All Hail John Allen!

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

I'm told these are quite comfortable.

Ah -

Chairs with artistic elements. How nice.

[:o)]

ROFLMAO!

Expertly crafted words--one would almost call them artistic.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

I'm told these are quite comfortable.

Ah -

Chairs with artistic elements. How nice.

[:o)]

[SpaceMouse]

I'm told these are quite comfortable.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

this is a chair, designed purely to be looked at, built as a design philosophy statement..in other words as a piece of Art.[:D]

And so it's not a chair, but a representation of a chair. I agree - a work of art. You've made my argument for me. Thank you.[;)]

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

We could dance some more but not much point.

Look out Indy!

Yup. But I certainly enjoyed the discussion! Thanks!!

Now what else can we disagree about.......

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon

Why cannot a chair be a piece of art? Simply because it has a function other than simply to exist? Who said the function of art is simply to exist? I may be way off base here, but I have always thought that art exists because it enhances the human experience. As for the criticism that a Shaker chair is simply a chair, it's like saying El Greco's "Death Of The Count Of Orgaz" is simply pigment on canvas or that Michelangelo's "David" is simply a chunk of carved marble.

A chair is something upon which one sits. It may be artfully done or decorated, but it's still a chair. How is saying a chair is just a chair a criticism? If I say that you don't know how to use the word properly, that's a criticism (and not a potshot - please don't take it as such). Saying a chair is a chair, regardless of what kind of chair it is, isn't. Your analogies to art and my statment about the chair are woefully flawed, and completely inapplicable. Those artworks were created as art. A chair is created to place one's**** upon.

I beg to differ, look at this:


If you look at it you think "chair 'cause it looks like one"

If you sit in it, you think "scuplture 'cause it sure wasnt designed to be sat in"

If you manage to get out of it you think "Spanish Inquisition, cause of all the bruises you got sitting in it"

this is a chair, designed purely to be looked at, built as a design philosophy statement..in other words as a piece of Art.[:D]

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Instead of saying what I think is not art, I'll see if I can put what I think is art.

Art to me is anything that is something created with an intended audience (that includes oneself) with the purpose of evoking a response whether that be emotional, mental (as in thought provoking) or as in the case model railroading an illusion of realism like a landscape painting. In other words, it stimulates or guides the imagination. A chair can be functional when you sit in it, or it can be art, if it makes you think or feel.

OK.

I understand something of what you see as art. Hopefully by this time you understand something of what I consider art. Hm. Not quite the same. I'm fine with it if you are. [8D]

How 'bout them Steelers?

We could dance some more but not much point.

Look out Indy!

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Instead of saying what I think is not art, I'll see if I can put what I think is art.

Art to me is anything that is something created with an intended audience (that includes oneself) with the purpose of evoking a response whether that be emotional, mental (as in thought provoking) or as in the case model railroading an illusion of realism like a landscape painting. In other words, it stimulates or guides the imagination. A chair can be functional when you sit in it, or it can be art, if it makes you think or feel.

OK.

I understand something of what you see as art. Hopefully by this time you understand something of what I consider art. Hm. Not quite the same. I'm fine with it if you are. [8D]

How 'bout them Steelers?

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon

Why cannot a chair be a piece of art? Simply because it has a function other than simply to exist? Who said the function of art is simply to exist? I may be way off base here, but I have always thought that art exists because it enhances the human experience. As for the criticism that a Shaker chair is simply a chair, it's like saying El Greco's "Death Of The Count Of Orgaz" is simply pigment on canvas or that Michelangelo's "David" is simply a chunk of carved marble.

A chair is something upon which one sits. It may be artfully done or decorated, but it's still a chair. How is saying a chair is just a chair a criticism? If I say that you don't know how to use the word properly, that's a criticism (and not a potshot - please don't take it as such). Saying a chair is a chair, regardless of what kind of chair it is, isn't. Your analogies to art and my statment about the chair are woefully flawed, and completely inapplicable. Those artworks were created as art. A chair is created to place one's**** upon.

QUOTE: The funny thing is, you've got yourself into a logical bind. If a work of art can be functional, then it has a purpose other than simple existence. Is the cathedral at Chartres any less a work of art because it's not only used for worship services, that was its original purpose? Or the Duomo in Florence. Or, for that matter, St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Logical bind? Hardly. The cathedrals are beautiful, to be sure (I haven't seen them in person, but I have seen photos and programs about them). They are not art; they are simply beautifully adorned with art. If they were simple shacks with no adornment, they would still be what they basically are - places of worship. (Don't take that to mean I don't think they're beautiful).

QUOTE: The modern "Ars Gratia Artis" (art for art's sake) delusion is just that; a delusion. It may work as MGM's motto, but it obscures the fact that MGM never made movies just for the sake of making movies, they made and still make movies to make money (Ars Gratia Pecuniae - art for the sake of money - would be a truer slogan).

