user="Shilshole" ...guys like Furlow, Selois, Allen, Olsen, and others who will tilt at the windmills of conformity.Pffft. Buncha amateurs
...guys like Furlow, Selois, Allen, Olsen, and others who will tilt at the windmills of conformity.
Pffft. Buncha amateurs
Sayz the man with the Pink Lady GG1....
...and despite 3 pages of discussion , still no "Official" word from our magazine overlords...Oh well, guess they aint heard a whisper either...be nice to hear something from the horses mouth though...
Have fun with your trains
Shilshole wrote: ...guys like Furlow, Selois, Allen, Olsen, and others who will tilt at the windmills of conformity. Pffft. Buncha amateurs
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Van Gogh was apparently a Railfan:
http://www.artistaswitness.com/Railways/railways_lw_13.htm
vsmith wrote: CNJ831 wrote: Honestly, are you at all aware of just what your second image actually depicts or is meant to represent (Starry Night)? Ummmm...yes, I did chose it afterall, I've seen the original
CNJ831 wrote: Honestly, are you at all aware of just what your second image actually depicts or is meant to represent (Starry Night)?
Honestly, are you at all aware of just what your second image actually depicts or is meant to represent (Starry Night)?
Ummmm...yes, I did chose it afterall, I've seen the original
garya wrote: While I may not care for some of his output, I do like the Carbondale Central layout that was incorporated in 6 HO Railroads You Can Build. That layout combines creativity and new approaches with a working track plan. I liked the foam construction, the urban landscape, and the compact space they layout uses, all things I've tried to incorporate in my present layout.I'm not quite sure what CNJ is getting at; I thought one of the main reasons for the rejection of realistic representation in art had much to do with the development of photography. And how can you not pick The Starry Night?
While I may not care for some of his output, I do like the Carbondale Central layout that was incorporated in 6 HO Railroads You Can Build. That layout combines creativity and new approaches with a working track plan. I liked the foam construction, the urban landscape, and the compact space they layout uses, all things I've tried to incorporate in my present layout.
I'm not quite sure what CNJ is getting at; I thought one of the main reasons for the rejection of realistic representation in art had much to do with the development of photography.
And how can you not pick The Starry Night?
The rise of photography was seen as eclipsing the realism painting movement, why paint something when you could just photograph it, so artist began looking for new forms of expression like Impressionism, the "rebellion" had more to do with the stonewalling by acadamia, art critics and the patrons who bought whatever the critics deemed legitimate, who faced with these new forms rejected them, and for years refused to give them legitimacy, it sounds silly today but it was amazing how much of a big controversy a mere painting could stir up in the 19th century. remember Van Gogh never sold a painting during his lifetime. His style scared the pants off his contempories.
Why not Starry Night?, I love Van Gogh, if you've ever been lucky enough to get a real close up look at his work his style is absolutely amazing, but for me theres more emotion and form that speaks to me in much of Benton's work.
J Campbell wrote: Did I ever tell you guys about the time Malcom Furlow took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can't find one. Finally Furlow takes me to a vacant lot and says, 'Here we are.' We sat there for a year and a half — until sure enough, someone constructs a bar around us. Well, the day they opened we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burned the place to the ground. Furlow yelled over the roar of the flames, 'Always leave things the way you found 'em!'
Did I ever tell you guys about the time Malcom Furlow took me out to go get a drink with him?
We go off looking for a bar and we can't find one. Finally Furlow takes me to a vacant lot and says, 'Here we are.' We sat there for a year and a half — until sure enough, someone constructs a bar around us. Well, the day they opened we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burned the place to the ground. Furlow yelled over the roar of the flames, 'Always leave things the way you found 'em!'
~ Jason
vsmith wrote: ...because the artists found the highly formalistic restrictions imposed on them from there academic peers to be so constrained and stifling that they rebeled against it?So what your saying is that this:(snip)
...because the artists found the highly formalistic restrictions imposed on them from there academic peers to be so constrained and stifling that they rebeled against it?
So what your saying is that this:
(snip)
I do not wish this to degenerate into a discussion of the various schools of art and theory but stop and think for a moment and reconsider just why, after many centuries of attempting to depict reality, the direction of art suddenly took a dramatic turn at the close of the 19th. Just perhaps could it have been more about the rise of photography than a rebellion of young artists against the old school teachings?
Honestly, are you at all aware of just what your second image actually depicts or is meant to represent (Starry Night)? I'd say that 99% of art lovers haven't even the slightest clue. That's because, on the face of it, it is so stylized and distorted that it borders on pure fantasy and the viewer is left to wonder what it actually represents, if anything at all. Likewise, how many times has it come to light that certain "modern" and inventive paintings have been mistakenly hung up-side-down in musuems for years, before someone figured out that the artist meant them to be displayed otherwise?
