All Hail John Allen!

[grandeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton
My intention is to replicate reality, not selectively edit it.

I think this strikes at the heart of the issue. Personally, while I like realistic scenery, I like my model railroad to be somewhat of a magical place. A creative work with a realistic look. There's many different approaches to this hobby. That's one of it's strengths.

[MidlandPacific]

QUOTE: The guy who models a coal mining railroad set in West Virginia in the late 19th/early 20th century is certainly modeling a major industrial player during that time period. Great machinery, fantastic engineering feats, moving the country forward etc etc. CEO/Chairman of a great railroad. Does that person also enjoy being the boss of an entity that found it cheaper to replace brakeman who had lost fingers/hands while coupling/uncoupling cars than installing air brakes or enjoy the fact that tunnels were built by what amounted to slave labor with very very high death tolls?

I certainly do. Allan did, too: that's why he built an inspection car with a cigar-smoking railroad president.

<burnsvoice>

Oh, it didn't use to be like this, Smithers......no, it didn't use to be like this at all........

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

My intention is to replicate reality, not selectively edit it.

That is a mind-boggling statement, Mark.

It implies no selective compression, exact scale reduction of prototype curvature, use of #12 and larger (mostly larger) turnouts, etc.

Would the Tehachapi Loop fit in a gymnasium, even in Z scale, if scaled exactly?

[SpaceMouse]

Brakie,

You can say a lot about Furlow and Selios, but the one thing you can't call them is beginners. And I don't think you saw they aren't serious modelers.

I know I am new so forgive me. Can you show me where it says that beginners like fantasy and lod experieinced modelers are more into realism. Is there a graduation ceremony or do you just one day decide to rip up your fantasy layout and get down to business?

I'm being sacrastic of course, but the question stands.

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Sorry,Guys,I do not see modelers as any type of artist or self impressionist.I do see SERIOUS model railroaders are modeling miniature transportation systems some set in time and exact areas while others freelance while staying within the perimeters of realism.The discussion of self impressions or being a artists is a rather mute point once one enters the serious side of model railroading.
To those modelers fantasy modeling is a beginners or unlearn modelers idea of model railroading..[V][:(] I don't subscribed to that thought but do feel a model railroad should be a model of a transportation system having rhyme and reason for being..

Again from someone with the "SERIOUS model railroaders" thing.. You want to talk about realistic then let's talk about it.. The "rhyme and reason" for your layout Being is because you Want it to be.. There's no other reason needed. THAT is the realism of it.. The people who choose the fanciful or fantasy of the the Realism are No Less Serious than the SERIOUS model railroaders. They are serious about building thier layouts, they are serious about the money and time they invest, they are serious about the care they put into building the models, and they are serious about the enjoyment they get out of running the trains. John Allen didn't spend 20 years building his layout without being serious about it. To suggest otherwise is pure snobistic upity Bull. If you want to be Further realistic, How much profit has your Miniature Transportation System earned in the last year? You want a shocker?? Your model railroad is a TOY. That's all it is, that's all it ever has been, and that's all it ever will be. Regardless of how Serious you are about it. There are too many people in this thread crapping on others enjoyment of the hobby and of other builders. I would challenge Any one of them to show me Inch By Inch proof that thier model railroads are Replicas of what they claim to be modeling. Whether they care to admit it or not, they are including what they choose to include and excluding what they choose to exclude.

[selector]

Let me take another run at this.

If we do not have the real thing running in our basement, then what we have is a "rendering." Because no two renderings are alike, even from generation to generation made by the same builder, they must be influenced by something else besides the prototype. The only variable is the person doing the model, not the prototype. Therefore, the variances in manifestation, from pike to pike, are ideogenic and ideographic.

QED.

[SpaceMouse]

Someone is blowing butt-smoke in the wind.

Maybe it's me.

[bcammack]

Where have I failed in that nobody even bothered to refute, dismiss, or concur with my observations? [:)]

I have a nacent theory about the relative "play value" (I can hear teeth grinding as I type this) of an individual's model railroad based upon their personality that spans Koester to Barrows pretty comfortably. Just in case anybody has any rocks left to throw. [:)]

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bcammack

Where have I failed in that nobody even bothered to refute, dismiss, or concur with my observations? [:)]

I have a nacent theory about the relative "play value" (I can hear teeth grinding as I type this) of an individual's model railroad based upon their personality that spans Koester to Barrows pretty comfortably. Just in case anybody has any rocks left to throw. [:)]

I'm all ears, ur eyes, ur uh...

