modelmaker51 wrote: We're all building charicatures to one extent or another. If you're using any selctive compression, ie: distance between towns, making a building fit your space,etc, then it's a charicature, not "scale".
We're all building charicatures to one extent or another. If you're using any selctive compression, ie: distance between towns, making a building fit your space,etc, then it's a charicature, not "scale".
I think it's time to lighten upand loosen up, otherwise some of the folks here are going to start resembling those rivet counters and nit-pickers that have too narrow a view of the world..
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
modelmaker51 wrote:We're all building charicatures to one extent or another. If you're using any selctive compression, ie: distance between towns, making a building fit your space,etc, then it's a charicature, not "scale".
While you may successfully argue that selective compression is exaggeration of a sort (though exaggeration generally implies enlargement, not reduction), I'd venture to say that in most cases it is NOT ludicrous exaggeration. It certainly isn't in my case, though like most my layout has substantial compression from my prototype. Everything on my layout may be an exact scale replica, but that does NOT mean it's caricature, either.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
I agree with MArk B. that selective compression is not caricature in and of itself although it may be done as part of caricature. One of the many continums in this hobby is the photograph vs painting. Some of us are into very exact reproduction in minature and some of us are into an artistic interpretation in minature. Most of us are somewhere in between.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote: I agree with MArk B. that selective compression is not caricature in and of itself although it may be done as part of caricature. One of the many continums in this hobby is the photograph vs painting. Some of us are into very exact reproduction in minature and some of us are into an artistic interpretation in minature. Most of us are somewhere in between.
While I largely agree with what Paul says, I would caution the use of the words "artistic interpretation" is this discussion. I honestly believe that, were it not for the clearly intended tongue-in-cheek models of John Allen and a few contemporaries that followed his lead, there would be very little evidence of caricature modeling in our hobby today. Likewise, with few exceptions, I appears to me that the folks who emphasize caricature in their modeling usually do so not as an artistic style but quite purposefully, in an attempt to make their layouts stand out from the efforts of others through representation of a skewed reality.
CNJ831
CNJ831 wrote: I honestly believe that, were it not for the clearly intended tongue-in-cheek models of John Allen and a few contemporaries that followed his lead, there would be very little evidence of caricature modeling in our hobby today. Likewise, with few exceptions, I appears to me that the folks who emphasize caricature in their modeling usually do so not as an artistic style but quite purposefully, in an attempt to make their layouts stand out from the efforts of others through representation of a skewed reality. CNJ831
I find this a little hard to buy. You give credit to John Allen for starting the tongue-in-cheek movement, and in a way you are right. But he was just the first who did it well enough, and with self-promotion, to get recognized.
For all the seriousness we place upon model railroading, there are quite a few out there that recognize that we are just a bunch of big kids playing with trains. Many will attempt to diffuse some of this "seriousness" with whimsy. The artistic ones will do it well and become recognized.
If not John Allen, it would have been someone else.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
After giving this subject more thought, I realize that part of my distaste for FSM and Bar Mills kits is a case of sour grapes. If I modeled depression era New England, I would probably own several of their kits, and would have assembled them in a "toned down" manner so that they were not as cartoonish. I would probably have spread the detail parts out over the whole layout to accent the other structures.
But, because I don't model that place/time, I can't justify the cost of the kit and the time to build it when it would seem out of place on my North Idaho-based layout. If either firm would release a kit based on a western prototype, or free-lanced but with obviously western architecture, I would probably run out and buy one today. Again, I would work to play down any cartoonish parts of the kit's design, and the detail parts would be used with several other structures. And, I'd probably have a lot of fun doing it.
So I guess our like or dislike of them probably has something to do with our personal vision of how to best represent the world, as we see it, on our layouts.
Tom
I think with Campbell the time/place point is important. As I understand it, many Campbell kits were patterned after real buildings, often those found in California (like the Quincy RR buildings). I seem to remember reading that several were based on buildings used at Knott's Berry Farm's "Ghost Town", which was created from either actual old buildings moved there, or reproductions built on site.
