vsmith wrote:Ya'all sure model trains can't be art?http://carendt.com/scrapbook/page76/index.html
Ya'all sure model trains can't be art?
http://carendt.com/scrapbook/page76/index.html
Here is the definition of art
"Art is the expression of creativity or imagination. The word art comes from the Latin word ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement". Art is commonly understood as the act of making works (or artworks) which use the human creative impulse and which have meaning beyond simple description. While art is often distinguished from crafts and recreational hobby activities, this boundary can at times be hard to define. The term creative arts denotes a collection of disciplines whose principal purpose is the output of material for the viewer or audience to interpret. As such, art may be taken to include forms ranging from literary forms (prose writing and poetry); performance-based forms (dance, acting, drama, and music); visual and "plastic arts" (painting ,sculpture, photography, illustration); to forms that also have a functional role, such as architecture and fashion design. Art may also be understood as relating to creativity, æsthetics and the generation of emotion."
Much of what is in this description is also in model railroading, so yes , for some people MR is art and for others it is not. For some only certain aspects are art while others are not.
I probably fall into the certain aspects catagory since I dislike the electrical portions of the hobby enough that I cannot be expressive with them.
vsmith wrote: tstage wrote: vsmith wrote:Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...Victor,While I'll agree with you that George Sellios' work is indeed mindboggling and amazing in detail, I personally don't consider it as "realisitc" in appearance as Cliff Powers' MA&G layout. To me, Cliff's layout is much more "believable" than the F&SM layout, which - to me, again - is more fantasy/reality-based. Tom A very well done layout, but for my personal taste, if your talking realism, its lacking. For me its too idealised, everythings too perfect, its sterile in many scenes, wheres the trash? By that I mean wheres the "lived in-ness" that convinces me this is a real place and time. While one may make an aurgument about Selios being perhaps too densely detailed, one of the things I love about Sellios is that his alley's, look well, like alleys...there trash, bottles, boxes, bums, all the things I see in alleys today that would also have been there in the depression. There are weeds growing in the cracks of the sidewalks and curbs. There are random pieces of detail strewn thru the layout reflecting the same things I see driving around neighborhoods today. One thing both Sellios and Furlow convey is that "messy vitality" that one finds in any real place. To me these are irregardless of whether its proto or freelance.I mean the referred layout is a terrific one, but my eye sees easy things that could be added that add layers of realism, auto parts and junk that could be stacked along the side of the service station, dogs running loose in front of the farm, along with old abandoned farm equipment in back with weeds growing thru them. One very noticable thing to me, the grass and weeds along the cow pasture should be taller outside the pastures fence, I know this because I grew up next to a dairy farm and know cows are big mowing machines and will eat everything with in there reach, so the grasses were always chewed out about 2-3 feet outside the fence, about as far as where a cow could stick its head out of, in fact even modeling a couple of cows doing just that would add a real world realism that to me is missing. But thats just me, and I suspect its my eye for things like that that makes layouts like Selios and Furlow so appealing to me, that "messy vitality" of detail. Like oil stains in parking stalls.I look at things very differently from alot of modelers I've know, I suspect I'll be one of those guys who never finishes his layout because I'll alway be looking at better ways to add detail to it.
tstage wrote: vsmith wrote:Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...Victor,While I'll agree with you that George Sellios' work is indeed mindboggling and amazing in detail, I personally don't consider it as "realisitc" in appearance as Cliff Powers' MA&G layout. To me, Cliff's layout is much more "believable" than the F&SM layout, which - to me, again - is more fantasy/reality-based. Tom
vsmith wrote:Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...
Victor,
While I'll agree with you that George Sellios' work is indeed mindboggling and amazing in detail, I personally don't consider it as "realisitc" in appearance as Cliff Powers' MA&G layout. To me, Cliff's layout is much more "believable" than the F&SM layout, which - to me, again - is more fantasy/reality-based.
Tom
A very well done layout, but for my personal taste, if your talking realism, its lacking. For me its too idealised, everythings too perfect, its sterile in many scenes, wheres the trash?
