|
|
Post by mlehman on Jun 18, 2014 7:44:52 GMT -8
Every model is a compromise in some way or the other. But you don't use 12 ga. wire for grabs on a Broadway Limited passenger car. There is a reason why manufacturers like BLMA has introduced 0.008" grabs versus the 0.012" grabs from Detail Associates. The tooling of models today is much finer than anything in the past and even four thousandth of an inch is noticeable. Realism is at an all time high in the models and it would seem there are many who want that realism. SNIP There are the people that don't give a damn and close enough is good enough. That's fine, but don't you dare rain on my parade because I want to continually better my modeling and attain better adherence to prototype and prototype fidelity. SNIP Jim, I think you misapprehend my point. I don't have anything against realism. And it doesn't look to me like Jason has a problem with realism, either. I know I definitely appreciate the vast improvements in the 40+ years I've been in the hobby. The argument that model railroading has elements of art to it is certainly not a critique of realism. Rather it suggests that what is realistic can be arrived at through different means. For instance, Larry commented that he just doesn't like painted backdrops. OK, no problem with that, as even I prefer them in many cases. On the other hand, I have mere bits and scraps of photo images around the layout. What sets the scene is a backdrop for Silverton I painted, my very first effort at this. It isn't perfect in my mind, in fact, it's unfinished, still awaiting a couple of more passes of detail I've not yet been in the mood to finish. But the longer I've looked at it, the more I like how it sets the scene, but then fades away as the eye concentrates on the detailed foreground.   And that's pretty much all a backdrop was expected to do, which is lead our eyes to focus on the modeling on display in the foreground.  It's not a perfect Silverton, in fact it's a Silverton that never existed, my interpretation of Silverton. As we all know trying to compress Silverton, while still modeling everything, would mean my layout would never get much beyond the city limits. Thanks to the creative means of model railroading, I can instead go to Durango and beyond, as well as further into the mountains on the old Mears lines that came into Silverton from three directions, all roughly north. So I made things fit, conveyed the sense you're in Silverton, and pleased my own senses with the compromises involved (mostly). I depend on the realism provided by Blackstone, Sunset, Banta, and many others, as well as my own hands, to pull this off in a fashion that pleases me. In fact, there would be no point to my art if it didn't begin with the need to provide a set for highly detailed replicas to look convincing in. I do follow a prototype and know it's history well. Doesn't stop me from rewriting it, in part at least, to fit my space, talents, and interests. In fact, I've even regressed to that earlier phase in the hobby somewhat with my imaginary Cascade branch. I added it because I needed more traffic and wanted a place to display logging models. It may not be real, but I want it to be convincing. So far, so good, at least to my eye, as a couple of pics around the Crater Lake quarry show even though this is pretty much just the scenic base with more to come.   Let me say again, I'm not trying for art here, per se, but for a convincing environment to operate trains in. Of course, someone could insist it's art, and not all that good either compared to most painters. But I didn't start out wanting to compete with Picasso, but to deliver something that fits and pleases my eye. Just like most model railroaders, I put my pants on one leg at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jun 18, 2014 8:07:19 GMT -8
Mike,Your painted backdrops looks far better then the majority I've seen over the years..
I prefer the photographic background approach for the reason I mention.
Of course painted backdrops are cheaper then photographic backgrounds.The one I want will cost me around $70.00(locally) once I provide the industrial photos.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 18, 2014 9:38:29 GMT -8
Yes, a very different reaction than others had. All are valid reactions. Some find it unconvincing by the standards we all are familiar with as model railroaders. Others find it convincing enough to wish they could pull it off, even if it's imperfect. But even there, in imperfection, we find something that is simultaneously art and not-art. Jim T-T-N argues we're simply replicating something as closely as possible. Thing is, every model is a compromise in some way, i.e. by definition imperfect as a copy. If our goal is perfection, then there hasn't been a model made yet that meets those standards. Yes, the entire hobby is one massive mess of FAIL by that standard. But I don't think it is. Rather, it's a lot easier to think of a model railroad as an interpretation (high concept art? or ?) of the real. In that sense, every model is a success -- at some level -- although there's clearly a lot out there doesn't meet one's personal standard in the hobby. One thing that this topic seems to re-enforce is that "art" appears to mean different things to different people and not everyone agrees. What can I say, it is what it is. It's interesting to discuss but even if we can't agree, we can still in our own minds enjoy things what we call art, and leave others to do what they want. I know from my younger days that I indeed have some artistic talent with drawing, which is why I say that some day if and when I have the time and patience again, I can re-develop it. Perhaps I may try it on a back drop or something. I've been paying attention to back drops I've been seeing on forums and have been trying to learn what elements make a realistic looking back drop. One thing which seems to be very true to life that makes a huge difference is to make parts of the land scape hazy or faded which are in the distance. Rob's are that way, and so are others. Sometimes just having faded hills in the back ground can really enhance a layout in a very basic way. Another is a Hollywood set trick, which is to provide a lot of detail upfront, and very little in the distance, because of what our eye is drawn to. Plus in the distance, details become faded and hazy. Anyway, I'm paying attention to these things so that I can hopefully employ them one day into my layout building. As far as "art" goes, if art happens, then great, but my focus is trying to build a model RR that imitates the real thing in appearance, and hopefully as time and work allows, those elements can slowly come together to accomplish that. Art is not my end goal, but may or may not be a product of my work. I'm not bothered either way. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jun 18, 2014 10:04:23 GMT -8