Remember most Campbell kits were first offered back in the fifties and sixties, when steam was king (on model pikes) and many layouts were set in the 1920's-40's, usually in a rural setting...plus there were a fair number of "Old West" or early 20th century layouts. The Campbell buildings fit the bill well for modellers of those times. Today urban modelling is more common, and the buildings we see now (or remember from our past) are different than what would be common to a modeller of the sixties (who may have been born in the teens or twenties.)
potlatcher wrote: After giving this subject more thought, I realize that part of my distaste for FSM and Bar Mills kits is a case of sour grapes. If I modeled depression era New England, I would probably own several of their kits, and would have assembled them in a "toned down" manner so that they were not as cartoonish. I would probably have spread the detail parts out over the whole layout to accent the other structures.But, because I don't model that place/time, I can't justify the cost of the kit and the time to build it when it would seem out of place on my North Idaho-based layout. If either firm would release a kit based on a western prototype, or free-lanced but with obviously western architecture, I would probably run out and buy one today. Again, I would work to play down any cartoonish parts of the kit's design, and the detail parts would be used with several other structures. And, I'd probably have a lot of fun doing it.So I guess our like or dislike of them probably has something to do with our personal vision of how to best represent the world, as we see it, on our layouts.Tom
Aaaahhhh...enlightenment! It's great when it happens, ain't it?
Since when does a modeler have to build a model according to the box art or paint according to instructions? Some modelers license works here people, just because George Selios goes for a total decripit look in his models, doesn't mean you can't make it look new. I recall sometime back, someone built the old Alexander "haunted house" as a new structure, it looked great, why can't you do the same?
Tom, pardon my ignorance, but what does western Idaho architecture look like? You lost me on that one. Some kits fit in anywhere, unless you're looking for Ben Cartwrights' house.
BXCARMIKE wrote: Tom, pardon my ignorance, but what does western Idaho architecture look like? You lost me on that one. Some kits fit in anywhere, unless you're looking for Ben Cartwrights' house.
I don't know if I have the words to describe the appearance of typical structures in North Idaho - it seems like most structures that you find near the railroad are simple boxes sheathed in corrugated metal.
But, I do know that a FSM factory complex or Bar Mills tavern would look out of place on my layout, no matter whether they're built in like-new or worn-down condition. Maybe these companies do make some structure kits that would fit in, but I have yet to see any in their advertising or at my hobby shop. When I do, I will probably buy one.
SpaceMouse wrote: CNJ831 wrote: I honestly believe that, were it not for the clearly intended tongue-in-cheek models of John Allen and a few contemporaries that followed his lead, there would be very little evidence of caricature modeling in our hobby today. Likewise, with few exceptions, I appears to me that the folks who emphasize caricature in their modeling usually do so not as an artistic style but quite purposefully, in an attempt to make their layouts stand out from the efforts of others through representation of a skewed reality. CNJ831 I find this a little hard to buy. You give credit to John Allen for starting the tongue-in-cheek movement, and in a way you are right. But he was just the first who did it well enough, and with self-promotion, to get recognized.For all the seriousness we place upon model railroading, there are quite a few out there that recognize that we are just a bunch of big kids playing with trains. Many will attempt to diffuse some of this "seriousness" with whimsy. The artistic ones will do it well and become recognized.If not John Allen, it would have been someone else.
Quite to the contrary, Chip. I'd have to say that had not JA been the significant practitioner of caricature modeling (a notable part if it used to promote Varney's products) it is doubtful this "style" would have generated any real interest. In an adult hobby that was just as serious then as now, it was only found acceptable because the great JA was doing it and to emulate him tended to make it seem OK. Had it been anyone else but "the master", it is unlikely it would have found any acceptance among hobbyists in the 1950's.
