I think there's a perception problem here. Calling building a boxcar, locomotive, station, scenery, layout, etc art is an identification thing - not a quality thing. Your 5 year who draws a crayon picture of Santa Claus and a Christmas tree is doing art. Doesn't mean it will hang in a gallery or be bought for vast sums of money. So it is with your layout - it may not be considered a masterpiece or sell for any money, but it is art.
It seems to me some people are offended by being identified as an artist - i.e one who does art. Probably because there some negative associations with being an artist.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTERIt seems to me some people are offended by being identified as an artist - i.e one who does art. Probably because there some negative associations with being an artist. Enjoy Paul
Maybe its because of the "starving artist" sales?
Maybe the word "artist" is like the word "expert" and is used way to freely for puffing up of the chest for that feeling superior mode?
But,get right down to the nitty gritty,it doesn't matter one iota in the grand scheme of life.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
As far as art, I tend to follow Supreme Court justice Stewart's thoughts on pornography - "I know it when I see it."
And when I see a representation of our world spun out of someone's mind into plaster and plastic, as are 99% of model railroads, I'd have to say I see it.
And to the rivet-counting, prototype-worshipping types who disdain other modeling styles, I have to say "Sure, you put a scale toilet in the men's room of your station. But does it actually flush? If not, you've missed a very important part of the prototype!"
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
Never mind.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama Never mind.
That's OK, Byron, yoou don't have to tell us what you really think...
I was anticipating whatever you might say, because I think track planning is one of the aspects of model railroading that is an art specific to the hobby. That is to say, it's not an art more generally practiced and simply incorporated into the hobby, but actually an art that is integral to model railroading. An example of a non-model railroad art would be backdrop painting. It's pretty much the same set of artistic skills for a layout backdrop as for a landscape painting, although there are some model railroad specific aspects that are good to know, like dealing with the transition from 2D to 3D.
One model railroad specific art is weathering. Sure there are other modeling disciplines that use weathering, like armor models, but IIRC weathering originated in model railroading and spread outward from there. And it's fairly pervasive now. You can even buy custom and factory-produced weathered models. I suppose there a few who might disagree, but I think it'd be a difficult to argue with the assertion that a sophisticated weathering project requires some art skills.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
tgindy Crocodile Dundee's Quote: "Now, that's a knife!" Graffen's air brush scenery to Mozart's "Requiem" suggests art to the art! Thus, in model railroading, each in our own way, we bring something special to the layout.
Crocodile Dundee's Quote: "Now, that's a knife!"
Graffen's air brush scenery to Mozart's "Requiem" suggests art to the art! Thus, in model railroading, each in our own way, we bring something special to the layout.
Thanks for seeing it for what it might be.
:-)
For me, model railroading is an extension to my artistic expression. The mix of Art & crafts makes it very enjoyable indeed.
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
mlehmanbut I think it'd be a difficult to argue with the assertion that a sophisticated weathering project requires some art skills.
And what is far more important is a good eye for detail and researching the proper type of freight car and locomotive weathering for the era you model..
Now overlooking modelers with handicaps and those lacking the needed skills I've seen some weathering that was was laughable and would make a child's kindergarten painting look like a Michelangelo painting.Again research is needed for the proper weathering for the era you model.
So,researching the era you model for proper weathering is far more important then calling yourself a "artist" by smearing paint on a model and calling it weathering in the ( oh say) 1950s.
A pondering thought cross my mind since some seems to want a title in the hobby and in that light should we be called reseachers before artist? Or should we be called "Advanced modelers"?
Again I submit getting right down to the nitty gritty,it doesn't matter one iota in the grand scheme of life.
BRAKIE Or should we be called "Advanced modelers"?
How about "Professors of Ferroequinology majoring in General Dogs Bodyness".
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
BRAKIE Or should we be called "Advanced modelers"? How about "Professors of Ferroequinology majoring in General Dogs Bodyness".