By that I mean wheres the "lived in-ness" that convinces me this is a real place and time. While one may make an aurgument about Selios being perhaps too densely detailed, one of the things I love about Sellios is that his alley's, look well, like alleys...there trash, bottles, boxes, bums, all the things I see in alleys today that would also have been there in the depression. There are weeds growing in the cracks of the sidewalks and curbs. There are random pieces of detail strewn thru the layout reflecting the same things I see driving around neighborhoods today. One thing both Sellios and Furlow convey is that "messy vitality" that one finds in any real place. To me these are irregardless of whether its proto or freelance.
I mean the referred layout is a terrific one, but my eye sees easy things that could be added that add layers of realism, auto parts and junk that could be stacked along the side of the service station, dogs running loose in front of the farm, along with old abandoned farm equipment in back with weeds growing thru them. One very noticable thing to me, the grass and weeds along the cow pasture should be taller outside the pastures fence, I know this because I grew up next to a dairy farm and know cows are big mowing machines and will eat everything with in there reach, so the grasses were always chewed out about 2-3 feet outside the fence, about as far as where a cow could stick its head out of, in fact even modeling a couple of cows doing just that would add a real world realism that to me is missing.
But thats just me, and I suspect its my eye for things like that that makes layouts like Selios and Furlow so appealing to me, that "messy vitality" of detail. Like oil stains in parking stalls.
I look at things very differently from alot of modelers I've know, I suspect I'll be one of those guys who never finishes his layout because I'll alway be looking at better ways to add detail to it.
It's not just you.
CLiff's layout is beautiful but not realistic. It is a dead layout with out enough life to it. That is what appeals to some though. Some poepl like trains and not the people and life surrounding them others like trains for their emersion.
marknewton wrote: Gazoo wrote:I think you're having difficulty separating the concepts of "random" and "determined". Example 1: imagine the most fantastic MRR scene--something never done before and not really even possible in this dimension. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. Example 2: imagine your favorite actual railroad. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. The only difference is that someone could go visit example 2 and compare it to your model. That does NOT, in any way, make example 1 any more or less difficult for you the modeler who has a specific vision of what you'd like to create. Now, to the "lazy" (lack of a better term) modeler, neither example presents a problem. Each will be equally simple. Buildings made of painted shoe boxes look just as crappy on example 2 as improperly made buildings on example 1. Except, only the modeler knows if that was exactly what his aim was on example 1. But that's not the point--it's no easier or more difficult.Nah, I can't agree. Example 2 involves a lot of research, learning about the prototype, maybe site visits if that's possible. There is more discipline involved in the concept, the execution and the operation. Example 2 by definition will be more difficult, I think.Cheers,Mark.
Gazoo wrote:I think you're having difficulty separating the concepts of "random" and "determined". Example 1: imagine the most fantastic MRR scene--something never done before and not really even possible in this dimension. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. Example 2: imagine your favorite actual railroad. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. The only difference is that someone could go visit example 2 and compare it to your model. That does NOT, in any way, make example 1 any more or less difficult for you the modeler who has a specific vision of what you'd like to create. Now, to the "lazy" (lack of a better term) modeler, neither example presents a problem. Each will be equally simple. Buildings made of painted shoe boxes look just as crappy on example 2 as improperly made buildings on example 1. Except, only the modeler knows if that was exactly what his aim was on example 1. But that's not the point--it's no easier or more difficult.
Example 1: imagine the most fantastic MRR scene--something never done before and not really even possible in this dimension. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT.
Example 2: imagine your favorite actual railroad. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT.
The only difference is that someone could go visit example 2 and compare it to your model. That does NOT, in any way, make example 1 any more or less difficult for you the modeler who has a specific vision of what you'd like to create.
Now, to the "lazy" (lack of a better term) modeler, neither example presents a problem. Each will be equally simple. Buildings made of painted shoe boxes look just as crappy on example 2 as improperly made buildings on example 1. Except, only the modeler knows if that was exactly what his aim was on example 1. But that's not the point--it's no easier or more difficult.