As to a sense of personal whimsy accounting for caricature modeling, I would have to say that, judging by some of the attitudes I've encountered, at least some hobbyist appear to employ tongue-in-cheek/caricature modeling more out of a sense of mild embassasment at being an adult and yet being seen by their peers as playing with toy trains. Rather than truly just taking a lighter approach to the hobby, I sometimes get the distinct impression that caricature modeling is being used in a attempt to demonstrate to outside observers that the hobbyist "is just joking around" and really isn't all that serious about model railroading. Perhaps that outlook is not too surprising considering that portrayals of model railroaders in the entertainment industry in recent years have generally been less than uplifting (murderers, perverts, super villians, and senile old men). Incidentally, this was not the case in the movies or on TV from the 1930's through the early 1960's.
CNJ
Are you telling me that if it had not been for JA, there would not have been artists that pushed the envelope of reality? If so, this would be the only medium I've ever heard of where it did not happen.
Yes, Chip, but with your limited time in the hobby and lack of any familiarity with its past, I'm not surprised by your doubts.
However, the fact remains that early on the hobby was strongly influenced by a handful of giants, without the influence of some of whom it might have evolved in a decidely different way. JA was certainly one of them. Were it not for his stature in the hobby as the master model railroader of his day, it is very unlikely that caricature modeling would ever have had much validity back in the 50's and 60's. And since virtually all of the modern proponents of this sort of modeling will readily admit to how seeing images of John's work has strongly influenced there own efforts, had John never existed it is very likely any caricature modeling today would be looked upon as nothing more than some hobbyist's bizarre aberation.
Shilshole wrote: andrechapelon wrote:It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills [...] Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western.Compare for what purpose? The Bar Mills scenes show an established and declining urban/industrial area with the requisite zero-lot-line development and high rises; the O&W scenes are small town/rural. The Bar Mills scenes succeed precisely because structures in them are crammed together.I think Jay nailed it: 'It's up to the modeler to finish it [a FSM-class kit] the way he or she wants.' Shingles and siding don't have to be pried up, shutters don't have to be dangling, and the paint can be fresh.
andrechapelon wrote:It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills [...] Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western.
The Bar Mills scenes show a caricature of a declining urban industrial area. As a caricature, they succeed brilliantly. As a realistic portrayal, they fail miserably. For one thing, there's too much cramming things together. I've seen declining industrial areas in a number of cities, both domestic and foreign. They don't look like that. Not in New England, not anywhere else. There's too much in the scene(s). The number of buildings should be cut down considerably and the scene be allowed to breathe.
If you want to see some good urban scenery, go no farther than the July, 2006, MR and Bob Smaus's article beginning on page 58. Bob's website: http://www.bobsgardenpath.com/trains.html .
More good urban modeling: http://members.aol.com/wdenton101/index.htm?f=fs (even has a couple of short movies).
Check out the NEB&W website for more even more good urban modeling: http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/ .
For that matter, there's a fellow on this forum from the UK that's got a shelf layout called "Sweet Home Chicago". Unfortunately, I don't remember his full name. Jon, if you're out there, please chime in.
Andre
Bob grech wrote: Has anyone build a caricature-ized craftsman kit as a tributre to the memory of John Allen?This scratch-built Engine House was inspired by John Allen. http://www.gdlines.com/GD_Galleries/Structures/index.html
Has anyone build a caricature-ized craftsman kit as a tributre to the memory of John Allen?
This scratch-built Engine House was inspired by John Allen.
http://www.gdlines.com/GD_Galleries/Structures/index.html
Excellent job on the enginehouse. It has long been a plan of mine to build one for my layout. It will be at the terminus of my branchline that has yet to be built. I want to build as faithful a representation of the original as my modeling skills will allow me to do. I've been looking for blueprints of it to get the exact dimensions but so far no luck.