BRAKIESo,researching the era you model for proper weathering is far more important then calling yourself a "artist" by smearing paint on a model and calling it weathering in the ( oh say) 1950s.
Larry,
This is not about calling yourself an artist or even calling what you create art. It's simply recognizing a specific area of skills that are useful in the hobby just about everyone has already, if they can just discover and put them to work. I mean, what else are you going to call these skills, "bort"?
Nah, we already have a name for it, art. It's something we see in daily life, but often don't recognize, and it's something anyone can do, although they often don't recognize these skills as artistic or as universal as they really are. If anything, my way of looking at art means the "label" of artist either means nothing or everything. Being an artist doesn't exalt you over anyone else, because everyone else is an artist, too.
In fact, trying to not see art that's already part of model railroading is like trying to play football and avoid talking about alhletics. "So how do I score, coach? Oh, you just wander down in that direction and try to avoid people hitting you. Good luck." That would likely lead to a short coaching career.
I'm just suggesting it would be useful to talk as openly about the place of art in model railroading as we do operations, track planning, prototype research, all the skills in the various MMRs, etc. Why? because it encoruages people to try new things. I'd never painted a backdrop, let anything of significance since some water colors in maybe 4th grade, except for barns, bins, and the occasional room. Yet once I overcame my reluctance, it was a good experience. No, it's not photographic quality or even the best of other painted backdrops. But it does set the scene and I did it myself.
Yes, you, too, might be an artist, but I'm not gonna force you to confess...
mlehmanI'd never painted a backdrop, let anything of significance since some water colors in maybe 4th grade, except for barns, bins, and the occasional room. Yet once I overcame my reluctance, it was a good experience. No, it's not photographic quality or even the best of other painted backdrops. But it does set the scene and I did it myself.
Painting a backdrop is probably the only real art in modeling since one needs to paint a landscape.
However.
Could that become a lost art in the future as modelers turn to photographic backdrops?
Maybe instead of model railroading being a "art" maybe its more like a stage play and we are the set directors?
BRAKIEMaybe instead of model railroading being a "art" maybe its more like a stage play and we are the set directors?
Well, that's what Frank Ellison thought and he's about as close to the first caveman that the modern hobby has. And theater is part of the arts, so yeah, fits like a glove.
There's certainly an art and a number of different styles of operations. It could be argued that's all derived from RR-research and that would be true. What I would note is that all are adaptations and interpretations of the real thing that emphasize the creativity of those who develop and use them. That's art, too.
Painting is not the only expression of art in model railroading. To stick with that definition is to deny sculpting, jewelry, music, dance, and the list goes on. What I believe Mike is trying to say is that we apply the elements and principles of art into our model railroads on a daily basis whether we are aware of it or not.
Why do we revere John Allen and the Gorre & Dapheted so greatly? Is it solely because of good modeling? Why do we hold Malcolm Furlow and his layout in such high regard? It is because of not only superb modeling, but also the application of artistic principles to create a scene. There's no denying, they created very charismatic scenes. So does Lou Sassi In his superb modeling.
That gentlemen, is a standard of excellence for us all to strive for in our modeling. Leonard Bernstein once said that ability plus training = talent. You don't have to be great at weathering right out of the gate, but with practice and study, no doubt you will become much better at it. If we are to learn about perspective, principle lines, focal points, and the other elements of art and apply them, our modeling will become much better. We have to remember that space requirements force us to compress and adapt models into the scene. What in real life is a yard 1 1/2 miles long, we would be fortunate to get 10 feet out of it. That compression creates impression and that's art.
if anyone has access to the MR DVD, there's an article in the May 1962 issue on the layout of an artist named Francis LeJaques. It's fascinating reading, well, it was for me at least. It will drive the rivet counters nuts because his rivets were painted on the rolling stock. Nothing about his layout was real, but it gave the impression of reality and was quite effective.