Anyway, enough. I'll leave this thread to you folks to hash things out from here.
CNJ831
New around here, but I'd like to go on record as a Furlow fan. I have an old and frayed copy of his SJC book that I wouldn't part with for any amount of money. I enjoy his work - it's fun. Remember MR's old subtitle: "Model Railroading is Fun"? Yes it is. Or at least, it's supposed to be. Like John Allen, John Olsen and others before him, Furlow opened the eyes of many would-be modelers as to what was possible in the hobby.
Strict prototype modeling is great, but it isn't everyone's cup of tea. Nor is it 'lazyness' or a distaste for research that leads many of us into freelancing; it is simply the desire to create a novel instead of a history book.
In a novel, the writer picks and chooses the elements of reality that he wishes to include to forward his story. The goal is a certain believability - not realism. Same with a freelanced model. My own Cibola & Grand Valley Ry is based on elements from the V&T, but transports the whole scene to the Colorado/Utah border in 1936. Why? Why not just model the V&T? Simple: I like the scenery better in Colorado and Utah and wanted my road to interchange with my other favorite, the D&RGW. The solution: invent a gold strike in the La Sal Mts and thus the need for a railroad to get there. A great deal of research is required to make such a scenario believable.
For myself, I look forward to any new Furlow articles in MR with great anticipation. His work may not be realistic - or even believable to some, but it is very artistic. And that's good enough for me.
Dave
Cibola & Grand Valley Ry
Gary
CNJ831 wrote: vsmith wrote: Is one better than the other? No, not really, because like art, it just depends on what your personal tastes prefer. We've seen that discorse taking place right here.I would hasten to direct you back to some of the basic reasons why, beginning toward the latter part of the 19th century, many artists suddenly began branching away from realism and divided themselves into a hodgepodge of differring, often highly unrealistic (from a laymen's viewpoint), styles of expression.The same reasoning applies here.CNJ831
vsmith wrote: Is one better than the other? No, not really, because like art, it just depends on what your personal tastes prefer. We've seen that discorse taking place right here.
Is one better than the other? No, not really, because like art, it just depends on what your personal tastes prefer. We've seen that discorse taking place right here.
I would hasten to direct you back to some of the basic reasons why, beginning toward the latter part of the 19th century, many artists suddenly began branching away from realism and divided themselves into a hodgepodge of differring, often highly unrealistic (from a laymen's viewpoint), styles of expression.
The same reasoning applies here.
..because the artists found the highly formalistic restrictions imposed on them from there academic peers to be so constrained and stifling that they rebeled against it?
is more valid than this:
or this:
To me each as as valid as the next, it depends on your own personal tastes as to which you prefer over the other (the Thomas Hart Benton for me )
All of this "hodgepodge" were offshoots of that rebellion...persoanally I think the art world is FAR better off for this "hodgepodge' against what was the accepted norm that if everyone had just stayed inline, the same hold true for model railroading, thank God for guys like Furlow, Selois, Allen, Olsen, and others who will tilt at the windmills of conformity. It keeps the hobby from getting stale.
In regard to the Furlow quote that appearred in the Taos Daily News, is that really how you would go about characterizing your fellow modelers, or what the hobby is base on, if interviewed by the media? Furlow's apparent outlook, unless offered for affect, suggests someone with little respect for fellow hobbyists, viewing them more as a bunch of rich, immature, dolts from which he can extract money, than anything else.
Those seriously involved in the hobby that I've encountered over the years most often view themselves as immersed in a type three dimensional art form that requires talents and a degree of creativity well beyond that possessed by most laymen. And that's also how I would characterize the hobby/serious hobbyists if I were asked such a question for publication purposes.
CNJ831 wrote:On the question of other modelers' acceptance of Furlow as an outstanding modeler, I would point out that when his last article appeared in the Gazette - at essentially the same time and with the same content as that appearing in MR - a significant percentage of Gazette readers, who are mostly dedicated modelers and not armchair folks, responded with threats of dropping their subscriptions if further installments were published therein.
On the question of other modelers' acceptance of Furlow as an outstanding modeler, I would point out that when his last article appeared in the Gazette - at essentially the same time and with the same content as that appearing in MR - a significant percentage of Gazette readers, who are mostly dedicated modelers and not armchair folks, responded with threats of dropping their subscriptions if further installments were published therein.
Can you document the alleged threats? None of them actually appear in the NG&SLG letters columns ('Pigeon Hole'), or are referred to in 'Robert's Ramblings', in issues following publication of the Furlow article in May/June 2003.