My experience has been just the opsoite. Because you can research something real it makes it easier. I have yet to model anything I made up that I was happy with. I can never capture what I imagine in my head . There is no wat to record it long enough with enough detail to recreate it properly. Proto makes things much easier and allows one to focus amd not go off in tangents that slow the whole process down. I think it might depend on how much imagination one has though.
wjstix wrote: I'm not sure "being the first" has to do with it exactly. The point being made was that it's harder to model a real railroad in exact detail than it is to make something up. In modelling a real railroad, you have a target you have to hit with your arrow. When you're freelancing, you can shoot your arrow into the wall and then draw a target around it. As a freelancer I can say that the Athearn bay-window caboose is an exact model of the cabooses my railroad used; if I'm modelling say a CNW bay-window caboose I would have to either live with the Athearn or Walthers bay-window caboose as they come, and be satisfied with a good CNW paint scheme, or I'd have to do some changing of windows and other details to make it exactly right. I think the point too is that much of Furlow's work - incredible as it is - sometimes borders on the cartoonish. Actually, in that regard, his work isn't really the first, as he clearly was influenced by John Allen, who also wasn't beyond stretching reality by more than a bit to get a desired effect.
I'm not sure "being the first" has to do with it exactly. The point being made was that it's harder to model a real railroad in exact detail than it is to make something up. In modelling a real railroad, you have a target you have to hit with your arrow. When you're freelancing, you can shoot your arrow into the wall and then draw a target around it.
As a freelancer I can say that the Athearn bay-window caboose is an exact model of the cabooses my railroad used; if I'm modelling say a CNW bay-window caboose I would have to either live with the Athearn or Walthers bay-window caboose as they come, and be satisfied with a good CNW paint scheme, or I'd have to do some changing of windows and other details to make it exactly right.
I think the point too is that much of Furlow's work - incredible as it is - sometimes borders on the cartoonish. Actually, in that regard, his work isn't really the first, as he clearly was influenced by John Allen, who also wasn't beyond stretching reality by more than a bit to get a desired effect.
The athearn caboose analogy only works for some people. Many free lancers will not settle for that . Many have to have equipment from a specific parent railroad ect.. They then have to blend that with there vision of the country their railroad runs through and then compress it.
It's much easier to compress a known quantity than something that is only in you're head . U think you mistake the Mickey mouse northern layout with freelance.
I agree with what you say about furlow and allen though. Both are/were fantasic artist and I enjoy seeing their work. I don't care to mimic either style for myself because they don't capture my vison of railroading and what railroading is to me personaly.
Thats just my opinion and you know what harry says about opinions
It seems to have plenty of life to it. Not a train in site.
http://magnoliaroute.com/magnolia%20route_196.htm
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Geared Steam wrote: CLiff's layout is beautiful but not realistic. It is a dead layout with out enough life to it. That is what appeals to some though. Some poepl like trains and not the people and life surrounding them others like trains for their emersion. It seems to have plenty of life to it. Not a train in site. http://magnoliaroute.com/magnolia%20route_196.htm
...but to me, not a thing out of place, not a mar, compared to:
http://www.horailroad.com/fsm/fsmlayout0.html
Have fun with your trains
CNJ831 wrote: tstage wrote: vsmith wrote:Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...Victor,While I'll agree with you that George Sellios' work is indeed mindboggling and amazing in detail, I personally don't consider it as "realisitc" in appearance as Cliff Powers' MA&G layout. To me, Cliff's layout is much more "believable" than the F&SM layout, which - to me, again - is more fantasy/reality-based. Tom Addressing the two cited posts, let me say that as someone who grew up in the northeastern U.S. in the years immediately following the Depression, I can tell you that no major city therein ever looked anywhere near as filthy and dilapidated as depicted on the F&SM. Rail yards and trackside, perhaps, but certainly not universally. While one can find photos of individual buildings in any region - at any time in history - that are falling down wrecks, that does not serve to indicate that this was the universal state of things at the time. Such a concept of the Depression Era goes against logic to begin with. The 1920's had seen the greatest boom in American history, with everything neat as a pin. How then, in just 6-8 years, does everything suddenly appear to age 50 