Jim (with a nod to Mies Van Der Rohe)
mlehmanWhat I would note is that all are adaptations and interpretations of the real thing that emphasize the creativity of those who develop and use them. That's art, too.
Ok.Sounds fair..That would make several locomotive designers "artist" would it not-looking at the streamliners both steam and diesel?
I dunno I always felt more of a creator then a artist since I use my hands to build things instead of using a canvas,paint and brushes like a artist would.
You an call it what ever you want, all that matter is that you are having fun. Could you consider model railroading art? Sure, you sculpt and paint, and build things that are pleasing to look at.
Personally, I likeconversations/debates that require high levels of thinking, but this subject seem to not really matter. I would much rather build a model than debate about what should we call it.
I want to show the series of changes in Red Mountain as what I would call an art process refined how the town looked. Some things were already set. There was limited space but still more than the prototype had. I a Campbell Red Mountain Mine and it was easy to scratchbuild the station from plans in The Rainbow Route.
The wye at the heart of this section of track is a key element of the prototype and the model. The wye's location dictates what fits around it. The line from Silverton and Chattanooga comes in on one leg of the wye via a tunnel tucked under Animas Forks above. It continues through past the depot an on to Ironton, if you want to simulate that. In reality, it loops back to Silverton underneath the stairway landing, then emerges from the tunnel that represents the Silverton, Glastone and Northerly on one leg of the Silverton wye. In practice, I usually stage a train on that loop, but can also use it for break in running. This pic is very early in the scenicking process.
The third leg of the loop goes past downtown Red Mountain to the Mother Jones Mine & Mill, actually going through the room wall adjacent to the door to the train room.
From this angle, you can see the Mother Jones Mill spans the track to exit where you saw the other side in the hallway in the earlier pic.
{more later]
Been a busy day, so just now getting back to this thread...
As you can see Red Mountain was a rather barren place at first. The trees helped some. But punching the hole through the wall, as small and limited as it was, made all of Red Mountain seem bigger. The objective in punching the hole was to gain just enough length in the wye stub to permit turning a three-car passenger train. When the track ended at the wall, a two car train didn't quite fit. So well worth the effort for that alone.
Looking in the other direction, the town seems to grow bit by bit. The petro dealer's tanks sit by one end of the track, but are separated from where coal was unloaed, owned by the same outfit.
You can also see the site of the depot inside the wye. This was another key element for making Red Mountain plausible, along with the wye and the National Belle Mine. After that, the rest of what I've modeled is not a representation of Red Mountain, but what Red Mountain would be like in 1970 maybe. Thus the need for some artistic license, modeler's license, or whatever.
Note also that all turnouts except the far wye turnout (with a Tortoise) in Red Mountain use Caboose Industries mground throws. That means you have to be cautious about maintaining space to reach in for throwing turnouts as well uncoupling cars when building things in Red Mountain. So no matter what look or atmosphere I was trying to achieve, I still needed to be aware of the physical context. Art is not a substitute for basic crafts and skills or good planning.
Even though virtually new, urban renewal came quickly in Red Mountain...
At first, I wanted to to Main St along the aisle, to really show things off. But looking in all those empty windows reminded me that interiors and lighting were still needed. Traffic also didn't seem to flow very naturally to the National Belle and the station. So as you can see, I turned the street plan 90 degrees. Suddenly I had Main St. and Station St, that ends up at the now-built station. Because I couldn't directly see into most of the buildings, the lack of interiors was not so sorely felt, especially after I started lighting the buildings...
The knobs control the turnouts.
Lots on the art and science of lighting for night effects in my thread, The Night Scene. Yes, some of it is calculations, but after you get the electrical basics down right, you'll quickly enjoy the creative aspects of night lighting.
All that construction was starting to get in the way of reaching in. So I converted the 4 turnouts in this area of town to throws built from blue electrical boxes and household electrical switches. This gave me some artistic flexibility in terms of where building could go...
to be continued...
