v,
Crazy stuff, especially that first one. But I don't mind sharing the hobby with anyone with a vivid imagination. Without imagination, none of us would be here in the first place, another strong hint at just how central art is to the hobby, despite the shocked denials this just can't be so. Building a layout in a space 1 foot square is definitely an art. No way was ANY prototype that short, but I've seen some convincing work done in such tiny spaces. That's art.
My own tastes run more toward the believably could have been side of the ledger. I suspect that's probably true for most -- not all, most -- model railroaders. We're not out to create Disneyland, but a miniature version of the world as we see it.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I think the definition of art is so broad of course some aspects of model railroading could be "art" ever see the works of Roland Emmit
or Carl Arendt's micro-layouts
there are several microlayouts that could be considered "art" in their own sake
Sure these are not "traditional" model railroads but they are part of the hobby none-the-less so while maybe not all of model railroading can be considered "art" some aspect certainly can be.
Have fun with your trains
Mike,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I can appreciate the wariness about the term artist. I'm really not all that interested in who that applies to so much as I think it's useful to discuss how to facilitate model railroaders using artistic techniques and processes to express their vision of a railroad in miniature.
I think your own work certainly demonstrates a mastery of composition and lighting that produces photographs that depict a common vision of such an imagined world, yet each pic is strikingly original in and of itself. I can accept you don't feel you're an artist, but you certainly create what I consider to be art, both in your modeling and your photography of it. Why I like it is not that I think you should claim the title of artist, but because it results in convincing work that uses the bleak winter landscape to fall like a blanket and gently hold the viewer's attention.
To start, I'd just like to say it matters not to me whether train layouts qualify as art, but for the sake of friendly discussion I'll add my two cents worth.
These days you could throw a rotten tomato against a wall and call it art. Or throw blood or organs around or whatever. Art was originally defined as something created to be aesthetically pleasing, but I guess the problem is that there's always someone who'll claim the above examples are just that. Similarly, a lot of modern 'music' can claim to be art because someone says it is, even though it's not pleasing to my ears, and therefore does not qualify as art to my mind.
Installation art is another prime example. Arrange some objects or hang a bunch of light bulbs and suddenly you're an artist.
My point is that art's boundaries have become very blurred, with no hard and fast set of qualifications. And while I admit there are certain artistic aspects of the hobby, I believe it's a highly-skilled craft, and not art.
As a fulltime painter I hesitate to call myself an artist. I would do so only to differentiate between painting pictures and painting houses. I think it's a grossly misused term. All painters are or should be art students for their entire lives. Many people claim to be artists but only a very small percentage of them really are. The term 'artist' is for others to award.
I reckon we're too close to our own work to make the call. Biased, even, and I don't think it's our call to make. But if we can get one non-modeller to say our layouts are art, then they are! To them, at least. It's just a matter of opinion.
Mike
Modelling the UK in 00, and New England - MEC, B&M, D&H and Guilford - in H0
Interesting find as I sort some old MRs I inherited last week. Headlined on the cover of the Feb. 1964 issue, "Scenery without Talent" by Paul Mallery. From the article:
"Why is scenery often missing on so many layouts? Apparently because of the mistaken belief that lots of time and artistic talent are needed to make scenery...but anyone who can build a model -- and uses common sense -- can create presentable scenery...I make no claims to artistic talent, so I hope a description of my methods will help to dispel the belief, for those who lack scenery, that it takes too much time or talent."
Mallery's methods? Dyed palster over screenwire, not exactly revolutionary.
But he is grappliing with some of the same basic issue I thought worth discssuing here. I l;ike his approach that anyone can do it, you don't need talent, you just need to apply some basic methods.
And with that, mallery pulls some hocus pocus, but essentially suggests that thinking about art as a series of crafts will carry the day.
In 1964, it probably did. Mallery basically transforms a series of artistic techniques into practical craft directions. In essence, he's "dumbed down" the art theory and left the reader with directly applicable -- and most likely succesful -- methods that are easy to apply and generally useful around a model railroad. But this sort of things worked with the relatively crude and generic models of the days.
Now the game of prototype modeling is the big leagues compared to 1964. But where is the art? Mallery could at least unabashedly refer to it, then move to less intimidating explanations that drew the reader in. Much the same thing is a staple of MR these days, but with much greater precision, concision, and far superior graphic presentation.
