BaltACDIrrespective of the artistic merit - how they can get a position 10 - 15 - 18 feet from the top of the rail to be able to do anything that is coherent is mind boggling.
Now I have to imagine a graffito of Tilley looking through his monocle at a particular work of graffiti ... in fact, lots of Tilleys drawn as recognizable 'Kilroy-was-here' icons; should we tag them 'Tilroys'? ... with that ineffable look of observation. Would it be disapproval, or approbation? And would the difference serve as a New-Yorkeresque appraisal, thumbs up or down or 'somewhere in between' perhaps, of the relative artistic merit... Hmmm, might be time to check up on the writer community in LA
(And no, it would be parodic, covered under doctrine of fair use...)
Remember how the New York Subway cars got tagged and how much it cost to overcome the "ART" that was on them. Somehow, Chicago's Metra cars don't seem to get tagged which I am happy for.
As far as painting "art" on property that is not authorized, I would not want it done to my mine and do not condone it being done to others property. And so I do not want to do anything to legitimize anyone defacing property. Some cities have murals painted on underpass walls and some buildings authorize "murals" painted on them and those brighten neighborhoods. Tagging freight cars is, in my opinion, defacing others property and should be denounced and where possible prosecuted.
Convicted One samfp1943 Just to pin down a couple !! I've yet to see Eustace Tilley painted onto the side of a boxcar? Perhaps that is a little too "highbrow" for your run-of-the-mill tagger? And would The New Yorker magazine sue for IP infringement if one ever did?
samfp1943 Just to pin down a couple !!
I've yet to see Eustace Tilley painted onto the side of a boxcar? Perhaps that is a little too "highbrow" for your run-of-the-mill tagger? And would The New Yorker magazine sue for IP infringement if one ever did?
Thanks, I never knew that there was a name associated with the illustration. My learning for the day.
BaltACD Irrespective of the artistic merit - how they can get a position 10 - 15 - 18 feet from the top of the rail to be able to do anything that is coherent is mind boggling.
Irrespective of the artistic merit - how they can get a position 10 - 15 - 18 feet from the top of the rail to be able to do anything that is coherent is mind boggling.
Especially on the auto racks. And they have to be bringing cases of rattle cans to cover as much as they do - I've seen entire sides covered, top to bottom, end to end.
One rattle can will cover approximately four square feet - that extrapolates to almost 400 cans to cover the side of an auto rack.
One might wonder if it's a team sport...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Don't conflate the subject of the photograph with the context and composition of the photograph when it comes to a photography award. Yes, vandalism is a crime, but a photograph that contains the crime is not a crime. How many Pulitizers have been won by photographs of murders in progress and war crimes? Plenty.
I have not yet seen the photo in question, so I'll reserve judgment. But an excellent, artistic photo could be made of almost any subject, regardless of how ugly that subject is, or where/how it fits in our society.
However, you can call it whatever you want, but "tagging" is vandalism. It's defacement of private or public property. It's a crime, and it's totally a punk, loser thing to do.
If you want to paint, there are many legitimate ways to go about it. If you desire to do it on buildings or transportation devices, use your own house or your own car.
No one has the right to deface what they don't own. It's a shame some excuse this behavior because it's "art" or "personal expression."
This is not relevant to my main point, but most graffitti is just crap anyway.
tree68 BaltACD Irrespective of the artistic merit - how they can get a position 10 - 15 - 18 feet from the top of the rail to be able to do anything that is coherent is mind boggling. Especially on the auto racks. And they have to be bringing cases of rattle cans to cover as much as they do - I've seen entire sides covered, top to bottom, end to end. One rattle can will cover approximately four square feet - that extrapolates to almost 400 cans to cover the side of an auto rack. One might wonder if it's a team sport...
Hardly an eco-friendly undertaking, then.
I think what irks the objectors intuitively is that the 'art' is affixed without consent-in-principle from the stock owners to what the subject is to be, and to where it is to be affixed. It's getting permission, stupid.
However, I see the point also that a great photograph should depict anything visible to the naked eye (since it's a visible medium). It could be a horrible fire, a motor vehicle accident scene, a tree struck by lightening, harried faces of first responders, a terror-stricken child, things one would not normally hope or seek to see, but which depicted artfully (don't ask me, I don't know) might be so very compelling as to elicit a strong emotional response.