I agree with the part about MGM's motto, so at least we're in the same solar system here!

QUOTE: I've been fortunate to have traveled extensively and to have visited the cathedrals mentioned above, not to mention the galleries of the Prado in Madrid, the Uffizi in Florence and the Louvre in Paris. As I recall, every work of art I saw in those galleries was done on commission for some patron. IOW, not one of those works of art was done simply that they might exist. They were done so that the artist could earn his daily bread so that he could go on existing.

Sidebar - I envy your travels. I have not travelled near enough. Back to topic - Let's think about your statement a little. The artist took the commissions to live, yes, but why? So he could create art! The fact that the art is created as a collaboration - "create this art and I'll make sure you don't starve this month" or whatever doesn't render it not art. And consider this - why did the patron commission the works? To make sure the artist didn't starve? Probably not the reason, in most cases. - he did it because he wanted the piece. The art exists because someonewanted it to exist. "Ars Gratia Artis."

QUOTE: And just to make this a bit more on topic, yes, the color scheme on a locomotive can be a work of art. Santa Fe's Warbonnet scheme certainly was.

And here we really have the crux of the whole thing - opinion. Personally, I think the Warbonnet scheme is not very attractive, and is certainly not art. I won't tell you what I think of the moniker by which it's known. But that's my view, as is everything else I've said here. I've tried to explain my view because your post indicated that you don't understand it. I'm not trying to make you adopt my view or change yours in any way. I've drawn some pretty fine lines between what is and what is not art, I know, and if you draw those lines differently, I'm not at all disturbed by that.

[bcammack]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

For all you "artist" out there how much did your last layout sell for?
I would like to see correct answers when the question is ask again about selling a layout since 99% of the replies will be a layout as a rule can't be sold.Art? Not hardly.At least you can sell art...Model railroading is not nor has it ever been a art.Sadly that is more crap from the pages of MR that was sallow hook,line and sinker.

Not all art has a dollar sign associated with it. Art is not inextricably tied to commerce. Conversely, has a layout never been sold? If layouts have been sold, then by which what metric were they sold?

Art, religion, and pornography are all subjective. What is one man's art, pornography, or religion is another man's belly-laugh.

[MidlandPacific]

QUOTE: "and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon" ...Old Yiddish saying

I hate to be a casuist, but she'd actually be a lady with wheels.

[SpaceMouse]

And if it quacks like a duck...you might be a redneck.

Uh, did I get that right?

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger



I mean, a velvet Yoda is bad, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't art.

"and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon" ...Old Yiddish saying
[;)][:p][:D]

You could just as easily say, "And if that wagon shared some DNA with me, it'd be my grandmother".[:D][:D][:D]

Andre

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger



I mean, a velvet Yoda is bad, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't art.

"and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon" ...Old Yiddish saying
[;)][:p][:D]

[MidlandPacific]

Disagree: I think the real difference is between good art and bad art.

I mean, a velvet Yoda is bad, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't art.

[SpaceMouse]

vsmith,

While I certainly agree with your taste, I'm not sure bad art equals not art. Incidentally, I am a big Van Gogh fan.

[vsmith]

In the simplest terms...

ART





NOT ART

[dwRavenstar]

I don't know beans from BS about art so I have nothing to add to that discussion. Shoot, I can barely draw a bath let alone a realistic image.

Back to the JA debacle and the statements that others added as much if not more to the hobby...............

Mayhaps a lot of his celebrity is owed to exposure, or over exposure if that's your opinion and others had as much talent and insight but didn't draw the same crowd because they didn't like crowds.

What if Dennis Rader had kept his mouth shut? We'd still be talking about BTK with no face to put with the story. If Ted Kaczynski hadn't had the ego requirement that finally got his manisfesto published all we'd have would be that sunglass sporting, hooded image to explain who he had been. If John Wayne Gacy had stopped at 20 kills and spent more time working on his clown act we'd have never heard of him. Extreme examples for sure but celebrity is brought to those who ask for it. How many railroad modellers are satisfied with their efforts and don't have the need to share them with the rest of us?

When considering the high pedistal some have for JA and their lack of awareness of his contemporaries I find myself looking at the English alphabet.

We speak of Grade-A, A-1, A plus, the A Line and even freakin' A but the discussion would be impossible if not for the inclusion and influence of the other 25 symbols and our understanding of their proper use.

While JA and the others were involved in the same hobby as the rest of us they were doing it in their own time with the resources that were available. Thirty years ago there was no discussion of DC/DCC, no concerns about BNSF's new logo and plywood and chicken screen was the way to go because there were no options. Looking back 50 years ago there was no conflict between the steam and diesel crowds because one didn't even exist yet. Twenty years from now we might be looking back at the idea of actually building a physical layout as opposed to the newer and better, state of the art virtual capability as outdated and the John Allen's of the world will be footnotes in a compilation of the hobby's History.