But in the end, art is like the poor ol' Cinderella. It's her pretty RTR sisters that are the stars of this ball, so to speak. For those who already have art talent and or training, all this may seem really obvious. For many, it's not near so obvious. After you've made the electrostatic grass stand up, what's next, so to speak? Technique only gets you so far. You also need composition, coloring, and material selection skills. For some, it's common sense. I get along well enough, although as you can tell, I'm probably not going to be anyone's art teacher.
But I did enjoy Mallery's attempt to popularize artistis talent in the form of craft skills, even though I think that subterfuge is one of the things to cause people to insist art has nothing to do with the hobby -- it's been so carefully concealed to make it accessible, it's just not very visible.
BRAKIEWhile I'm not a 100% prototype modeler I do follow the rules of believability and plausibility instead of everything and anything goes freestyle modeling.
Larry and Dusty,
Ah, here's where there's more confusion. "Believability and plausibility" can be just as important to someone taking an explicitly artistic approach as someone who thinks strictly in terms of a prototype focus. At least I think so, because that's the approach I take. If it doesn't look like it could fit in, then it probably won't work for me.
Freestyle, protolancing, whatever, aren't defined by how artistic they may happen to be. They're defined by how closely they adhere to the idea of prototype modeling. It's that ovewrriding way of thinking that I refer to in thinking about how central the idea of prototype modeling is to how people think of the hobby now. Prototype is the coin of the realm. And I see nothing wrong with that nor would I personally want to go back to modeling before that became important.
That's what I mean when I use the term hegemony. I suspect the word is a little like art and people think it has an inherently negative meaning. Not at all in how I used it earlier. It was about how the prototype has become the primary refernce point of everything else in the hobby. As I noted earlier, what I was getting at was how without taking art into consideration, people often find themselves in an unbalanced relationship with the hobby. It's not that prototype modeling is bad, it's that it's probably not the only means you want to use in evaluating how successfully you've portrayed a scene, whether the overall look of the layout breaks out of the reality that we're simply looking at miniature representations of the real, and whether or not that transports the viewer to another place and often, another time.
Most of all we want to avoid prototype modeling as the only measure of the value of our work because virtually every layout every constructed has fallen short of being an actual depiction of the prototype. By that standard, one could argue that prototype modeling as depicted by the layout has utterly failed by the standard it uses to evaluate individual models. Can't have it both ways, can we? No actually we can and do. Because most prototype modelers use various forms of art in building a layout, whether they stop and think about it or not, whether they want to publicly acknowledge or not. But we all probably know someone who is an exceptional modeler, because their work is exquisite on each individual piece, but who keeps putting off starting a layout because they can't quite come to terms with the fact they'll never have enough room to do it as a foot-by-foot model.
Sometimes just an accurate model in itself is enough to plausibly take the viewer elsewhere. Looking at one of the Rio Grande's K-class locos can often do that for me, as they are so iconic they stir up those thoughts by just being there in front of me, whether prototype or model. The protoype can obviously still be experienced in person, luckily enough, and is always located in an appropriate frame provided by the railroad around it. The model can do that, even setting on a white tablecloth in a contest or display room. But to really send that model experience into orbit, place that loco in a realistic, well-composed setting. It's not the real world and it's usually not even all that close to how the real world is arranged. My Durango is a good example of that. But when you look at it, even if you're familiar with the real Durango, you know you're "in Durango" when you first enter my layout.
It's that making prototype the only reference that many people have as a yardstick to measure their satisfaction -- and then feel they are falling short -- that I see people getting frustrated with some of what they end up seeing as the constraints of prototype modeling. They find themselves between the rock of prototype and the reality of that spare bedroom that measures 15x12 feet. You see this sort of thing all the time here in the forums with people wondering what to do, because that just can't seem to fit everything in that they'd hope their layout would be. And that's just one example of where having it recognized that the hobby is often at its most satisfying when it's recognized there is something more going on than simply copying something in minature with model railroading.
So let's pick at another term people may find irritating -- constraints. Sounds negative, right? No one likes to be constrained, true? Actually, artists voluntarily use constraints all the time. Take poetry, which is often defined very precisely in terms of the number of lines allowed, rhyming pattern, topical focus, etc. The poet writes something unique and with deep meaning for them, but it's all done within the contraints of the particular poetic form, such as a sonnet, etc.