I might also suggest reading the Furlow article that appeared in the Taos Daily News back in '05 to gain a better insight as to how he views fellow model railroaders.
http://www.taosdaily.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.viewarticle&article_id=741
"He went into business for himself, specializing in model railroads, 'because basically what I saw was a bunch of old, rich guys who liked to play with trains.'"
CNJ831 wrote: I might also suggest reading the Furlow article that appeared in the Taos Daily News back in '05 to gain a better insight as to how he views fellow model railroaders.CNJ831
Looked it up and found only one quote in that otherwise very interesting article.
"He went into business for himself, specializing in model railroads, "because basically what I saw was a bunch of old, rich guys who liked to play with trains". ..."
Yes, and...?
Having been involved in model railroading for most of my live and deeply for the last 8 years, if you are going off what gets published most, which is what most outside people first see, I cant disagree with him, can you?
Ever price brass models? or the high end models that get alot of ad space in the mags?
How much investment does a large basement size layout involve?
A fleet of prototypicaly corrct locomotives and rolling stock for your roster?
I mean com'on, I'm not talking about your average Joe Sixpack that has a 4x8 layout in the Rec Room, those never get published, I'm talking about the full room layouts, the ones that stretch out 20 or 40 feet, the ones who have pockets deep enough to afford to have a professional builder install their "dream layout" (kinda defeats the purpose IMHO) and spare no expense doing so.
I'm in large scale, ever price that? I'm just a poor sharecropper compared to most of my landed gentry contemporaries in terms of my buying power, yet I read over and over about people who think nothing about dropping 2K on a new brass loco or have multiple versions of the same engines, I mean were talking fleets worth near or over 6 figures, and I'm sure that happens in HO and O also, so what he says does hold some weight, its just something most dont want to aknowledge.
I'm older now, rich enough now to afford to accomodate my hobby, and I love to "play" with my trains, guess I'm guilty
link to article
I dont recall that kind of reaction in the Gazoo, in fact he was in 2 issues that year and I've seen very similar stuff before and since in the rag so I dont think the readers got as bent as you suggest, BUT they DID get bent here thats for sure!
I wont agree or disagree with your evaluation, thats your pov and I understand it, but then realistic adherence to prototype is exactly what he's trying to avoid now isnt it? Prototypical adherence for some is a box to get trapped in, styfling their creative output. So instead they models their own vision of the world as they wish to percieve it, its sort of like comparing a realist painter like Thomas Eakins to an impressionist like Vincent VanGogh. Both of whom were contemporaries of each other. Furlow definitly falls into the impressionism school in that regards where another contemporary today like Tony Koester falls more into the realism camp. Impressionism is messy, often very messy, blurring the edges of reality and almost entering a dream state, where Eakins works are very precise and calculated for realistic, almost photographic effect. Each has a valid approach, but the end results are vastly different from the other.
vsmith wrote:Thanks, Richg1998 also posted a link, I looked there already, last reference is the sept 03 issue I posted the pic of in the OP. Nothing refered in MR or the Gazette since the spurt of activity in '03.
Thanks, Richg1998 also posted a link, I looked there already, last reference is the sept 03 issue I posted the pic of in the OP. Nothing refered in MR or the Gazette since the spurt of activity in '03.
On the question of other modelers' acceptance of Furlow as an outstanding modeler, I would point out that when his last article appeared in the Gazette - at essentially the same time and with the same content as that appearing in MR - a significant percentage of Gazette readers, who are mostly dedicated modelers and not armchair folks, responded with threats of dropping their subscriptions if further installments were published therein. That said a lot to me.
If one seriously evaluates the modeling styles of the various "greats" of the hobby, they will likely come to conclude that Furlow is largely a re-packaged John Olson (who was a much better and more original modeler overall). 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.
There's no denying that Furlow is a very clever individual, a better than average modeler and author, a good photographer of miniatures as well as preceptive enough to know how to hoodwink other hobbyists by being "different", if not downright outrageous, in his modeling. From the outset, I'm sure that he realized that if his modeling was far enough off center, uniquely dramatic and to a degree "cute", he could generate a decided following among readers of publications like MR...which he accomplished. I might also suggest reading the Furlow article that appeared in the Taos Daily News back in '05 to gain a better insight as to how he views fellow model railroaders.
One final point worth passing on to folks here is that in most hobby's it is by no means necessarily the best of the best that become "famous". More typically, it is those that can find the right contacts and a really good avenue of exposure, that become known as outstanding practitioners of their pursuits.
marknewton wrote: richg1998 wrote:I remember some years ago reading complaints from some people about all his MR works. I guess just jealous.Why would you think that? I see this sort of comment often, whenever people like Furlow are mentioned here. I always wonder what the basis is for making it. Why would you automatically assume that anyone who doesn't care for a particular style of modelling is jealous of the modeller?Jealousy assumes that the other bloke has got something you haven't got. You reckon everyone wants models like Furlow's?Mark.
richg1998 wrote:I remember some years ago reading complaints from some people about all his MR works. I guess just jealous.