Mike,Not wanting to rain on your "art" parade but,what I am seeing is some mighty nice miniature structures laid out in normal town fashion.
I like that full moon night photo of the town...That photo can easily be classified as fine art photography.
Glad you liked the picture. Sometimes I don't have to try very hard and photography is one area where just having good looking scenes makes the art part easy.
BRAKIEMike,Not wanting to rain on your "art" parade but,what I am seeing is some mighty nice miniature structures laid out in normal town fashion.
Odd as it might sound, the impression of "normal" is what I'm trying to achieve here. While some might take a tangent that leans more towards the impressionistic in terms of art, my particular approach is to make things look "normal" -- including some things that were not actually "real."
And I was babbling a bit from insomnia, too. I see I repeated a pic, so will clean that up now. Trust me, we're still laying things out. I'll also try to be as clear as possible about what constutues art amongst all the other skills and concepts and how it relates to them. Sorta going that direction above, but there's still more to come.
My main point so far is that you start with identifying the critical elements that make a scene readily recognizable and do your best to depict them. In a sense, it's a little like Tony Koester's layout design elements, but arrives there from a different direction I think. Tony puts the emphasis on incorporating as much of the actual track layout, structures, etc as possible, i.e. fairly straightforward prototype modeling. This helps create the sense of place that you try to achieve by depicting as many features of what you're modeling as possible.
My approach is more minimalist, in that once a minimum critical mass of features provides the sense of place, then you're much freer to adapt things so that they work to depict that scene you want in the available space. So Tony takes the angle that you want to avoid the "shoehorn" in squeezing in features -- give them the space they need. My approach harks back to before prototype modeling, where best utilization of space remains a very big issue like it is for most of us.
Maybe the best example overall of what I'm talking about is the path not taken here. If I'd gone to a strict LDE arrangement, there would be a lot less track in the room. The layout would likely stretch from Silverton up to just one desitination, Red Mountain or Animas Forks, instead of both. Everything from Silverton back to Durango and the standard gauge that serves Durango would be gone. Yes, each station of what I would've modeled then could have been done in deep, realistic detail. I suspect it would've been a bit of a snooze to operate, because you'd really only need two operators, max, one for the road and one to work the yard. Trains could come and go into Silverton from staging, but all that works only in your imagination, because you don't see that on the layout itself.
Instead, I wanted a "busier" line, but to the same locations. This provides a much greater amount of traffic simply by representing what would've occurred only in staging and then adding in more "destinations" in terms of industries and supporting track (like my 4-track yard in Silverton.) The prototype is still providing guidance, but it's more like the outline of the novel, rather than the novel itself, to use an art metaphor. The result is a much busier RR. Now some may say I should've just picked a busier line and modeled that. Well, sure, that's how others do it and that's OK, but it's not how I do it.
A few have remarked that art is not exactly a new concept in model railroading and they certainly are right about that. The mention of Ellison speaks to that.
I suppose my take on it is that we don't emphasize the creative aspects of the hobby so much now that prototype modeling has become such a hegemonic idea. Nothing against the rise of reference to the real at all from this quarter, as I've been one now for about three decades in following the Rio Grande. But I think we leave creative coin on the table with the tremendous strides made in recent times with our models if we don't provide the best context for them to be seen and appreciated in.
That's where art comes in. In my opinion, we should emphasize art as much as we do the prototype, because we can't simply model the landscape a RR runs through 1:1. The layout itself ALWAYS is about the effective application of art, except for those rare case where someone has managed to model some shortline foot-by-foot, obviously the exception that demonstrates just how ironclad that rule otherwise is for most of us who have less space than we "need" -- or would at least like to have.
As support for my argument for how basic art skills, even if one doesn't consider themselves an artist in any way, I was skimming through a copy of the Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette's first issue I added to my collection this week thanks to a friend when I came across this, essentially a mission statement if you will, as part of the very first words out of the Gazette's staff in the March 1975 issue...