I think the complainers can't distinguish between a photograph as an artform and graffiti on rail cars. I detest the latter but appreciate artistic photography, as opposed to mere snapshots.
Much as it is hated - graffiti can rise to the level of art. Most graffiti is not art.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I've seen the photo now. There's a kernel of a good idea for a really powerful photo.
If more or less all the rest of the photo (besides the loco) consisted of surfaces jammed with graffiti, and the quality of light was interesting, I think you'd have something really powerful.
But to me, as it is, it's just kind of an average photo (C+), of an engine which happens to be heavily defaced.
Personally, I don't feel the photo has enough artistic merit to warrant Trains using it, and thereby indirectly suggesting that graffitti is in any way ever acceptable.
Still, I applaud the photographer for attempting something different and edgy.
Certainly, Kalmbach must be opposed to the property damage of graffiti, regardless of artistic merit. However when I read the forum rule about the topic of graffiti, and the one about train hopping, the latter makes reference to the fact that train hopping is dangerous, illegal, sets a poor example, and that its discussion leads to arguments. Yet the only objection stated in the rule against graffiti is that its discussion leads to arguments.
Yet both activities are dangerous, illegal, and set a poor example—besides leading to discussion arguments.
Clearly, graffiti is also dangerous, illegal, and sets a poor example. So how do you publish a photo about graffiti without setting a poor example? Part of setting a poor example is encouraging copycat behavior that increases the illegal activity.
EuclidClearly, graffiti is also dangerous, illegal, and sets a poor example. So how do you publish a photo about graffiti without setting a poor example?
Truthfully the only issue properly enforced in the forums is that of the discussion arguments. Forceful agreement down the course of a thread that graffiti is "bad" only serves to reinforce the right kind of thinking in any 'family friendly' readership...
BaltACD Much as it is hated - graffiti can rise to the level of art. Most graffiti is not art.
Balt: At the risk of shooting this Thread out in a different direction: I recall that some time bck(?) You posted a photo('s?) of a car that had an entire side covered with a mural(?) representation of an early steam loco.
At the time I recall seeing it, I thought it was a completely, remarkable work, even to the point it was pretty good, and very well done. At the same time, it was still graffiti, and reprehensible.... I have no idea of the 'source of that particular work', But I tried to find it, and was not successful; It seems it would have at least 'placed' in the afore mentioned photo TRAINS contest...
Indicative, maybe(?) of a slightly psychotic. love, hate relationship
It's art, and it can be removed. It's like heritage units.
samfp1943 Indicative, maybe(?) of a slightly psychotic. love, hate relationship
The works of Banksy rather lean that way. The art itself is rather well done, provacative even. The fact that he (or she) paints them on the side of someone's building without permission, not so much.
I recently visited the website of a short line; and the site was very well done, with good photography and design.
However, in one of the photos, just behind the road's attractively painted diesel is a tank car with lots of graffiti on it. To me, it really brings the photo down.
I am going to contact the railroad, and if they are willing to send me a hi res version of the shot, I will get rid of that crap for them, for free, via Photoshop.
Which brings me to a somewhat different topic, which I'll address below ...
... and that is the whole question of removing stuff you don't like from one's railroad photos, or even adding stuff you do like.
I think in the railroad buff world, many look upon photos primarily as documentation. And then later down the road, if you unearth an old photo from your files, and perhaps get it published in Trains, it would fall in the category of "historic documentation."
Thusly, I think a lot of folks believe photos should not be altered.
Now, if you've looked at any of my photos, you can probably guess that I'm not in the "documentation strict-constructionist" school. I often didn't even write down when and where a pic was shot, so documentation can't be backed up with relevant info. All I care about is how the photo looks. Period. So if somebody threw an old Budweiser box on the right-of way, I just clone in some ballast from an adjacent area. And trust me, I've made changes much more significant than that!
I was wondering about how you guys feel about this in your own photography.
To be honest, I love it in Classic Trains when the caption gives all the pertinent info: date, place, exact type of engines, etc. I am disappointed that that Trains no longer does this for all photos, because I'd learn more about engines, and I just find place and date interesting.
However, I personally am delinquent in recording such info; and anyway, I can identify VERY few locos.
My guess is that Trains originally frowned on altered photos, and that Classic Trains still does.
Many shots I see in the pictorial section of Trains are excellent. And many, I can assure you, have been altered in some way.
