Have fun with your trains
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.
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.
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
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...
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: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!
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ya'all sure model trains can't be art?
http://carendt.com/scrapbook/page76/index.html
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.
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.
marknewton wrote:[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.
NS AS-416 wrote: marknewton wrote: jackn2mpu wrote: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.
marknewton wrote: jackn2mpu wrote: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.
jackn2mpu wrote: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.
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?
NS AS-416 wrote: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?
de N2MPU Jack
Proud NRA Life Member and supporter of the 2nd. Amendment
God, guns, and rock and roll!
Modeling the NYC/NYNH&H in HO and CPRail/D&H in N
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
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!
jackn2mpu wrote: marknewton wrote: shawnee wrote: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.
marknewton wrote: shawnee wrote: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.
shawnee wrote: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.
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.
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.
vsmith wrote:No howling by me Mark, you've described your POV very well.
No howling by me Mark, you've described your POV very well.
kcole4001 wrote: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.
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.