The staff of The Gazette welcomes you aboard.
For those of us who prefer the narrow gauge lines or the short line scene we dedicate The Gazette.
We feel modeling is a valid form or artistic self expression as well as darn good fun.
I couldn't agree more, about artistic expression through model railroading and, if that's not your cup of tea, then just have fun with it, no need to make it complex if that's what art sounds like to you.
mlehmanThat's where art comes in. In my opinion, we should emphasize art as much as we do the prototype, because we can't simply model the landscape a RR runs through 1:1. The layout itself ALWAYS is about the effective application of art, except for those rare case where someone has managed to model some shortline foot-by-foot, obviously the exception that demonstrates just how ironclad that rule otherwise is for most of us who have less space than we "need" -- or would at least like to have.
I would never call modeling the Rockies and then calling them the Appalachians yet,I seen model railroad "artist" try to pull that off..Never happen two different mountains.
A model artist could never get by with modeling the foot hills of the Appalachians and saying they're the Appalachians.
So,maybe we need a guide line on what qualifies a modeler as a "artist".
Building and weathering craftsmen structure kits fails that test.Hand laylaying track,yup another fail.Weathering a brass engine nope..Building a fantasy layout like the G&D? Nope.
If we must use the term "artist" let's not use it as freely as we do "expert".
BRAKIE let's not use it as freely as we do "expert".
"Expert". Someone bought in from overseas at great expense to tell us what we all ready know and have been practising, with refinements.
I had decided to just let this thread go, and probably should have stayed with that decision. But since the thinly veiled swipes at folks who model from the prototype have been revived, I’ll make one post to correct some repeated misconceptions -- and then I won’t be back.
mlehman we don't emphasize the creative aspects of the hobby so much now that prototype modeling has become such a hegemonic idea
That’s not correct on two levels: 1) There are still many people doing freelance, even fantasy layouts. One can see this in what is posted here, in what is printed in magazines, and for myself, in the number of clients who want layout designs of this type. Some are skillfully done, others not, but people are having fun with them. There obviously is not a “hegemony” of prototype modeling today (hegemony is defined as: preponderant influence or authority over others)
2) Beautiful modeling and striving for prototype authenticity are not mutually exclusive at all, as many posts on this thread seem to assert. Jack Burgess’ Yosemite Valley is perhaps the truest-to-the-prototype layout ever built – and it is beautifully modeled. The same for Lance Mindheim’s previous N scale Monon – and many others. (Lance’s current work is great, too, but it deals with a slightly seamier time and place that is perhaps not so aesthetically attractive.)
mlehman If I'd gone to a strict LDE arrangement, there would be a lot less track in the room.
IMHO, that's a canard. Modeling from the prototype or using LDEs doesn’t mean everything is scaled down mechanically. Fine layouts representing the prototype in many ways can be built in the same space as freelance layouts -- and are. Just as with freelance layouts, decisions are made about selective compression and areas of focus.
Colorado_MacAnd to the rivet-counting, prototype-worshipping types who disdain other modeling styles, I have to say "Sure, you put a scale toilet in the men's room of your station. But does it actually flush? If not, you've missed a very important part of the prototype!"
The “prototype modelers pushed me down and took my lunch money” meme is tired, dude. But I recognize that everyone likes to play the victim. The vast majority of prototype-focused modelers are zeroed-in on what they are modeling and could not care much less about what you are doing (the vast majority of freelance modelers are the same way). The flushing toilet thing is, IMHO, reductio ad absurdum
mlehmanIn particular, I want to give people who will generally still be prototype modelers the skills to decide what to do
Most people I know who are prototype-focused already have a lot of skills and understanding -- I wouldn't think that they need you to "give" them anything.
Carry on.