years? Something that must also always be kept in mind in discussing Depression Era photographs is, what was the message that the original photographer intended to convey? From my own research (I model this era), I can tell you that two distinctly different outlooks existed among 1930's photographs, many of whom were given jobs by the government and provided with only vague assignments as to what to shoot (or even left totally to their own desires).One group sought out mainly scenes of grime, poverty and hopelessness to photograph. The other group depicted glimpses of a shining future of pristinely clean cities, redeveloped infrastructure and happy children. In their photographs you saw two totally different worlds presented. There was a PBS documentary that illustrated this in reference to Depression Era NYC some years ago. Viewing it is a real eye opener as to how people can be misled by viewing only selected photos of an era!Most certainly, the real truth is somewhere in the middle of these extremes. For true glimpses of the period, I would suggest consulting moviehouse newsreel footage. These generally shows relatively neat city scenes as a backdrop but with lots of suffering humanity - their intended subject. The streets may appear a little dirty (the street sweepers had been laid off) but most buildings look just a presentable as any today.That said, I definitely agree with Tom that Ciff Powers' layout is an excellent example of highly realistic modeling. Even a quick glance gives you the impression you are looking at a real place. George, on the otherhand, while outstanding in his work, is strictly a caricature modeler. The sad fact, however, is that so many believe that his layout is a precise reflection of some actual past time in urban New England.CNJ831
Addressing the two cited posts, let me say that as someone who grew up in the northeastern U.S. in the years immediately following the Depression, I can tell you that no major city therein ever looked anywhere near as filthy and dilapidated as depicted on the F&SM. Rail yards and trackside, perhaps, but certainly not universally. While one can find photos of individual buildings in any region - at any time in history - that are falling down wrecks, that does not serve to indicate that this was the universal state of things at the time. Such a concept of the Depression Era goes against logic to begin with. The 1920's had seen the greatest boom in American history, with everything neat as a pin. How then, in just 6-8 years, does everything suddenly appear to age 50 years?
Something that must also always be kept in mind in discussing Depression Era photographs is, what was the message that the original photographer intended to convey? From my own research (I model this era), I can tell you that two distinctly different outlooks existed among 1930's photographs, many of whom were given jobs by the government and provided with only vague assignments as to what to shoot (or even left totally to their own desires).
One group sought out mainly scenes of grime, poverty and hopelessness to photograph. The other group depicted glimpses of a shining future of pristinely clean cities, redeveloped infrastructure and happy children. In their photographs you saw two totally different worlds presented. There was a PBS documentary that illustrated this in reference to Depression Era NYC some years ago. Viewing it is a real eye opener as to how people can be misled by viewing only selected photos of an era!
Most certainly, the real truth is somewhere in the middle of these extremes. For true glimpses of the period, I would suggest consulting moviehouse newsreel footage. These generally shows relatively neat city scenes as a backdrop but with lots of suffering humanity - their intended subject. The streets may appear a little dirty (the street sweepers had been laid off) but most buildings look just a presentable as any today.
That said, I definitely agree with Tom that Ciff Powers' layout is an excellent example of highly realistic modeling. Even a quick glance gives you the impression you are looking at a real place. George, on the otherhand, while outstanding in his work, is strictly a caricature modeler. The sad fact, however, is that so many believe that his layout is a precise reflection of some actual past time in urban New England.
CNJ831
There was a documentory on PBS a few years back about teenage hobos during the depresion. It included some great interviews , photos, and film from the era. One thing they metioned is that there were 2 worlds during the depression. One was poverty stricken and living in junk yard cities and the other tried to pretend there was no depression. In the documentory they mentioned a film that was made with railroad help in 1933 . It shows the contrast between the selios look and the clean cities. It's called "wild boys of the road". Horrible movie but quite a few vintage train scenes. When I see selios work It appears that he took all the bad parts of all the US cities and made on bad city out of them. Cliff on the other hand modeled a dead world devoid of humanity. It is IMHO prettier to look at since I like the clean look.