So tell us already.

[grandeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Someone is blowing butt-smoke in the wind.

Space, you've got quite a way with words. [:D]

[BRAKIE]

Rollerman,You are not making any real sense.
Sorry,I only talk serious modeling to those that model seriously and I can see by your response your not a serious modeler but ,one that snubs serious modeling by looking down on those that want to do more then play trains and therefore any discussion would be a waste of time...Sorry.

Chip,And you are saying? [:p]

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bcammack

Where have I failed in that nobody even bothered to refute, dismiss, or concur with my observations? [:)]

I have a nacent theory about the relative "play value" (I can hear teeth grinding as I type this) of an individual's model railroad based upon their personality that spans Koester to Barrows pretty comfortably. Just in case anybody has any rocks left to throw. [:)]

Please reread my post just ahead of yours. I believe, if I understood your point, that I have supported you, if late.

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Rollerman,You are not making any real sense.
Sorry,I only talk serious modeling to those that model seriously and I can see by your response your not a serious modeler but ,one that snubs serious modeling by looking down on those that want to do more then play trains and therefore any discussion would be a waste of time...Sorry.

Chip,And you are saying? [:p]

I'll have you know that I'm DANGED SERIOUS about playing with my trains.

[:)]

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

The act of measuring or observing something changes it so that the measurement or observation is incorrect or skewed.

I'm afraid that's a complete mistatement of Heisenberg (no offense intended) - unless the definition has changed since I learned it in quantum mechanics.

None-taken. I had originally put in a great big long explaination including the original application to sub-atomic particals and then deleted it, favoring a generic definition in the context of the person who originally brought it up. Sort of like a dictionary defininition of "catalyst" without the chemistry background. So I understand exactly what you are saying.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE


Chip,And you are saying? [:p]

I believe my last question to you was:

QUOTE: Brakie,

You can say a lot about Furlow and Selios, but the one thing you can't call them is beginners. And I don't think you saw they aren't serious modelers.

I know I am new so forgive me. Can you show me where it says that beginners like fantasy and lod experieinced modelers are more into realism. Is there a graduation ceremony or do you just one day decide to rip up your fantasy layout and get down to business?

I'm being sacrastic of course, but the question stands.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bcammack
Where have I failed in that nobody even bothered to refute, dismiss, or concur with my observations?

It took me a while to find your post. I think it was the HUGE quote you put at the beginning. It sort of hides your comments.

QUOTE: The "real world" is a slippery thing and subject to interpretation through the unique matrix constructed of our own personal life experiences.

Yes, I agree. Like one of those TV shows or Movies where they show the same events from different people's perspectives. Exact same facts, totally different reality from them.

QUOTE: What it all boils down to is, "Do you prefer abstract art? Impressionism? Photo-realism?" If we all perceived the world the same way, there would be no reason for different forms of artistic, creative expression.

Now there is a scarry thought - a Pablo Picasso Model Railroad. I can see locomotive wheels on the side of a box car, and multiple pilots and couplers coming out at bizzare angles. Track that varies from 4 to 1 rail(s) at random.....

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

You've missed the point. I'm saying that I can't get excited about the realisation of someone else's fantasy. But that aside, I humbly suggest that you're wrong. My current project is an accurate representation of a specific time and place, with nothing selectively compressed or deleted. It is as close to it's prototype as my skills allow. How is that a fantasy?

It is fantasy because it is not 1:1 scale; it involves plastic and plaster, not earth and steel; and it transports nothing to nowhere for no reason. All the cargo, the distance, and the justification is a product of nothing more than your imagination.

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Someone is blowing butt-smoke in the wind.

Maybe it's me.

Nope; 'tain't you, chip.

[SpaceMouse]

Back to Heisenberg.

