, someone actually had to take the fantasimical 2D drawing and model it in a 3D reality, then make molds and castings if it to make models that could be actually run,...that takes alot of talent to take something so fanciful and make into a hard resin object, IMHO of course.