Anyway, just hoping to generate some discussion on this.
I think some folks probably look upon manipulation as not being honest. And in fact, it isn't, really. But I am not trying to impart information; I am trying to evoke an emotion.
As for the railroad I mentioned in the post above, is it dishonest to remove that graffitti? Yes, at some level. But that tank car does not belong to the railroad, and I don't believe some punk in some far-off city had the right to diminish anyone's nice photo. (Or, for that matter, anyone's nice tank car.) And if the purpose of the pic is partly to say Look, we have nice equipment and take pride in our company, then the graffitied tank car is actually working against an honest message.
Lithonia OperatorAnyway, just hoping to generate some discussion on this. I think some folks probably look upon manipulation as not being honest. And in fact, it isn't, really. But I am not trying to impart information; I am trying to evoke an emotion.
I'm about as tolerant as they come, figuring it is the photographer's job to create the piece, and my job to decide if I want to look at it or not.
That said.......I really don't look at rail photos for an expose of after effects. Some folks really seem to put more effort into dressing up their photos than in actually designing a good shot in the first place.
It's kind of like fonts with printing. Some guys install a copy of print shop on their computer, and proceed to launch an attack upon the senses of everyone who will see their end product.
Too much of a good thing, I guess you might call it, but I see it more in a vein of 'trying too hard'
Removing an undesirable artifact, or correcting redeye, stuff like that I have no problem with. But "synthetic" sunsets, and stuff like that get's old pretty quick.
Just because it CAN be done,..etc tec..
Lithonia OperatorI was wondering about how you guys feel about this in your own photography.
I'm not a fan. I don't even like photo charters. Too planned and fake looking IMO.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Convicted One Lithonia Operator Anyway, just hoping to generate some discussion on this. I think some folks probably look upon manipulation as not being honest. And in fact, it isn't, really. But I am not trying to impart information; I am trying to evoke an emotion. I'm about as tolerant as they come, figuring it is the photographer's job to create the piece, and my job to decide if I want to look at it or not. That said.......I really don't look at rail photos for an expose of after effects. Some folks really seem to put more effort into dressing up their photos than in actually designing a good shot in the first place. It's kind of like fonts with printing. Some guys install a copy of print shop on their computer, and proceed to launch an attack upon the senses of everyone who will see their end product. Too much of a good thing, I guess you might call it, but I see it more in a vein of 'trying too hard' Removing an undesirable artifact, or correcting redeye, stuff like that I have no problem with. But "synthetic" sunsets, and stuff like that get's old pretty quick. Just because it CAN be done,..etc tec..
Lithonia Operator Anyway, just hoping to generate some discussion on this. I think some folks probably look upon manipulation as not being honest. And in fact, it isn't, really. But I am not trying to impart information; I am trying to evoke an emotion.
I hear you.
Lithonia Operator I hear you.
I suppose there is another side to it also. I've found that by shooting a huge number of shots, a small handful will turn out spectacular, and make it look like I know what I am doing.
I've gotten some shots over the years, that after I got the film developed, was truly amazed what I got out of it. So, for me, good photos mean A LOT of work, and a fair amount of disappointment
When I see a shot some guy has doctored up with filters.....it makes me feel like he must be lazy.....won't spend the effort to get that "one in a thousand" shot in the real world, he just tries to fake it.
Maybe it's wrong for me to feel that way. But that's generally my first reaction.
Convicted OneI suppose there is another side to it also. I've found that by shooting a huge number of shots, a small handful will turn out spectacular, and make it look like I know what I am doing.
It's kind of a "rule of thumb" of photography that there will be one "keeper" on a roll.
Clearly that doesn't apply to "historical" shots like family reunions, events, and "roster" shots. Rather it applies to images intended to be for art's sake.
Today's youngsters probably can't appreciate the idea that you might get one good image out of the 24 or 36 possible on a roll of film. My DSLR will record well over 200 images in JPG. Even in JPG + RAW I can get over 60 on my memory cards.
But it still does carry that out of that 60 images, I might get one or two truly outstanding pictures. And I've found that to be true.
The two college courses in photography were a real help. I can't (and won't) claim to be the next {insert name of fantastic photographer here}, but I did learn how to turn a snapshot into a keeper. Oftimes that requires looking beyond your subject - anyone ever take a picture of someone and later discover they had a lamppost growing out of their head?