While the technical explanation of Heisenberg's principle does not apply, the popular adaptation to sociological studies and empirical studies does apply. For instance, the mere fact that the observer is present in an ethnography changes the way people act around him. Likewise, a researcher's fundamenta assumptions skew the outcome of a study by choosing what and how to observe.

I like the example of the Mariner Expedition to Mars. Because of weight restrictions, scientists has to choose between a camera that could produce a lot of low resolution images and a few, as in one per minute, high resolution images. Part of the edict for the mission was to determine if life existed.

Because they were certain life could not exist, they chose the high resolution once a minute images. To further increase the quality of the image, they used computer enhancements that filtered out any anomalies.

In essence, a dog could have run up to the camera, sniffed it, and run off with out it showing up on the image we saw on earth.

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Rollerman,You are not making any real sense.
Sorry,I only talk serious modeling to those that model seriously and I can see by your response your not a serious modeler but ,one that snubs serious modeling by looking down on those that want to do more then play trains and therefore any discussion would be a waste of time...Sorry.

Chip,And you are saying? [:p]

Oh, pu-leeze. One point I'll give you: trying to discuss the issue is a waste of time with you because you fancy yourself superior to all you survey, the holder of the One Eternal Truth of modelling. I suppose your intellect and wisdom so far outpace us po' slobs down here in the toy box that we just cain't comprehend you or the Center of the Modelling Universe which you defend from the barbarian hordes.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Well, I'm here to tell ya, fella: you may well believe that you're all that an' a bag o' chips, but I've seen behind the curtain . . .

[SpaceMouse]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around something. If I were going to be a realistic modeler, in order to get as realistic as I could, I would have to choose a point, time, instant , say, 1:05 pm July 2nd 1958, on the Nickle Plate Line in Terrahaute, IN. The less distance I chose to model the better.

So I have a trade off. Less track miles the more realism but fewer operational possibilities, The more miles of track, the more operational possibilites, but the more selecttive deletion.

In order to do it right, I would have do my homework, study books and newspapers--what was the weather like, what was the political situation, were people working, unemployed. Etc. Had there been any recent catastrophies that would have left damage--floods tornadoes, etc.

If I would have to find timetables, equipment rosters, and not only have the right type of equipment, but the correct numbered equipment for the route at that time of day.

I'm not that realistic. My coming layout is set in July of 1917, I know the rosters, but I'm going to model in sunshine even though there would be a slightly better chance of overcast. I have the right road numbers, but I don't know the schedules. I can represent the town of Fort Bragg a city of 3000 back then, but I have to do it in 8 to 12 buildings. I have some good photos of the sawmill complex so I can do a decent job of scratch building that.

But since I can't get that point, time instant, thing down, I've got a long way to go to be a serious modeler, right?

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Sorry.

Yes, I can see that..

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

I'm trying to wrap my brain around something. If I were going to be a realistic modeler, in order to get as realistic as I could, I would have to choose a point, time, instant , say, 1:05 pm July 2nd 1958, on the Nickle Plate Line in Terrahaute, IN. The less distance I chose to model the better.

So I have a trade off. Less track miles the more realism but fewer operational possibilities, The more miles of track, the more operational possibilites, but the more selecttive deletion.

In order to do it right, I would have do my homework, study books and newspapers--what was the weather like, what was the political situation, were people working, unemployed. Etc. Had there been any recent catastrophies that would have left damage--floods tornadoes, etc.

If I would have to find timetables, equipment rosters, and not only have the right type of equipment, but the correct numbered equipment for the route at that time of day.

I'm not that realistic. My coming layout is set in July of 1917, I know the rosters, but I'm going to model in sunshine even though there would be a slightly better chance of overcast. I have the right road numbers, but I don't know the schedules. I can represent the town of Fort Bragg a city of 3000 back then, but I have to do it in 8 to 12 buildings. I have some good photos of the sawmill complex so I can do a decent job of scratch building that.

But since I can't get that point, time instant, thing down, I've got a long way to go to be a serious modeler, right?

Weeeellll, if you were truly serious, as our friends seem to be saying, your layout would be, say, 8 feet long in HO, and you would model your railroad to the tune of about 300 yards of yard or mainline or spur, and about 150 yards on either side. If you did the main, you'd have a whale of a time modeling all the grass tufts, the spikes to scale, the spikes rusting and unused on the ballast, tie plates, newspapers blowing by the tracks, etc.