Prototype modelers also do this. The prototype is everything in terms of a reference and becomes a constraint. But there is no one way that's really better in dealing with it as a constraint once you move away from the depiction of a singular piece of equipment, where near-molecualr accuracy can be possible these days. It'll operate on a layout that is far too short, too indoors, too lacking in all the things that make a model in itself accurate -- but somehow it often works. And the reason it works is because of art. Likewise, when people find themselves frustrated with the results after much effort -- and often, much expense -- often I'd argue it's because they haven't thought of what they are trying to do from an artistic perspective.
In the end, what is art doesn't subtract from prototype modeling, if that's your goal. Rather, art is a multiplying force when paired with prototype modeling. And I say, "if that's your goal" to acknowledge the fact that not all who are in the hobby focus on the prototype -- and that's OK, too.
Dusty Solo In some way you possibly did address, Byron’s concerns, but your accusations of hegemony are still the elephant in the room. You can’t say stuff like that about people and then spit out a hundred or so words explaining in some detail that what you really meant was something completely different. There is something about all of this that is starting to make me feel uneasy. Do you honestly believe that prototype modelers are running around like headless chickens waiting for the sage words of a guiding messiah to at last relieve us of the burden of a quandary that without your intervention would remain a problem of some magnitude and without a solution? It’s our decisions; our plans our approaches to what we want to do that is only what is important – everything else is just bovine excrement. So what are you saying in effect is that if we were to adopt techniques from the world of the artist then we would be liberated from the strict confines that we impose upon our selves as prototype modelers. Cast aside your shackles of bondage - move into the glow of enlightenment. Fantasy will set you free. I do believe that most prototype modelers, rather than adopting hegemony – remember that is how you described the position of prototype modelers in the scheme of things, follow a prototype because that is whatwe like to do. Prototype modelers undertake an extraordinary amount of research in order to learn more about the road they have chosen to model – the journey of discovery is a gratifying experience as well. Like all model railroaders, we too are, or have become out of necessity, masters of compromise. In doing so we can still maintain some of the fidelity we seek. Prototype modeling does not and probably never have meant a slavish following of every thing the prototype road did. I like and enjoy replicating, at least in spirit anyway, a miniscule portion of where my prototype operated. I do this by creating a feel. I don’t run locomotives or rolling stock that the prototype didn’t use in the time period I model – why on earth would I if it grates, or is incompatible with my modeling rational. In doing it this way I get the reward of satisfaction and of pleasure that I did what I set out to do. I look forward to you “pursuing a conversation about how the hobby has overdone the prototype paradigm” – should make for interesting reading & certainly a subject I would like to learn more about. Dusty
Hear! Hear!
While I'm not a 100% prototype modeler I do follow the rules of believability and plausibility instead of everything and anything goes freestyle modeling.
All to sadly the majority of modelers doesn't completely understand prototype modeling and few even becomes upset when a discussion about prototype modeling comes up.
Another thought..
Why worry about the term "artist" when many doesn't fully understand what a "freelance" railroad is and that its more involved then just naming one's layout.
Some even thinks freelance is "protolance" which is two different things altogether.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
IRONROOSTER BRAKIE As far as what issue..I suggest looking in the 90s issues..I no longer have those issues but,remember the editorial.IIRC it was called "The Painting Is Finished". The issue is December 2001. It was not the editorial, but a column in the back called One Reader's Opinion. This one was indeed called The Painting is Finished. It was by Chuck Hitchcock. Enjoy Paul
BRAKIE As far as what issue..I suggest looking in the 90s issues..I no longer have those issues but,remember the editorial.IIRC it was called "The Painting Is Finished".
As far as what issue..I suggest looking in the 90s issues..I no longer have those issues but,remember the editorial.IIRC it was called "The Painting Is Finished".
The issue is December 2001. It was not the editorial, but a column in the back called One Reader's Opinion. This one was indeed called The Painting is Finished. It was by Chuck Hitchcock.
Enjoy
Paul
Thanks Paul! I knew it was a column/editorial written by a guest..IIRC there was several of those columns.
Dusty Solo I see that there is a beleif alluded to in a couple of your posts that those of us who model a prototype that is date & era specific somehow beleive that we see ourselves as being superior to those who choose to freelance - true or have I a different idea as to what constitutes hegemony? I think I also read thart this state is something you wish to discuss further on the forum at some future time? You are a brave man if you do, Mike, so good luck gwith that.