Who keeps this hobby alive? YOU!

Learn the concepts of others and make it happen as you see fit. In the future you may well be one of the "Greats" in the hobby..........IF you ask for the exposure and have the opportunity to get it.

dwRavenstar (where does this soap box go?)

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton
By "light rail", do you mean tramways/streetcars?

Correct.

QUOTE:
There's lot's of interest in modelling those. And most of them run much shorter headways than 20 minutes. My local operator runs on 90 second headways in peak hours, 5 to 7 minutes at other times... If that was my modelling goal, then yes, it would keep me interested.

Agreed, and that is fine for the few that might have ever seen such and operation. But to do 100% realistic modeling, someone who wanted to operate lots of trains would have to choose to model some place with that sort ultra dense traffic. I could not model anything I am personally familiar with.

Over all one could not choose what to model based on some historical fact, a favorite prototype, what they saw today, or what they remember as children because it would either be impossible because of size, or basically a static diorama.

The only place I can think of (excluding the New York subway) that would have dense traffic to keep an operating session going good would be either Chicago Union Station or St. Louis Union Station. The space required for a 100% model of either of those (even in N-scale) would be more than most people's houses. And the staging would have to be larger. Then there would be the logistics of how to service the center of the thing. It would be way beyond anyone’s reach and impossible to have access hatches because the trackwork is too dense. Some sort of aerial service basket would have to be rigged up.

The other side, where one could fit the track into the available space, would be basically static museum pieces because the trains aren't dense enough. Take my childhood memories of the Santa Fe along my Uncles farm. This is the northern main line, not some one train a day branch. It could be modeled in about 1 x 5 meters. It would be a single track with one trestle next to an irrigated farm. If the layout were operated for 12 hours from 8:00 am until 8:00 pm there would be a total of about 17 trains. It this was a museum exhibit and even if it was detailed and accurate down to the field mouse and rattle snakes, and horse flies, I can't imagine anyone staying around to see the whole show.

I will guess that 100% accurate modeling would eliminate more than 99% of the things that could be modeled. Especially if the model included a layout with anything that moves.

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

Well, Chip,

I didn't say art couldn't be funtional; I said it's purpose is to exist.

There's all sorts of art that can be used for other things. Does a painting become something not art just because it is used to cover a crack in the plaster? Of course not. If someone makes a shaker-style chair and pronounces "I deem this art," does it become art or is it still just a chair? The paintings on a chair may be art, or a sculpture of a chair may be art, but a sculptured chair, while perhaps very artfully done, is still a chair.

What would you define as not art? I'm beginning to get the impression that you consider pretty much anything man-made as art. Is a towel with an embroidered pattern on it art? Is the color scheme on a locomotive art? Is the painted hull of a supertanker art? What is not art?

Why cannot a chair be a piece of art? Simply because it has a function other than simply to exist? Who said the function of art is simply to exist? I may be way off base here, but I have always thought that art exists because it enhances the human experience. As for the criticism that a Shaker chair is simply a chair, it's like saying El Greco's "Death Of The Count Of Orgaz" is simply pigment on canvas or that Michelangelo's "David" is simply a chunk of carved marble.

The funny thing is, you've got yourself into a logical bind. If a work of art can be functional, then it has a purpose other than simple existence. Is the cathedral at Chartres any less a work of art because it's not only used for worship services, that was its original purpose? Or the Duomo in Florence. Or, for that matter, St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

The modern "Ars Gratia Artis" (art for art's sake) delusion is just that; a delusion. It may work as MGM's motto, but it obscures the fact that MGM never made movies just for the sake of making movies, they made and still make movies to make money (Ars Gratia Pecuniae - art for the sake of money - would be a truer slogan).

I've been fortunate to have traveled extensively and to have visited the cathedrals mentioned above, not to mention the galleries of the Prado in Madrid, the Uffizi in Florence and the Louvre in Paris. As I recall, every work of art I saw in those galleries was done on commission for some patron. IOW, not one of those works of art was done simply that they might exist. They were done so that the artist could earn his daily bread so that he could go on existing.

And just to make this a bit more on topic, yes, the color scheme on a locomotive can be a work of art. Santa Fe's Warbonnet scheme certainly was.

Andre

[MidlandPacific]

QUOTE: Unless I am sadly mistaken 99.9% of the artist sell their painting either professionally or at local craft shows/sales.I seen a few paintings at community yard sales and other fund raisers.
Think of this as common sense..If amateur artist didn't sell their paintings they would soon have a house full of paintings..