Geared Steam wrote: So you want this thread locked? Why?Seems like a perfectly civil conversation/debate, I see no forum rules being broken.Now back on topic. (psst, is that you Malcolm?)
So you want this thread locked?
Why?
Seems like a perfectly civil conversation/debate, I see no forum rules being broken.
Now back on topic.
(psst, is that you Malcolm?)
I really don't care, just we have been down this path a lot before and it gets old after a while.
(I am not Malcolm but it would be interesting to see what he would say)
Unless one is modelling a ghost town, heavily weathering and 'dilapidating' all of the structures looks as false as having everything look brand new, like a movie set. As several folks have posted already, reality lies somewhere in between. Uniformity just does not look convincing, there has to be variation, usually quite a wide margin of it to 'feel' right.
Researching could prove endless unless one has personal memories of all places being modelled in the relevant time period. So since I've never experienced the actual years I wish to represent, I'll try to convincingly model the important structures in key scenes from period photos, at least as close to it as availability will allow, as long as I find the results visually appealing, otherwise I'll change whatever effects (weathering, etc.) I don't like and substitute what I want to see.
After all, if I don't find it pleasing to view my own layout, why would I want to leave it that way? I'm not going to model something I don't like just to be perfectly historical. True, it could not be called 100% realistic, but that's a compromise I can live with. Others will have their own very personal preferences, and that's what gives such diversity in our modelling attempts. I can gain inspiration from anything I find visually appealing.
vsmith wrote:...I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...
Gazoo wrote:You think it's more difficult to go look at something standing in plain view for all to see, and then recreate it?
Who would you say had the harder job: the person who invented the light bulb or the person or built the 400th factory in the world that produced them? You're (basically) arguing that it's the person who built the factory because he had to study all the elements of those other factories. Off-the-shelf solutions from former workers (MRR magazine as a reasonable analogy here), purchased equipment from existing suppliers (Atlas, etc.), and flat-out looking at examples doesn't make his job easier, it makes it harder? That's harder than the question "what would glow without burning up?" Or for that matter, "what does "glow" mean?" If you disagree, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Being the first is almost always harder than copying something that already exists.
That's harder than the question "what would glow without burning up?" Or for that matter, "what does "glow" mean?"
If you disagree, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Being the first is almost always harder than copying something that already exists.
NEMMRRC wrote:All I know is my experience in this hobby. When I started in 1993 I read about Allen, Furlow, Sellios, Olson and the like. I also read about Koester, McCleland and those like them. I was hooked by the former even thought the latter have influenced many.Today young kids have Grand Theft Auto, iPods, iPhones and who knows what other whiz-bang gadgets and stimulus shoved at them all day long. I believe that Koester is not going to tickle many of those kids' fancies today.
I have been to train shows and club meetings and the youngest attendee I've seen is not exactly young. I was 25 when I got bit by the train bug. I was the youngest guy in our club. Maybe that is a topic for a different thread.
wjstix wrote:I'm not sure "being the first" has to do with it exactly. The point being made was that it's harder to model a real railroad in exact detail than it is to make something up. In modelling a real railroad, you have a target you have to hit with your arrow. When you're freelancing, you can shoot your arrow into the wall and then draw a target around it.
vsmith wrote: Geared Steam wrote: CLiff's layout is beautiful but not realistic. It is a dead layout with out enough life to it. That is what appeals to some though. Some poepl like trains and not the people and life surrounding them others like trains for their emersion. It seems to have plenty of life to it. Not a train in site. http://magnoliaroute.com/magnolia%20route_196.htm ...but to me, not a thing out of place, not a mar, compared to:http://www.horailroad.com/fsm/fsmlayout0.html
marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote: Geared Steam wrote: CLiff's layout is beautiful but not realistic. It is a dead layout with out enough life to it. That is what appeals to some though. Some poepl like trains and not the people and life surrounding them others like trains for their emersion. It seems to have plenty of life to it. Not a train in site. http://magnoliaroute.com/magnolia%20route_196.htm ...but to me, not a thing out of place, not a mar, compared to:http://www.horailroad.com/fsm/fsmlayout0.html Our perceptions obviously differ greatly. When I look at the first photo, I know it's a model, but the scene looks plausible, believable - I can easily imagine a place that looks like this. The second photo looks utterly toy-like to me, and I can't suspend my disbelief.Cheers,Mark.