I think I sorted that out in reply to Byron's objections. It's not about there's being anything deficient with prototype modeling, it's just that you may not be wholly satisfied with it on a personal level if you get everything prototypically correct, but have given little or no thought to how it will fit into the less prototypical setting that we often have to settle for in terms of our layouts.
Let me try an example. I can easily see someone wanting to build a very exacting model of an SD40 and doing it well enough to be a very satisfying experience. If that was the goal, then you're golden. But if you goal was to have a great model of a SD40 operating in a convincing model landscape, you may find following the prototype gets complicated. There's never enough room for prototypical track lengths, although maybe enough to replicate a track arrangement. Things like the backdrop, the lighting, and other design factors can present problems even if this person also happens to be pretty good at building realistic scenery.
Our models can closely follow prototypical practice. Anything other than the model, esepcially as you get farther away from the track itself, tends to be an interpretation by means of selective compression, at least, along with other forms of interpretation of what exists in real life. That's where art comes seeping in whether folks are comfortable with acknowedging that or not. All I want is to make sure art doesn't get lost in the shuffle. I understand why the concentration on prototype came about, while suggesting its not all there is to life.
But you're right, seems dangerous ground. You'd think art was spelled with 4 letters or something.
Mike. I enjoyed your response to my post. You have clearly seen through me and seen that I gave only a cursery reading of the posts before mine. Just enough to allow me to form what I beleive was a commonly held view that art is what it is. I disagreed with this view - still do actually. I now understand your rational for the use of this term, but would not call model railroaders artist by any definition that would be accepted by the wider community.
Having now corrected my hasty reading of the postings here I see that there is a beleif alluded to in a couple of your posts that those of us who model a prototype that is date & era specific somehow beleive that we see ourselves as being superior to those who choose to freelance - true or have I a different idea as to what constitutes hegemony? I think I also read thart this state is something you wish to discuss further on the forum at some future time? You are a brave man if you do, Mike, so good luck with that.
As a railroad modeler, rather than a model railroader, I genuinely beleive that there are many different ways to enjoy & experience a great deal of satisfaction with an involvement in our hobby or interest.
I forget his name now, but this modeler, superb in his design & creation of a random freeflowing interpretation of scenery & interesting possibilities was near crusified on this forum by fellow modelers who failed to understand that there are several ways to skin a cat. This modelers work was outstanding not only in its creativity but also its excecution. Yet some forum users went after this guy like he was the focus of a Salem Witch Hunt to the extent that they even entered the dingy world of characture assasination. One or two commented that even the work of George Sellios as being cartoon like. You are fooling around with live rounds when you say stuff like that on places like this.
Fortunately, very few modelers are this reactionary & are sensible, fair & wise in their critique of fellow modelers efforts that part in some way from the conventional. There is after all room in this hobby for all of us, what ever train we ride, whatever we think, beleive & do that creates something that resembles the world as we see it, or for some, how they would like it to be.
Dusty
For me, model railioading is both art and craft, as the Michael Gross video (here on this website) has stated. Model railroad for me, as I explained to my artist daughter, is my creative outlet. It is creating something unique, something that no one else has on their layout. This could be in the form of scenery, structures, or creating scenes. The craft part is, of course, the building of that creation. As for rolling stock, there is a creative and a craft side to that too. On my freelance railroad, I am creating a former Pennsylvania RR caboose into a part of the home road fleet (a Tyco conversion); basically a caboose purchased from the PRR as they went into bankruptcy in the 70's. The "home road" version is repainted and re lettered, as well as weathered to give it that "old" look. Its all part of the fun!
BRAKIEAs far as what issue..I suggest looking in the 90s issues..I no longer have those issues but,remember the editorial.IIRC it was called "The Painting Is Finished".
Well, the Ellison stuff came way before that. But MR only reported on that, they didn't put him up to it. Art has been part of the hobby since the beginning.
True, attention to prototype has been, too. For a long time, the hobby was probably more about art than it was about prototype, though. But this began changing in the 1960s (there were always those who followed prototype, but I'm talking overall hobby trends, not individual cases here). Slowly at first, but with the introduction of limited run, highly detailed RTR models, prototype modeling became the predominant focus in the hobby during the 1990s.