Wouldn't be much fun, unless you were intent upon doing nothing but making it "realistic", in which case you could be busy for years...I suppose. What would you do with your three locos and 20 pieces of rolling stock? Couldn't run them more than a few feet. Oh, and that curve radius of 10'....WOW! [:D]

[jacon12]

Speaking of John Allens book, if you have one..
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/0890242984/ref=dp_olp_2//104-3935496-0515167?condition=all

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

I'm trying to wrap my brain around something. If I were going to be a realistic modeler, in order to get as realistic as I could, I would have to choose a point, time, instant , say, 1:05 pm July 2nd 1958, on the Nickle Plate Line in Terrahaute, IN. The less distance I chose to model the better.

So I have a trade off. Less track miles the more realism but fewer operational possibilities, The more miles of track, the more operational possibilites, but the more selecttive deletion.

In order to do it right, I would have do my homework, study books and newspapers--what was the weather like, what was the political situation, were people working, unemployed. Etc. Had there been any recent catastrophies that would have left damage--floods tornadoes, etc.

If I would have to find timetables, equipment rosters, and not only have the right type of equipment, but the correct numbered equipment for the route at that time of day.

I'm not that realistic. My coming layout is set in July of 1917, I know the rosters, but I'm going to model in sunshine even though there would be a slightly better chance of overcast. I have the right road numbers, but I don't know the schedules. I can represent the town of Fort Bragg a city of 3000 back then, but I have to do it in 8 to 12 buildings. I have some good photos of the sawmill complex so I can do a decent job of scratch building that.

But since I can't get that point, time instant, thing down, I've got a long way to go to be a serious modeler, right?

Well, you could join the Northwestern Pacific Historical Society. http://www.nwprrhs.org/

OTOH, maybe that really wouldn't help since Fort Bragg was was served by the California Western and not the NWP. However, the two railroads did meet at Willits. AFAIK, there has only been 1 CW locomotive model ever offered and that was 2-8-2 #45. I disremember when the CW obtained the #45, but it was long after 1917. I think, however, that Bachmann's upcoming 4-4-0 could be altered to be a good representation of an NWP 4-4-0, perhaps #23.

As for being a really, really serious modeler, no one has even come close to Jack Burgess. http://www.yosemitevalleyrr.com/ . I've seen Burgess's layout, although that was some years ago. From what I remember, Burgess himself was rather a pleasant guy with a great sense of humor. He was just a tad obsessive about the Yosemite Valley in 1939. August 3rd, if I remember correctly. Well maybe not that specific day, but you get the idea. [:D]

Andre

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher
I just happen to use your name in vain in a post a few days ago......

I'lls sues I tells ya, sues.... *chuckle* Hey TZ nice to see you also, ltns.

Peace.

Coyote

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon

Well, you could join the Northwestern Pacific Historical Society. http://www.nwprrhs.org/

OTOH, maybe that really wouldn't help since Fort Bragg was was served by the California Western and not the NWP. However, the two railroads did meet at Willits. AFAIK, there has only been 1 CW locomotive model ever offered and that was 2-8-2 #45. I disremember when the CW obtained the #45, but it was long after 1917. I think, however, that Bachmann's upcoming 4-4-0 could be altered to be a good representation of an NWP 4-4-0, perhaps #23.

As for being a really, really serious modeler, no one has even come close to Jack Burgess. http://www.yosemitevalleyrr.com/ . I've seen Burgess's layout, although that was some years ago. From what I remember, Burgess himself was rather a pleasant guy with a great sense of humor. He was just a tad obsessive about the Yosemite Valley in 1939. August 3rd, if I remember correctly. Well maybe not that specific day, but you get the idea. [:D]

Andre

The interchange at Willits will be Phase 3 of my layout. And yes, #45 was/is the Super Skunk a much later aquisition. I hope to ride it this summer. Their mainstay in 1917 was the 2-6-2 saddletankers which of course will have to be bashed. The one saving grace is that at that time they still had a 3-Truck Shay, so that can stay.