Mark:
Your point ios well taken, especially seeing as how it's made from the evidence provided. As stated before in this thread, I'm no fan of Sellios's styleon the FS&M, but what might make the FS&M evidence look better before a jury is if the same picture was taken in the same way the first one was, and not helicopter-style (or Jolly Green Giant style) as it is.
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
marknewton wrote: wjstix wrote:I'm not sure "being the first" has to do with it exactly. The point being made was that it's harder to model a real railroad in exact detail than it is to make something up. In modelling a real railroad, you have a target you have to hit with your arrow. When you're freelancing, you can shoot your arrow into the wall and then draw a target around it.Stix, I wish I'd said that! That summarises my view perfectly.All the best,Mark.
Thanks, but to be fair I should point out I borrowed the line about the arrow from someone talking about why they didn't like Sherlock Holmes stories.
To me the upper picture looks more realistic. Some of the FS&M reminds me of Sweethaven in the Robin Williams "Popeye" movie from years back. The set is now a tourist spot in Malta called "Popeye Village":
(image from wikipedia)
jackn2mpu wrote: Mark:Your point ios well taken, especially seeing as how it's made from the evidence provided. As stated before in this thread, I'm no fan of Sellios's styleon the FS&M, but what might make the FS&M evidence look better before a jury is if the same picture was taken in the same way the first one was, and not helicopter-style (or Jolly Green Giant style) as it is. Jack
Jack
George's book "The Fabulous Franklin & South Manchester" has some good street-level views in it, suitable to act as a comparison in this situation, although I expect copyright restrictions would prevent me posting them here. However, the book is highly popular and likely many readers of this forum have a copy.
In certain instances, when the shots of the F&SM are particularly tight (pages 8 or 47), there is a degree of believability to the scenes. However, the moment the images start to include broad surroundings, with many buildings (pages 23, 62-63 or 68-69), the scenes start to take on an almost post-Apocalyptic feel. The level of filth, decay and clutter is simply over-the-top and any initial impression of reality is lost.
Likewise, the "busyness" that Vic so admires becomes totally overwhelming when more than a tiny segment of the layout is viewed at one time. The impression you eventually get from the photos (or in person) is that of moderate-sized city with three to five times the expected normal population...people and intense activity are just everywhere!
Now I'll say again that I have nothing against George's style of modeling. If he and others enjoy it, that's great. I've visited the layout myself and was immensely impressed by it. However...it in no way depicts nor resembles reality and particularly not the appearance of cities in New England during the Great Depression.
If one is looking for examples of realism in model railroading, then I'd also suggest taking a look a Howard Zane's layout.
It simply comes down to what the layout owner's interests are. George Selios is a structure builder. Even if he wasn't a professional, his layout would be a place to display his structures. He hasn't written a book on operation, and I doubt he ever will. It's not his thing. And there's nothing wrong with that. He has a unique vision which he expresses very well. All model railroads shouldn't look the same anyhow. Too many layouts in MR look like different sections of the same large layout.
I have to say, though, that the Magnolia Route linked to above is probably the finest model railroad I've ever seen, albiet in picture form only.
Not to open a bag of worms Ok, I'll rip it open. This is a view, just based upon the photos I've seen of Cliff's layout...it's obviously beautifully done, but even with not a train in sight, it's the deep south, and there's not a black in sight either. Near the railroads. In shanty towns. Working in his sawmills. No white-only water fountains in that time era? It's a fantasy land. Beautifully done, but highly unrealistic if one is purportedly modeling a relatively specific time and place.