I think both periods were useful, important, and essential to the hobby as it exists today.Take operations, for example. Operations came out of the artistic side of things, as Ellison noted, was a lot like theater, where you go into performance as an expression or intepretation of real life. But now operations is a long-long way from its artistic roots as performance art. Operations now focuses on very specific forms of prototype uses of rules, etc. Yet at the bottom, it's still performance art of a highly sylized format. It can be and does contain elements of both art and prototype at the same time.
My argument isn't really so much about art, or about whether art or prototype are more important, etc. It's that we'll probably find that it is the balance each of us finds between the two aspects of the hobby that makes us happiest. That will be different for different people. Some lean more heavily toward the prototype aspect, others more toward artistic expression. But the graduations in between the extremes are innumerable. Rarely is anyone at either extreme. But if the whole point is to find a relaxing enjoyable hobby, then it's important to find your own preferences and comfort level between those extremes, wherever it might be in the hobby, rather than let others tell you what it should be.
PS For those who've endured this thread to now, I have a newly completed project wriiten up and posted with pics here: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/232196.aspx
It's my interpretation of the Silverton RR's "Red Mountain" combine. Built from a LaBelle kit, it's not an exact copy, rather what I think the car would look like if the line had survived and prospered into the 1960s. It's green, not red, as the narrowgauge lines made this switch during WWI under USRA rule and I assume the SRR would not have been exempt if it had been more active instead of virtually shut down at that point. It also has some additional safety devices, mainly handrails, that would have required updating if it was in regular service.
BTW, although you'll see a lot of weird stuff on my Silverton Branch, what you don't ses so far is the "Painted Train." While the Grande Gold passenger stock is interesting, my layout depicts a working RR, where tourists ride the regular trains with everyone else. Someday, I may break down and buy a string of the yellow cars, but it's not exactly a priority. I just think that green passenger stock says "we're here for the business" better than the touristy stuff.
mlehmanWhile I think Model Railroader is influential, it tends to reflect trends within the hobby, rather than start them, just like good journalism often does. I'd argue that anything appearing in MR does so because it already is of significant interest, even if not universal agreement.
Mike,I will need to disagree with that MR has pushed many changes in the hobby including the use of Nickel Silver track,metal wheels,DCC and to a degree sound if you want to look back to the early sound systems.We can't forget the 3.5mm to 1/87th-which is basically the same.Also MR pushed the use of X2F coupler as a uniform coupler then later in the 60s the push KD couplers as a modeling standard.I don't know of anybody that even heard of DCC till MR pushed it as a new controled method-I don't mean that in a bad way..The changes was good for the hobby..
MR has probably done more to modernize the hobby through infomercials then most will ever know.
Jim,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. They reflect how diverse our hobby, with art being just one aspect among many that can contribute to one's enjoyment of the hobby.
Capt. GrimekSNIP...Well, maybe, just maybe, if our hobby's nicer (beauty in the eye of the beholder) layouts get public exposure as a positive, creative art form (when that's the layout builder's goal), the truly bizzare and fictional image of a "model railroader" won't be the usual serial killers, shut ins, etc. SO often displayed in t.v. shows and movies.
Of course, some people think art leads to being a serial killer or shut-in, so this may not mollify them.
BRAKIE"Artist" is like "expert" and is use way to freely for a chest thumping feel good word that started in the pages of MR with that stupid guest editorial -"What to do when the painting is finished"...The whole editorial was about tearing the layout out once the "painting" was finished and starting anew which MR been pushing for years except the new buzz words was "artist and "painting" the guest editor used. All to sadly the word "artist" was soon used as freely as "expert".
Ummm, Larry, what year/issue was that?
While I think Model Railroader is influential, it tends to reflect trends within the hobby, rather than start them, just like good journalism often does. I'd argue that anything appearing in MR does so because it alrready is of significant interest, even if not universal agreement.
Of course, this does tend to circle back toward what I just discussed in reaction to Dusty's thoughts. I'm not arguing about what labels one chooses or does not choose to use in reference to their work in the hobby. Rather, I simply want to recognize that art skills are useful in the hobby, just as carpentry, electrical, or research skills are useful. Fundamentally, recognizing that the hobby, like art, is about self-expression empowers people to enjoy it, as well as to set their OWN standards about what pleases them.
Whether or not it makes anyone else happy is beside the point as is whether or not someone wants to call them an "artist" or not. Personally, I'm a model railroader, not an artist. Yes, model railroading is an art, as well as a hobby, a craft, and, as well all know, a money pit.... It can be all those at the same time or just one of them for others. Your choice. I understand you're not an artist, really I do.