From Jack Burgess' website:
From Lance's N scale Monon:
Byron,
Sorry you've taken things that way. My intent is certainly not to argue that prototype modeling is a bad thing. I think it's a very good thing. I'm just struck at how many times prototype modelers come along and semingly feel they need to "ask permission" to do things a certain way, bemoaning the fact there's not enough space for this or that, or someone doesn't make the model of the one car they need to make-up a certain passenger train...
They're stuck at a point where all you can really say is, "Are you going to let that stop you or are you going to adapt, build, create, intepret..."
If anything, it's about not being a victim, rather it's about empowering people to do what pleases them in creating a layout or a model.
Really, they already even know the solution sometimes, but want to sorta run it by folks in the hopes of avoiding the dreaded by thankfully as far as I can tell mythical "prototype police."
Sure that's a bit of a straw man, but it's not so much there as the equally mythical example of what's "bad" about prototypical modeling as it is as a point of discussion. There's nothing bad about prototype modeling. I engage in it myself.
None of the people you cited seem to have that problem. I would agree it's because they have those skills already. But what about those who don't and who keep coming to the "Well of Prototype Modeling" and thing don't quite click with what they're doing?...It might just be because they haven't found a way to incorporate self-expression, as well as faithful replication, into their barrel of tricks.
Ultimately, that's all I'm talking about here, trying to avoiding finding ourselves at a creative deadend, because we are trying to do something soemone else's way, rather than our own.
Now, as for as some of the more outlandsih concepts you cited, I hope you're not throwing cold water on folks who find that's their cup of tea. It's not mine, I prefer a more realistic approach, but I don't see anything objectionable about what they do, either.
It is rather surprising the amount of antipathy there is in talking about model railroading and art. Maybe we need to understand that better before we can gain much benefit in talking about art itself?
Despite his feeling I'm somehow trying to set art up in opposition to prototype modeling, Byron's comments are really useful in helping me define further what I'm trying to get across. Just to be clear again, one is not in competition with the other, superior to the other, or -- least of all -- that one could replace the other. The two aspects of model railroading, emphasis on prototype fidelity and the artistic interpretation of it by the modeler, are in fact are dependent on each other in creating a believable layout for most people. They are the yin and yang of model railroad modeling, not the Sgt. Snorkle and Private Beetle
Trying to avoid being too philosophical about this, as I suspect it's not really useful here even if I could do a better job of explaining it. Maybe it's my own lack of formal art training. The last art class I took was in 8th grade and I decided to take jewelry making because you could learn the art of silver soldering, which I thought could come in useful adding brass details. I guess the teacher must've slipped me one of those art pods which has got me babbling about it 40+ years later.
One thing that Byron's comments helped me with was locating where art is in model railroading. A little bit of everywhere, really. To simplify it a little, though, I'd argue that art on the layout becomes a stronger influence the farther away one is from the actual railroad models. There's only so much art you can do with a UP Big Boy, for instance, although there were a few, such as weathering, etc. Good drawings, pic, books, video, etc about these locos have been written in great depth.
But once you get that exquisite, prototypically detailed loco on your layout, things around the model become less distinct, more impressionistic, more open to intrepretation. Minimum radius and ability to handle the grades must be taken into account even if your prototype would handle things easily. And that's just the start of dozens of decisions one has to make, to "compromise" in order to be able to build what you will. It's those compromises, done in good taste, that constitute art in the prototype modeling environment we live in now.
Here's another working argument to consider... Art in model railroading is what happens when the prototype doesn't have a clear answer. Just in terms of what we model directly -- railroads -- there are reallife examples of things where pics of one side of something are missing and no other info exists.