Ok, beat me up now for this comment. Just keepin' it real!
Although maybe I'm wrong about this and all the photos I've seen of his layout and on his site, it just doesn't show up. That's a possibility.
And also, of course, it's perfectly fine and ok to model a fantasy land if that's one's desire. The MR police won't be knocking on any of our doors. Just that as I have gotten more interested in this hobby, I find the layouts that depict a RR in a time and place that is highly plausible or prototypical much more captivating and intriguing.
Well Guys, I guess thats where I'm wierd then, I have also studied that era for a while now and so have seen the delapadated world both Sellios and Furlow are portraying. So it works for me. Mark, CNJ, I DO get both your points, as I stated, its a PERSONAL preference.
I tend to look for those "close in" details, pitfall of being in large scale I guess, you tend to really up the ante in the level of detail simply because what might be an acceptable level of detail in HO would look sparce in O and downright naked in G. Your newspapers are actually large enough to read the headlines so things like that and labels on bottles become your standard detail levels. You HAVE to model the weeds, and beer cans, and junk, and dirt, or it just doesnt look real, so CNJ's comment about what level of density might be "overpowering" in HO may just be an "acceptable" level in G. Something to ponder for you detail guys.
I do wonder if we would be so different in our opinions if both these layouts pics were B&W, might level the playing feild a tad. For example the pic of the Magnolia Route town in the above pic, in B&W could be something very similar to the old Route 66 Pics of the 50's, Sellios town reminds me a great deal of the gritty industrial sections of Chicago and some places here in Los Angeles, so maybe that colors my opinion a little.
I'm still pondering details to add to my own portable layout, like tools and equipment, but am constantly frustrated by the lack of detail products in G, some 1/2" scale doll house stuff works OK but try finding specific mining equipment, you almost have to make most of it, so I guess I'm getting a little nuts...
If I'm not Kookoo now, by the time I get to detailing the main layout, I'll be certifiable
vsmith wrote:I do wonder if we would be so different in our opinions if both these layouts pics were B&W, might level the playing feild a tad. For example the pic of the Magnolia Route town in the above pic, in B&W could be something very similar to the old Route 66 Pics of the 50's, Sellios town reminds me a great deal of the gritty industrial sections of Chicago and some places here in Los Angeles, so maybe that colors my opinion a little.
I can only speak for myself but I don't think it would make any difference whether the pictures were in color, B&W, or sepia. Cliff's MA&G would look like a small southern town - albeit sterile, perhaps. George's highly-stylized F&SM would still look "busy".
I do have a couple of questions for you, Victor. Can a layout ever have too much detail to it? If so, where does one draw the line and what are the tell-tale signs of overdetailing? I am interested in your answer. Thanks.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
The people with this view seem to have closed their minds and locked themselves inside a box they can't seem to escape.
No one disagrees with what was said about the arrow. When you're freelancing, you can shoot your arrow and draw a target around it. That makes your job easier if you do that. No one of sound mind disagrees with this.
But what you just don't seem to be able to release your mind to is that you also can freelance in such a way that you're shooting a target at an arrow. Or shooting your arrow at a target that's under the couch. Or instead of an arrow you're shooting a banana from your bow. None of those are easier they're harder. Not better, not superior quality, not examples of what everyone should strive for, just different--and it can be harder.
Geared Steam wrote:CLiff's layout is beautiful but not realistic. It is a dead layout with out enough life to it. That is what appeals to some though. Some poepl like trains and not the people and life surrounding them others like trains for their emersion. It seems to have plenty of life to it. Not a train in site. http://magnoliaroute.com/magnolia%20route_196.htm
it's too clean and perfect. This picture does not look like a period photo Some colors are over saturated and others are to desaturated. There is definately something appealing about it but not realistic.