Twentysome years ago FSM put out a John Allen enginehouse but it has long been out of production and if one could be found on e-bay or elsewhere, I'm sure it would cost a small fortune.
jecorbett wrote:In my town of Utica, OH, there is a somewhat rundown old feed mill with a rusting sign on top, junk on the loading dock, overgrown brush, etc. and if I were to scratch build a model of it faithfully, I'm sure there would be some who would look at it and call it a caricature.
CNJ831 wrote: Yes, Chip, but with your limited time in the hobby and lack of any familiarity with its past, I'm not surprised by your doubts.However, the fact remains that early on the hobby was strongly influenced by a handful of giants, without the influence of some of whom it might have evolved in a decidely different way. JA was certainly one of them. Were it not for his stature in the hobby as the master model railroader of his day, it is very unlikely that caricature modeling would ever have had much validity back in the 50's and 60's. And since virtually all of the modern proponents of this sort of modeling will readily admit to how seeing images of John's work has strongly influenced there own efforts, had John never existed it is very likely any caricature modeling today would be looked upon as nothing more than some hobbyist's bizarre aberation.CNJ831
My lack of familairity aside, it seems very doubtful that in the millions of hobbists that have built model trains throughout history that not a single artist would have immerged as superlative without John Allen borders on the absurd. It simply gives him too much credit.
CNJ831 wrote:However, the fact remains that early on the hobby was strongly influenced by a handful of giants, without the influence of some of whom it might have evolved in a decidely different way. JA was certainly one of them. Were it not for his stature in the hobby as the master model railroader of his day, it is very unlikely that caricature modeling would ever have had much validity back in the 50's and 60's. And since virtually all of the modern proponents of this sort of modeling will readily admit to how seeing images of John's work has strongly influenced there own efforts, had John never existed it is very likely any caricature modeling today would be looked upon as nothing more than some hobbyist's bizarre aberation.CNJ831
I also have trouble with this statement. I feel it's like saying that, if Jackson Pollock hadn't started spattering paint (), that no-one else would have, nor been as successful at it. I don't think many things happen in vacuo- people are influenced to some degree or other by their surroundings.* There are just SO many talented people doing various things (including model railroading) that thoughts are bound to converge at one time or another.
*For much better examples than I could give by myself, I happen to LOVE the way that James Burke has elaborated on the concepts of discovery and change in both this book/TV series "The Day the Universe Changed", and several TV series' called "Connections".
andrechapelon wrote:The Bar Mills scenes show a caricature of a declining urban industrial area. As a caricature, they succeed brilliantly. As a realistic portrayal, they fail miserably. For one thing, there's too much cramming things together [...] There's too much in the scene(s). The number of buildings should be cut down considerably and the scene be allowed to breathe.
I've seen declining industrial areas in a number of cities, both domestic and foreign. They don't look like that. Not in New England, not anywhere else.
marknewton wrote: jecorbett wrote:In my town of Utica, OH, there is a somewhat rundown old feed mill with a rusting sign on top, junk on the loading dock, overgrown brush, etc. and if I were to scratch build a model of it faithfully, I'm sure there would be some who would look at it and call it a caricature.If you were to scratchbuild a model that accurately portrayed the mill's dimensions, proportions, colour, details and architectural style, then it wouldn't be a caricature, no matter how cluttered or dilapidated it was. It's the kits that distort these elements, or have structural features that couldn't exist in reality, that are caricatures. Cheers,Mark.
You are right that it wouldn't be a caricature but it might be perceived as such by some. Structures such as this are not the norm but they do exist and many kits that represent these types of structures are incorrectly described as caricatures. The FSM kits I have seen fall into the category of unusual but not unrealistic. They have character without being caricatures. Structures such as these evolve over time and the owners of such structures apparently give little importance to appearance and are more concerned with function. I don't intend to make wide use of these unusual structures on my layout but there will be a few and that won't make my layout the least bit caroonish.
jecorbett wrote:You are right that it wouldn't be a caricature but it might be perceived as such by some.