Mark
I also dont think theres much repressed jealosy, those who (like me) are jealous of Furlows particular skills are usually pretty up-front about it, but I do think in certain circles his work does provoke a certain amount of fear, because his approach is an unknown quantity to them, so radically different from what they are use to seeing things done, that it spooks them.
Going in the polar opposite from Furlow, with the Domino modular system (no or minimalist scenery), I've seen the same kind of anti-fervor in discussions about that approach as well.
So its all relative to your particular POV, one persons passion is another persons poison.
markpierce wrote: Am I crazy or did I read somewhere that Furlow will be featured in October's landmark layouts series?Mark
Am I crazy or did I read somewhere that Furlow will be featured in October's landmark layouts series?
If not crazy, I was confused. It is Bob Hayden's landmark layout which will be in October's MR.
I really admire Malcomn Furlow's work, as well as John Allen's. My as unyet built railroad is going to be named the San Juan Pacific. It will be a jointly owned line between the G&D and the Southern Pacific. My take on model railroading is that as long as it looks like it belongs I'm happy. I don't care about build/rebuilt dates. I'd rather take elemets of sevral railroads than just one. My lines hearlad is going to patterned after the Texas and Pacific's. And I'm going to incorporate a grade where helpers are coupled to the head of passenger trains and running backwards (just like the nashville chattanooga & st. louis railroad did.). And I want to add a second bell that rings continusly while the train is in motion just like the Mississippi Central.
Jason
Modeling the Fort Worth & Denver of the early 1970's in N scale
I'l echo the sentiment that while Furlow's work was not done in a style I would use personally, it certainly was inspiring and impressive. He took quite a whimsical approach to his work, and did it with such talent it has to be recognized as being worthy of recognition. John Allen certainly wasn't shy about incorporating humour in his work either.
The idea that the giants and pioneers of the hobby (John Allen, Furlow, Frary and Hayden, Armstrong, McClelland, and many more) have gotten too much press in the top magazines is baffling. Their work should be held as an example of what is possible, and inspire us to try and achieve even greater heights if we can even if we don't model the same regions, scales, or RRs (real or not).
I can hopefully learn a little (or a lot) from pretty much anyone's work, so blocking that influence out merely hurts the one ignoring it.
Yep, the SJC book is a great little book, certainly worth a look at for anyone doing western/mountain themed narrow gauge or even standard guage, also worth trying to get is "Model Railroading with John Allen" this is a Holy Grail book of model railroading for me.
http://www.amazon.com/Model-Railroading-Allen-Hanson-Westcott/dp/0890242984/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218140276&sr=8-1
I got a like new PB one and for well under 3 figures, so its not too rare...yet.
I've seen some of Furlow's art listed online. Thats where his primary interest now lies...especially if you can make some money at it, or alot of money! His stuff is cool!
I have to admit I really like this painting:
Funny thing, I'd have a far easier time with the missis buying one of these, even at 4 figures, than I would ever have spending 1/4 the amount on anything train related...for her, art collects value, trains..ehhh
http://www.mccormickgallery.com/furlowtour.html
As far as I know, last time I saw him, was at an art show outside of Taos, New Mexico (that was two years ago). I understand that he has a ranch near there and spend most of his time creating a wide range of western art pieces (a lot of oils). I had the chance to see his layout when he lived near Dallas. The only thing I can say is that the detail and overall feeling was great and he certainly gave me the narrow gauge bug! The thing that surprised me was that that the San Juan Central (all things considered) was much smaller than I anticipated from the number of photographs that have been published. That certainly attests to his abilities as a photographer but, small or not, the layout was highly detailed and very well executed.
Jim
TrainFreak409 wrote: I've never seen any of his work in person nor will I probably ever meet the guy.
I've never seen any of his work in person nor will I probably ever meet the guy.
Trainfreak
I found this image on the web, it is a pic of the San Juan Central, a MRR project "An Ho Narrow Gauge Railroad You Can Build", great project, check E-bay or your local LHS, its out of print last I heard.
edit: here's a link to the SJC layout at the narrow gauge convention.
http://www.polyweb.com/dans_RR/NarrowGauge2004/page0022.html
I think Furlow was mentioned recently (a few months back) in MR as well as John Olsen. I think the piece was referencing what became of them and where they were at now. I don't think it was actually an article, but a reference to them in one of the regular columns.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.