tstage wrote: vsmith wrote:I do wonder if we would be so different in our opinions if both these layouts pics were B&W, might level the playing feild a tad. For example the pic of the Magnolia Route town in the above pic, in B&W could be something very similar to the old Route 66 Pics of the 50's, Sellios town reminds me a great deal of the gritty industrial sections of Chicago and some places here in Los Angeles, so maybe that colors my opinion a little.Victor,I can only speak for myself but I don't think it would make any difference whether the pictures were in color, B&W, or sepia. Cliff's MA&G would look like a small southern town - albeit sterile, perhaps. George's highly-stylized F&SM would still look "busy".I do have a couple of questions for you, Victor. Can a layout ever have too much detail to it? If so, where does one draw the line and what are the tell-tale signs of overdetailing? I am interested in your answer. Thanks.Tom
Tom, I cant answer that question other than giving my own opinion, its like asking "can a locomotive ever have 'too much' detail".
I mean its really a deeply personal perspective as to how much is too much, for some the Magnolia line is just right, to others its sparce, same for Sellios, to many its cluttered and over detailed, yet others look at it and marvel at the level of detail.
I supposed it also has ALOT to do with the scale of the layout, as I said above, what works in HO, doesnt nessecarily work in larger scales like G, the level antes up with each progressive scale change becuase your eye simply see's more in the same respective area, one city block in N is a single building in G, so what you see detail wise ramps up significantly and that affects the way you view everything else.
N layouts tend to have least amount of specific detail per sq ft yet that works in that scale as its the overall scope is whats important, the broader level of detail is what you percieve looking at it, where in G, beleive me, once your in it a while you find your self looking at things very specificly, especially on indoor layouts simply because you can literally look right into windows and open doors on a house on an indoor layout. So its a moving target.
But to address your question, Yes, IMHO a layout CAN have too much detail, but that level of acceptability will be based soley on your personal perspective. If your happy with plasticville buildings, RTR trains running on plastic ballast track rolling over LifeLike grass paper, on a 4x8 sheet of 1/4" plywood drooped on top of 2 saw horses and your pleased as peach with it thats your level of acceptance, but if your level deems you to model every last detail on a specific locomotive becasue you crawled all over and under and through it at the museum with a tape measure and calipers, and researched every known picture so you could represent it right down to the exact pattern of swipe of a dirty window or dusty handprints next to the grab bars that your pictures of that locomotive as it appeared on July 8th 1942 at 3:22 PM as it sat at the station in Pigsknuckle Ark, and btw your station is also modeled to the same level of exactness and even has the exact same schedule writen on the board in the same handscript as it appears in your photo archive on that same day including the station masters sandwich sitting on a bench, then thats your level of acceptable detailing, It no different for the guy who models the garbage piled in a stuffed with deatil alleyway, even to the point of using a fine scale pen to dot in a line of ants going from the garbage to their in scale ant hill, I mean its really an endless question thats going to vary from person to person...It just depends how manic you are.
Myself I hope to achieve a balance somewhat similar to Sellios, who to some might look over done in HO, might look just about right for large scale.
PS In this context I'm limiting my opinions to INDOOR large scale, but there are guys out there with interiors on their outdoor structures, complete with lighting so when night falls, all the insides are visible thru the windows. And not so much to the guys just running large scale RTR trains chasing their tails thru the petunias in the planter, anyways not anymore than the guys in HO with the Snap Track & LifeLike paper rolls or the guys doing classic tinplate layouts in O, its a really wide swath of approaches across the scales out there, but we're a pretty tolerant and forgiving group, right?
wjstix wrote: (image from wikipedia)
COOL!
jackn2mpu wrote:Mark:Your point ios well taken, especially seeing as how it's made from the evidence provided. As stated before in this thread, I'm no fan of Sellios's styleon the FS&M, but what might make the FS&M evidence look better before a jury is if the same picture was taken in the same way the first one was, and not helicopter-style (or Jolly Green Giant style) as it is.
vsmith wrote:I do wonder if we would be so different in our opinions if both these layouts pics were B&W, might level the playing feild a tad. For example the pic of the Magnolia Route town in the above pic, in B&W could be something very similar to the old Route 66 Pics of the 50&...