The FSM kits I have seen fall into the category of unusual but not unrealistic.
SpaceMouse wrote: CNJ831 wrote: Yes, Chip, but with your limited time in the hobby and lack of any familiarity with its past, I'm not surprised by your doubts.However, the fact remains that early on the hobby was strongly influenced by a handful of giants, without the influence of some of whom it might have evolved in a decidely different way. JA was certainly one of them. Were it not for his stature in the hobby as the master model railroader of his day, it is very unlikely that caricature modeling would ever have had much validity back in the 50's and 60's. And since virtually all of the modern proponents of this sort of modeling will readily admit to how seeing images of John's work has strongly influenced there own efforts, had John never existed it is very likely any caricature modeling today would be looked upon as nothing more than some hobbyist's bizarre aberation.CNJ831 My lack of familairity aside, it seems very doubtful that in the millions of hobbists that have built model trains throughout history that not a single artist would have immerged as superlative without John Allen borders on the absurd. It simply gives him too much credit.
Aaah, but the point is that it is precisely your lack of familiarity of the hobby's history, which happens to have been of great interest to me for years, which so severely limits your perception and understanding where it concerns the matter at hand.
In his time, while certainly having others who copied his examples, JA was the original and only purveyor of real significance of the sort of caricature modeling we are discussing in this thread. Eliminate him totally from the hobby's development in the 50's and 60's and today you would see a distinct alteration to many different modeling concepts.
Not only was JA clearly responsible for caricature modeling as we are discussing here but also for creating the concept of incredibly dramatic scenes of vast chasms spanned by towering bridges, floor to ceiling scenery and (somewhat excessive) weathering. JA was a master photographer by profession and could bring photographic techniques, concepts and tricks to the hobby never dreamed of by any other layout builder of the day. Little wonder that John is remembered with such awe more than forty years after his modeling efforts ceased. And, as I've already pointed out, it was specifically JA who decidedly influenced the modeling styles of Selios , Furlow and a host of others (all who admit openly to it) who have influenced today's hobbyists regarding this aspect of modeling.
Take about a decade or two to study the hobby's evolution in depth, Chip, and you'll be in a much better position to comment on what could and couldn't have happened.
CNJ831 wrote:Aaah, but the point is that it is precisely your lack of familiarity of the hobby's history, which happerns to have been of great interest to me for years, which so severely limits your perception and understanding where it concerns the matter at hand. [...] Take about a decade or two to study the hobby's evolution in depth, Chip, and you'll be in a much better position to comment on what could and couldn't have happened.CNJ831
Condescension aside, there's a canyon between what did/didn't occur vs. what could/couldn't have occurred. Our own little NMRA division in the late 50s/early60s had a group of modelers whose efforts equaled those of Allen (PBHN), including his caricatures and attention to detail, and exceeded him with respect to steam loco sound. Were his models their inspiration? Perhaps, perhaps not -- their collective imagination introduced to us the aforementioned sound, as well as portable operating dioramas, well before these concepts became widely known, so their caricature efforts certainly could have been a self-inspired afterthought. What they did lack was JA's exposure in the hobby press, save for MR articles in '59. For my money, Chip's both wrong and right: John Allen (PBHN) deserves tremendous credit for many facets of the hobby, but there were plenty of others out there who could have provided, absent JA, the same inspiration with respect to caricature modeling and other innovations credited to him.
I'm sorry, Shilshole, but you are mistaken. It was the great stature of John Allen in the hobby at the time that allowed caricature modeling (and other of his concepts) to be both an acceptable practice and worthy of copying or imitating by others. It became viable only because "the great John Allen" was doing it. Such a level of acceptance in a very conservative period of the hobby would not have extended to any far more minor individuals or groups of the time. It simply would have been glanced at and passed over as far too "different" to be worthy of any serious consideration.
Would it also follow that if Alexander Graham Bell had not invented the telephone we'd still be talking through hollow tubes?