There are also all the many cases where things that fit in reallife must be boiled down to fit the final printed page and between those two columns holding the house up. Many may not want to confront the fact that this sort of selective compression, rearrangement, or modifiction is more closekly akin to art than the strict prototype modeling regime many aspire to embrace. It's there notheless, hard at work in their own hands, even if many refuse to name the tool they're obviously using.
cuyamacuyama wrote the following post 10 hours ago: mlehman: "we don't emphasize the creative aspects of the hobby so much now that prototype modeling has become such a hegemonic idea..." That’s not correct on two levels: 1) There are still many people doing freelance, even fantasy layouts. One can see this in what is posted here, in what is printed in magazines, and for myself, in the number of clients who want layout designs of this type. Some are skillfully done, others not, but people are having fun with them. There obviously is not a “hegemony” of prototype modeling today (hegemony is defined as: preponderant influence or authority over others)
mlehman: "we don't emphasize the creative aspects of the hobby so much now that prototype modeling has become such a hegemonic idea..."
It's really important here to recognize that my using the word hegemony was an observation, rather than a condemnation (although plenty do that in criticizing the situation, but generally not me.) Certainly, there are still lots of people who aren't governed by prototypical intrepretation about much of anything. Hegemony, after all, is only preponderant and not absolute.
On the other hand, one need only look at the offerings by vendors today to see that prototype hegemony exists as the governing paradigm in the hobby. When was the last time a major vendor brought out a generic car of just about any type, except for the tinplate market? Not many any more, they generally are painted and detailed to reflect a specific car accurately. People complain when a car shows up painted in colors it never wore. We're definitely not in bluebox land any more.
Look in MR at even the most basic article and there is almost always some refrence to the prototype. That's a good thing IMO. However, let's consider the chap who is an aspiring prototype modeler who somehow intreprets this to mean that the inevitable compromises necessary in building a layout represent a failure to follow the prototype faithfully. They're not a failure, in fact they are small successes in keeping a project alive when they are finally made, making it possible to accurately model some _portions_ of actual operations. That in and of itself is a great net positive, as one can only rarely portray ALL operations. What remains is an interpretation of actual operations. The same thing with the train. There might be an appropriate group of motive power associated with each train, but only rarely is a train of the same length and composition as the prototype ones are. Same thing with structures, water features, etc. Then there are the mountains...no way are the San Juans gonna fit.
All of that has to be interpreted by the modeler in a believable way, with a set of facts that varies widely between each station. Even if you want to avoid art entirely, it's just not possibble. Art comes in handy when applying what you know about the prototype to your modeling.
mlehman Even if you want to avoid art entirely, it's just not possibble. Art comes in handy when applying what you know about the prototype to your modeling.
Not exactly.
Consider.
When I hired on as a brakeman I was taught how to become a efficient trainman not a artist we emulate this in our prototypical operation.
Again the closest we are to being a artist is painting our backdrops anything else is folly.
Who is to say we are "artist"? Nobody,since there is no set standards like there is in becoming a MMR..
Artist is like using "expert" as chest thumping feel good that is used way to freely these days.
seems like art is being used very narrowly to describe efforts to create something appealing to our sensesthat can't be created mechanically or have any practical use, such as painting and music.I believe the emphasis should be on created mechanically, not the practical usage. Is it art if anyone could do it by following the directions in a book. How many modelers who have no problem with scenery but have difficulty with electronics which is pretty cut and dry?I believe art includes the ability to creatively solve problems. And I believe this applies to many aspects of model railroadingfrom benchwork, electronics, trackplan, ... to designing scenes within the layout using compression and actually creating the scene, ...
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Could it be that we are going round in circles?
There will be no affirmative answer to what model railroading actually is. For my taste, Graffen has summed it up quite nicely - model railroading is an enjoyable mix of art and crafts.
Graffen btw is a custom painter and airbrush artist ...
BRAKIE ... Who is to say we are "artist"? Nobody,since there is no set standards like there is in becoming a MMR. ...
...
Who is to say we are "artist"? Nobody,since there is no set standards like there is in becoming a MMR.
And who is to say we are not an artist? Just as you don't need an MMR to be a model railroader, you don't need some organization to declare you are an artist to be one.
BRAKIE ... Artist is like using "expert" as chest thumping feel good that is used way to freely these days.
An 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.