Mike,Again I ask the simple question..
Do we need another handle in this hobby?
"Artist" is like "expert" and is use way to freely for a chest thumping feel good word that started in the pages of MR with that stupid guest editorial -"What to do when the painting is finished"...The whole editorial was about tearing the layout out once the "painting" was finished and starting anew which MR been pushing for years except the new buzz words was "artist and "painting" the guest editor used.
All to sadly the word "artist" was soon used as freely as "expert".
Dusty,
Along with others, I believe you've misunderstood that I hope to find a better understanding of how understanding art is useful in the hobby, as several other people have. Bringing art into this conversation is not about suggesting people "BE" anything other than what they already are. It's not about putting the title of "artist" in your resume. It's not about some exclusive club where only those with certain esoteric skills are admitted.
Nope, it about none of that. Which is not to say that some folks do want to explore those areas in model railroading and I'm OK with that. Doesn't bother me if someone prefers to refer to what they DO (versus what they are) as art, too.
Just to be clear, this is not about the pretense of being an artist, because my view of art is that it should NOT be an elitist endevaour. Even if you don't believe you're an artist, you most likely have art skills of several types. Rather, lt's about discovering a process to use the art skills you have more effectively and to gain those skills if you need them to be more creative and less imitative, to explore new areas of the hobby. Most of all, it's about discoverung a way to engage with the world so that one can freely express the vision of model railroading they've adopted as their own.
What the discussion about art is about is trying to explore new ways to help people creatively express their vision of model railroading. Most of the references I've cited aren't dictionary definitions of art, but model railroaders expressing how they feel art is an important aspect of model railroading. I suppose one can dismiss Ellison as long gone and irrelevant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ellison) and the narrowgauge crowd as too much of a niche for what they have to say about art, as well as they many others who have made refernce to it over the years. To ignore that evidence may not be ridiculous, but it is a bit of tunnel vision. Nothing wrong with focusing on the tunnel, but eventually all tunnels end, either in the light or in a dead end.
Some interesting thoughts written here so far on what art is. Here is my 2c worth because thats all it's really worth.
To an artist there is no such discussion nessesary or probably even thought about apart perhaps when one of them is overcome with self doubt duriing a difficult & soul wrenching period when creativity & original self expression has become barren.
The desire to define your self as an artist when clearly bulding and decorating a model railroad layout is based more on craft skill, & the manipulation of some pre-existing reality to suit a changed and specific need of the modeler.
There are many & varied skills required to produce a layout, carpentry, metal work, painting, decorating, fine motor skills & there are more. Bring these to a factory setting or in the construction of any thing from a house to live in or a skyscraper to work in you have skilled tradesmen who would never consider themselves to be artists - they are not that self delusionary.
Yet in the micro cosmic world of the layout room some modelers believe they are artists and even manipulate dictionary definitions to support that belief. Model railroad layout building does require a considerable amount of, "artwork & craftwork" the use of some of the same products artists use, thats for sure. But this here is a discussion based in semantics & the tyranny of wishful thinking. A personal redefining of something that it's not - and for why? Nothing better to think about - not enough work to do.
Look, we are modelers, train enthusiasts, with undeniable skills that can produce outstanding results or more typically something more modest. But it is what it is & no more & no less.
Earlier today my neighbor across the way was putting the finishing touches to the painting of his shed. If I had hollered out to him that he was a real artist then I'm sure the respoce to my comment would have been the dirty digit of destiny flicked at me - with paint splatters and all.
Some folks have no sense of the ridiculous eithere
One look at the books, Howard Zane's "My Life with Model Trains", "Railroading with John Allen" and "Selios's photographic collection/book" tells me quite explicitley that yes, in the hands of an "artist" Model Railroads are definitely art.
Why is this important? (one poster asked). I believe that keeping the hobby growing has to include the general pulbic's exposure and appreciation for the hobby. If Grandma Moses is "folk art" then so are well done layouts. Several "oddball" interests have created permanent interest in the general public. The N.Y. Museum of Modern Art was the lst time the work of O. Wintson Link became truly "famous". A similar exhibit and demonstration of Body Building did the same.
We cheer the making of the upcoming documentary about Model Trains in this forum but why not as an art form when appropriate? I know that due to visiting many natural history museum dioramas (some room sized) and in history museums as a kid undeniabley informs me when I try my hand at scenicking my layout.