When I did some attempts at serious B&W photography, I believed in developing and printing in the darkroom with no manipulation, minimal cropping except to format to paper size. I did use the zone method for exposure to get good contrast.
tree68 Convicted One I suppose there is another side to it also. I've found that by shooting a huge number of shots, a small handful will turn out spectacular, and make it look like I know what I am doing. It's kind of a "rule of thumb" of photography that there will be one "keeper" on a roll.
Convicted One I suppose there is another side to it also. I've found that by shooting a huge number of shots, a small handful will turn out spectacular, and make it look like I know what I am doing.
In today's digital age - that statement has probably morphed into 'there's a keeper in a SD card'.
Digital photography has definitely reduced my cost of failure.
I received my issue yesterday and saw what everyone is talking about. I've seen things that I would say rise to the level of art. The tagging on the UP unit isn't one of those that rise to the level of art. I don't even see what's so special about the picture itself, but then I'm not a photography buff either.
To be honest, I don't care much for any of the pictures. I will say out of the bunch the grand prize winner is probably the one I like the best. The second prize winner reminds me of some of the pictures appearing in Railroad Magazine in it's last 10 or 15 years of existence.
Jeff
To me the best photo of the lot is the one on the bottom of Page 54, of the NYC subway in Queens, by George Hiotis.
The quality of light is very nice, and I love really long lenses (this was shot with a 300 mm lens with a 2X extender, equaling 600 mm) because of the compressed perspective. The light reflecting on the rails adds a strong graphic element. And there's a human element with the people on the platform. Plus, five different trains are visible in that shot!
Hats off to Mr. Hiotis.
Instead of complaining about graffiti on railroad cars, I thought about the questions I could ask.
Do you see graffiti on over-the-road truck tractors or trailers? Why is that? Is this equipment spending more time in motion than railroad freight cars? More carefully guarded and watched?
Do you see graffiti on railroad locomotives? Why not?
I had read, was it here, that the Acela trainsets got marked up when they were stored prior to being put in service, and they were cleaned up at considerable expense? Is the equipment you see free of markings the result of spending the money to remove the paint right away? That this "tagging" goes on all the time, but the equipment where you don't see it is sufficiently high-value to get cleaned up quickly?
I remember at the U when a new Student Union (combined recreation, conference, dining and hotel facility) was built, it got "tagged" prior to being open. I also remember police evidence photographers snapping pictures of this "art" prior to its removal. I didn't talk to any police out of not wanting to impeded the job they had to do, but I got the vibe that the reason they appeared to be studying what got painted on that new building so intently was not so much to have evidence in charging anyone with vandalism. Rather, I think the police were trying to figure out if any new gang moved into town that they needed to be aware of.
Since then, I have not seen the results of anyone "tagging" this building. Why was it targeted for graffiti merely for being closed for an extended time -- it was a brand new building, the neighborhood it is in isn't the least bit "blighted", and it is surrounded by other, active, campus buildings. Was this an initiation rite for someone to risk arrest spray painting this building? Was this a challenge to Authority, that this brand new building would be marked up?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Is this equipment spending more time in motion than railroad freight cars?
I would opine that is exactly the reason - trucking companies are quite concerned with keeping their assets in motion, and usually have people looking for the next load.
One rarely sees a collection of semi-trailers in an "unguarded" state.
And a company owner (or owner operator) has an incentive, and the ability. to keep his equipment clean. If railroads or other car owners shopped a car every time it got tagged, a lot of cars would spend a significant amount of time in the shop.
Paul MilenkovicDo you see graffiti on railroad locomotives?
Actually, yes. Not at the same percentage as cars, but, yes.
Paul Milenkovic Why was it targeted for graffiti merely for being closed for an extended time -- it was a brand new building, the neighborhood it is in isn't the least bit "blighted", and it is surrounded by other, active, campus buildings. Was this an initiation rite for someone to risk arrest spray painting this building?
You may be closer to the truth there than you think. If it wasn't the result of a challenge, it may have simply been an "in your face" thing that the boys will have a laugh babout over a drink at the Xth reunion.
During my HS senior year, some of my friends, unbeknownst to me, decided to tag the water tower (it was one of those cylindrical tanks) across the street, and in full view of my house. Worse, they included "Class of....." - my class. My father, the police officer, was not amused. Fortunately, I really didn't know who did it until some time later.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.