With any luck, I'll get a peek at the sawmill and possibly look into historical societies before the first piece of track is layed.

And maybe I can find some whimsy to add to maintain my beginner status. I don't want to get too serious too soon. I might pop a vein or something.

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector
Weeeellll, if you were truly serious, as our friends seem to be saying, your layout would be, say, 8 feet long in HO, and you would model your railroad to the tune of about 300 yards of yard or mainline or spur, and about 150 yards on either side. If you did the main, you'd have a whale of a time modeling all the grass tufts, the spikes to scale, the spikes rusting and unused on the ballast, tie plates, newspapers blowing by the tracks, etc.

At last!! A setting that won't exceed my modeling skills. I'll choose to model it at a time when the tracks are empty and I won't even have to bother with any locomotives or rolling stock!!

Oh happy day!!

[:D]

[andrechapelon]

The interchange at Willits will be Phase 3 of my layout. And yes, #45 was/is the Super Skunk a much later aquisition. I hope to ride it this summer. Their mainstay in 1917 was the 2-6-2 saddletankers which of course will have to be bashed. The one saving grace is that at that time they still had a 3-Truck Shay, so that can stay.

Chip, you got a copy of Spencer Crump's Redwoods, Iron Horses, And The Pacific: The Story Of The California Western "Skunk" Railroad. ?

I think the Spectrum 0-6-0T could be made into a reasonable copy of one or more of CW's locos.

Andre

[Anonymous]

Whew... The pot is really bubbling on this one. Well, after reading through today’s additions, etc. I thought I'd post this. I posted it sometime back so forgive me the repetition and length but it says all I think I could want to say here so why reinvent the wheel.


The Plays the Thing
or
All the world’s a Staging Yard

There is always a question as to why some wisenheimer feels the need to grace the rest of us with the exposures of their own particular brand of insight, wisdom, homely or ‘expert’ opinion; so, no doubt, that question is potentially the first on your mind when approaching this article. The honest answer is simply this, I have nothing better to do but engage in a little useless musing on our hobby and I’m just foolish enough to think someone might be interested in my ravings, that being said lets get to the heart of the matter, shall we?

Recently there has been a struggle running within myself to find a perspective on the hobby that satisfies the varied levels that I have been seeking from an art form: inner expression, unique creation, physical reality, challenge and of course, satisfaction with the finished product. Model Railroading presents all of these things readily, except, for me at least, it is a challenge to find the Inner Expression; that process by which the artist takes an inner vision that belongs only to him or her and brings it from the inner world into the outer world. It is all well and good to have grand dreams and play out symphonies, poetry, stories or sculpt or paint great works in one’s head but it becomes a different matter to take the dream and push it through the tiny aperture of the artist’s skill and ability into the real world.
Unlike most, or so I presume, I came to the hobby not from being a fan or devotee of trains, which I have subsequently become, or even a fascination for them when young. I came into the hobby from the perspective of someone looking for a way to express an inner desire to create something both physically real and artistic. Am I sure there are many others who have come from this path also? Possibly, because of this my impressions and perspective on the hobby may be a bit different than the usual Model Railroader, but certainly not better or superior in any way, they may be in fact decidedly more challenged or lacking, but vive la difference!

Each art relates to every other discipline, painting and song are not as far removed as we might think. The stew of the arts bubbles into the pot of one media and back. Is wood sculpture and carpentry really so distantly related? However, where does the stew of our pot bubble into? A quick glance at our hobby shows us to be engineers, carpenters, electricians, painters, sculptures, landscapers, time efficiency mangers, photographers, and historians. As well as careful observers and modelers of the natural and man made world around us. Whew, that is quite a list to take head on and by no means a complete list at all just a small sampling of what goes into being a Railroad Modeler. What does it relate to, obviously those ones listed but what overall field can we find in other arts that also fits what we do. About now you are probably wishing that the point would come and perhaps getting a tad bored with this diatribe so I’ll hurry along the point. Bear with me just a bit more.