Instead of randomly sprinkling ground foam of different colors (like a rainbow shower), placing rock coloring, vegetation in appropriate areas and trying for a color match for your castings are no different than artistic painting or sculpting in other mediums. Picking paint chips off of scratchbuilt (crafting) structues is art because of it's visual impact.
Why is this important? Well, maybe, just maybe, if our hobby's nicer (beauty in the eye of the beholder) layouts get public exposure as a positive, creative art form (when that's the layout builder's goal), the truly bizzare and fictional image of a "model railroader" won't be the usual serial killers, shut ins, etc. SO often displayed in t.v. shows and movies.
Building the layout's infrastructure (benchwork, track work, etc.) will be craft to me. Realistic scenicking will be "art/realism" for me. Always has been and always will be. Maclom Furlow (who lots of folks seem to disparage) would be art to me as well. Just not in the school of "realism". On the NMRA National tour in Sacramento I saw several layouts that were undeniably artistic achievements.
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but I can't understand why some don't see "art" entering into this at all.
Great discussion though!
Jim
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
bigpianoguyI'd have to say that yes, model railroading is also music. (which also weighs the same as a duck, which means, it's made of wood, and therefore.....A WITCH!!!)
If it walks and talks like a duck, then it is probably a duck, witches optional.
And - is it music?
A professional pianist for 40 years, I've always gone by the definition, "a collection of sounds, pleasing to the ear."
Upon reading reviews of pundits extolling the virtues of the sounds created by the latest DCC this that or the other, I'd have to say that yes, model railroading is also music.
(which also weighs the same as a duck, which means, it's made of wood, and therefore.....A WITCH!!!)
Thank you for the kind words. I really appreciate it.
Jim (with a nod to Mies Van Der Rohe)
BRAKIEMike,You miss my point..There are guide lines that one must meet before he or she becomes a MMR..Shouldn't the same ring true for becoming a model railroad artist or MRA or " model railroad expert or MRE for short"? Do we really need more tags when nobody can agree on MMR? Sure its not needed to enjoy the hobby but,still the mere mention of the steps required to become a MMR upsets a lot of folks.
Do we really need more tags when nobody can agree on MMR? Sure its not needed to enjoy the hobby but,still the mere mention of the steps required to become a MMR upsets a lot of folks.
Larry,
I was just kidding about art being a new AP category. Like prototype modeling itself, attention to it is implicit in much of the work associated with getting a MMR.
I think the NMRA has no problem agreeing about what a MMR is; it's spelled out pretty clearly. And if learning how much work it is to gain MMR after your name is upsetting or discouraging to someone, then the MMR is probably not for them.
It's a hobby, called model railroading.... but that's just my opinion, as they say "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."
SP&S modeler, 1960's give or take a decade or two for some equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SGTDUPREY?feature=guide
Gary DuPrey
N scale model railroader
I wonder whether the division between Art and Craft are as clearly defined as some of you think? Who's definition is being used and why are they considered the expert on the topic? Why does the difference need to be so clearly defined.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
up831The stage is not exact and as one progresses farther from the tracks, the less the prototype dimensions can be maintained...What looks right is not necessarily dimensionally correct. That is where art comes in. Art and craft are both compatible. Art is simply another tool we use to create our scale worlds.
Well, circles take you back to good things, as well as less satisfying ones. I'm at the age where I have to circle a thought several times to figure out what I'm going to say about it, then try to remember what I was going to say in the first place. Probably is what's taken this discussion so long to get to critical mass, but well worth it. Thanks for hanging in there and helping with several great contributions!
I think you've got a very good, utilitarian definition of where art fits into the hobby. Keeps it simple so people understand we're not talking about something really new or unexpected, but just getting a more satisfying grasp on skills already present or easily learnable.
IRONROOSTERAn expert is someone who has acquired knowledge or skills that the average person does not have. An artist is one who does art, whether expertly or ineptly or average. Paul
Paul,True,But,who appoints the experts after they have been known to be wrong?
Artist in modeling is is just another feel good expression like "One of our customer service/technical "experts" will be right with you to answer your concerns."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike,You miss my point..There are guide lines that one must meet before he or she becomes a MMR..Shouldn't the same ring true for becoming a model railroad artist or MRA or " model railroad expert or MRE for short"?