You are, I think, sadly mistaken. I doubt that unsalable amateur work constitutes .1% of all art. If that were the case, only a very small percentage of (say) the drawings, paintings, sculpture, etc manufactured in, say, high school art classes would be considered too poor for sale - whereas the reverse is actually the case.

Model railroads may or may not be well-built or intrinsically valuable, but this value is not the factor that determines whether they're art, any more than it is for drawings, sculpture, or paintings.

[SpaceMouse]

Instead of saying what I think is not art, I'll see if I can put what I think is art.

Art to me is anything that is something created with an intended audience (that includes oneself) with the purpose of evoking a response whether that be emotional, mental (as in thought provoking) or as in the case model railroading an illusion of realism like a landscape painting. In other words, it stimulates or guides the imagination. A chair can be functional when you sit in it, or it can be art, if it makes you think or feel.

[SpaceMouse]

Brakie, so amatuer art isn't art? What about the commercial buildings that paint murals on their walls. Those have no resale value. Or Japanese rock gardens?

I happen to know that many amatuer artists have a house full of paintings. On the other hand my wife is a professional artist and we have a house full of paintings.

Paul Templar recently made a 4 x 8 layout that he auctioned on Bay. It sold for L900. Where does that fit in? He did not make it for personal use.

[BRAKIE]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Brakie,

Are you saying that to be art it has to have resale value?

Unless I am sadly mistaken 99.9% of the artist sell their painting either professionally or at local craft shows/sales.I seen a few paintings at community yard sales and other fund raisers.
Think of this as common sense..If amateur artist didn't sell their paintings they would soon have a house full of paintings..

[Pruitt]

Well, Chip,

I didn't say art couldn't be funtional; I said it's purpose is to exist.

There's all sorts of art that can be used for other things. Does a painting become something not art just because it is used to cover a crack in the plaster? Of course not. If someone makes a shaker-style chair and pronounces "I deem this art," does it become art or is it still just a chair? The paintings on a chair may be art, or a sculpture of a chair may be art, but a sculptured chair, while perhaps very artfully done, is still a chair.

What would you define as not art? I'm beginning to get the impression that you consider pretty much anything man-made as art. Is a towel with an embroidered pattern on it art? Is the color scheme on a locomotive art? Is the painted hull of a supertanker art? What is not art?

[SpaceMouse]

Mark B,

I'm having a little trouble with seeing the function/intention distiction between art and non-art. A chair cannot be art because it can be sat upon? Does that include the hand painted chairs or just the sculptural ones? By the same definition then interior design cannot be art? If a Ming dynasty urn were filled with Granny's ashes, it would become a pot on the mantle?

I have to disagree. Certainly Art can be functional.

[SpaceMouse]

vsmith,

I was being a little sardonic. There is no doubt in my mind that Frank Lloyd Wright was the pinacle of modern architecture. Thanks for the clarification though. Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way.

[selector]

Wheeeee!! We got the bellows working...!!

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

[

Frank Lloyd Wright did not do anything new. People have been building houses for millinia. He just did it so that people took notice.

OK Chip, we need to talk.

Now as an architect, I'm just going to assume that you dont have enough real knowledge of architectural history to comprehend just how utterly wrong this statement is, its sort of like saying Van Gogh, Manet, or Picasso didnt do anything different because people people have been painting for centuries.There's a huge difference between any monkey putting paint on a canvas -vs- work that changes a way of doing things to its very foundation. Just as any monkey can stand 2 logs on end and call it a house, that does not make it architecture!

I'll also assume that you have never been educated as to what was done before Wright or just how radical his "open plan" axial Prarie houses were from the then traditional Palladian plan of enclosed boxes of symetrical planform that had dominated western architecture, or how his rebellion to "open the closed box of architecture"from the then iron-fisted dogma of classical Beaux Arts tradition of architectecture and ornimentation caused great debates and academic upheavals as to what really constituted form and function in architecture leading to the modernism movement of the 20th century and allowing architects like Wright, Neutra, Le Corbusier, Rudolph Schindler, Walter Gropius and Mies Van Der Rohe to redefine what architecture is, and even to today to allow architects like Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, or Rem Koolhaas to not open the box, but to shatter it completely!

Sort of like saying the Apollo 11 moon landing was "just another 4th of July bottle rocket"
or the completion of the trascon RR in 1869 was "just another branch line" Wright redefined what architecture was conceptually and completely change how we interact with space and form.

I HIGHLY suggest finding Ken Burns documentary "Frank Lloyd Wright" BEFORE you use the same allegory again...

"...He just did it so that people took notice...." kinda like saying Mozart was popular only because he dressed nicely! Uhhhh![V]

or llike saying John Allen was "just another model RRer who was craving attention" now isnt it...

[MidlandPacific]

Just looked it up online:

QUOTE: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art

You will note that the dictionary definition says nothing about creating resale value or purpose.

I can understand why a layout could be art - but I don't understand why it could not.