Before coming to the hobby there were influences in my life, as in all ours, that have had an impact on how I now go at Model Railroading. Two of those influences were my Mother and the teachings of Master Bruce Lee. How’s that for a weird turn? Most of my life I have watched my mother shift from one art form to another searching for the one that satisfied her artistic needs. She has found her passion for a number of years now. I am quite proud to say that she has become a respected and noteworthy textile artist. I watched her go from Needlepoint to Calligraphy and many other points in-between. But the one that left the deepest mark on me was Theater; my mother for a number of years was an actress, director and then finally a managing director of the New Arts Theater in Dallas, Texas before its untimely demise.
As a young person I would read through her theater books, plays, make-up references, clothing design books and so much more, but it was the books on the stage itself that always sparked my interest. The idea and process of taking a bare wood set and creating a world in that limited space that transported those viewing it into another time and place. I think about now you probably see where I am going so I’ll hurry on. One of Master Lee’s famous quotes is, “A good fight should be like a small play...but played seriously.” we take this to mean that a fight is in a way choreographed within the fighter, that it has a dimension of a story that the fighter plays out with his opponent, but plays out seriously as Master Lee reminds us.
So how does all this apply to Model Railroading? You are probably asking by now. It does so in this way, we as Railroad Modelers are stage Managers, we set the stage for a play, but one that is played out seriously, even if some of the scenes are lighthearted or whimsical, the model railroad is neither painting nor sculpture, its not just engineering or electrical work, its not even simple devotion to realism, or rivet counting if you prefer. It isn’t even just a good excuse to play with trains.

At its best Model Railroading is putting on a play. Let’s look for a moment at the comparisons. First to find the stage, we start looking for a space for our layout, we set out our space, mindful of leaving enough room for people to view the layout and run operations. We design and create the bench work to hold up or layout. We carefully pour over layout designs to maximize or trackage and fit our preconceived needs, be they freelanced or prototypical. We set down our track, put in our landscaping, set up our natural scenery from a bewildering series of kinds: rocks, water, plants, and trees. We build and set out structures, homes, offices, rural environments, urban environments. We lay out streets, avenues and dirt roads, and then as if this was not enough in go people of all shapes and colors and roles. Finally we are done? No, there is still color and lighting to check and put in, electrical bits and pieces to design and wire, facades, backdrops and fascia to install and all have the right color, form and shape. A daunting task indeed, but look at the stage a moment.
The stage must be built in the theater so that all can see it and enjoy it. Flats and freestanding “bench work” must be designed and built, to support whatever scenery will be added. Romeo and Juliet loses something without the balcony scene, sets must be painted and placed, furniture and props must be thought out and made, colors and lighting must be checked, electrical work designed and wired, backdrops placed and then that is still not enough. People must be added and clothed and given make up; starting to sound familiar? I believe it does sound familiar, in fact to me it is very much the same process, except that with us the Trains are the stars. We labor for our stars, making sure their weathering “make up” is just right, their consist “costumes” are all in order, and their “marks” are set so that will enter the play at just the right place and exit at just the right place.

How though does this benefit any of us though instead of just being an interesting metaphor? One way is it allows us to think outside the box, or is that boxcar, to see what we do in a new light. If all of this is a stage, where then is the play itself? What is our script for our actors? The answer comes immediately. It is our operations. The movement and interaction of our trains and their cars, how and where they go, what they do, pick up, move or return and then deal with each other; waiting at passings, or crossings etc this is the play, the Theater of Trains. If we can see it in this light perhaps we can add a good element to it: designing and telling a story for our audiences and our operators who become part of “living theater” where the audience participates in the play. It also opens up a new resource for us, the art and craft of the stage designer and manager, who must meet many if not all of the same challenges that we must, for whom there is also countless sources and resources available in libraries and on the internet. We also can, perhaps, consider some of our sessions in terms of a story and create a small play, but a play played seriously. Finally in some small and fun way, it allows us to thumb our noses at all those ‘serious’, ‘real’ artists who don’t know what fun they are missing, for in our art we are not simply presenting a play we are also getting to play.

In final reflection, it as the old man said “there is nothing new under the sun.” I am sure I am not the first or the last to expose this opinion. I lack the hubris to think this is anything new, but I hope it was at least thought provoking and hopefully not to tiresome. Thank you for taking the time to read the ranting of at least this wisenheimer.

Peace.

Coyote