Jim, Definitely try for a painted backdrop sometime. My artistic talent is near zero when it comes to drawing from life, unless it's a mechanical subject. I owe most of what's here to the Greg Gray video and listening to him at a National Narrow Gauge Convention once. Greg Gray Painting Video from Green FrogWhere I did have a contribution was in how I worked to get just the right perspective. Tall enough mountain, but leaves enough sky. I have a mosaic I made from pics I took just for this purpose in Silverton on one of my visits specifically to fit the space as best I could. I marked a scale across the bottom of the mosaic depicted the area the mural was going in, then free-hand sketched from there. After that, got to painting per Gray's methods. Now, a lot of this was merely follow the instructions, practice a technique, try variations along certain suggested lines, use equipment to record and transfer measurements. Pretty craft-like. But somewhere near the end, I had to admit there was some sort of art going on. I laid out the way the wall and layout came together so that the effect of distance was reinforced, not ruined by it. I chose exactly how I wanted the sky to look. I chose not to do the detailed coats that Gray suggested to finish, partly from laziness, true, but also because I felt I'd accomplished what I came for. I think in model railroading, that's the ultimate judge -- yourself -- of whether you've pulled off the effect and atmosphere to serve as a suitable setting for your models. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jun 18, 2014 10:18:39 GMT -8
Mike,Your painted backdrops looks far better then the majority I've seen over the years.. I prefer the photographic background approach for the reason I mention. Of course painted backdrops are cheaper then photographic backgrounds.The one I want will cost me around $70.00(locally) once I provide the industrial photos. Larry, Thanks! That's a great compliment to hear. When I did it, the photo murals that are so relatively easy and quick these days were very expensive and one-dimensional. Getting the perspective right would have been difficult, which was another advantage of painting then, as I could take the point of view and put it where I wanted it easily. Now, I'd expect even that's easy on a computer. Most likely, if it were a do over I would go the photo mural route now, provided I could get the perspective exactly where it's needed. Cheaper may be relative. I did it with decent artist's acrylics, so probably had $150 in it total. But I had a lot of paint left over and that even worked well with helping keep me on a color scheme I could rely on to blend the foreground and background seamlessly together. |
|
|
|
Post by umtrrauthor on Jun 19, 2014 6:42:45 GMT -8
From three pages ago there were a few of items on which I'll chime in: - Folk art - that's an interesting point. - Count me among the 99-plus percent who model more of the "ideal" / "happy world" than the "realistic." Model Railroading is a refuge from the Rest Of Life for me so I strongly prefer it that way... although I do have a couple of abandoned sidings on my layout so it's not 100% "happy world"  - The Gorre & Daphetid was groundbreaking for its time although the word that comes to mind for me when viewing it is "theatrical." Same as the F&SM of George Sellios. Ditto for Clarke Dunham's "Citicorp Station" layout that was on display in Manhattan for many years... no surprise there since Dunham's day job was in theatre. This isn't wrong or right, it just is. |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 19, 2014 7:44:22 GMT -8
There aren't that many real world things that people model other than static scenes which may include some city scenes near the tracks, and things like that. As George noted, abandoned siding may be one thing that is less than 100% happy world. Another thing is graffiti, which represents illegal activity or a form of vandalism. But since that is how railroad cars often look in the past 10+ years, then your modeled world which mirrors a real RR would include that to look realistic if you model "modern".
So While I agree, we don't model many of the "gritty" parts of the rail world which Jim may have mentioned, because it isn't really part of the "essentials" and we want a happy train world, there are some things which are part of a RR scene realistically done, even in happy layouts.
BTW, speaking of RR scenes, often railroads go through the "not so nice" parts of cities so if you ride passenger trains, that's something you see. These days even RR police have to shadow stack trains in Chicago and other inner city areas to try to prevent theft as they move slowly to their destinations. I remember riding a train from Germany through Paris, changing trains and then going up in France to the north cost at Calais where I was to catch the ferry back to England where I flew home via Gatwick airport. The areas my train went through France didn't give me much of a view, not so nice. That's where the trains went however.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredlagno on Mar 6, 2015 8:37:28 GMT -8
Agreed about Howard's layout, though I've only seen it in books. I would say the same about Fred Lagno, certainly: The Magic of Fred Lagno-Jason I've seen Fred Lagno's layout in magazines in the past and have not been particularly impressed. Fancy photography, but some of the modeling could be better. I KNOW I'm looking at model train with his work, because of something such as an over-sized a street lamp and the scenery is scraggly in places. In other words, its not 100% convincing. But this is what I see and your mileage may vary. Now to me, George Sellios "Franklin & South Manchester" and Tom Johnson's "Logansport and Indiana Northern" qualify as art. When you see photos of their layouts you are nearly convinced that they are photos of the prototype. That is what I consider to be art, when you can't tell if you are looking at a model or prototype photograph. Many people dismiss model trains as legitimate art, since they are realistically toys. Grown men, transforming into little boys and playing with their toys. Most if not all layouts are inaccessible to the general public. Nearly all layouts are housed in private homes basements, spare rooms and garages. Well known layouts like the one at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago are viewed more as an action exhibit than art. Go to a serious art gallery and set up a very well done layout get the trains running and people will call the models "cute", etc. Rembrandt is art, models are considered collectible toys. We take our hobby very seriously, but I feel the vast majority of the general public feel its just grown men playing with expensive toys. |
|
|
|
Post by fredlagno on Mar 6, 2015 8:39:57 GMT -8
I've really enjoyed this discussion and I'm glad I started it. I think that any creative output that tells a story is art. Many model railroads do just that - they tell a story. They recreate a specific time and place (even if that is imaginary) and give you a glimpse into that world. The builder/artist may not be aware that they are making art, and may end up telling a different story to the viewer than they originally intended. You can call me post- postmodern, but I don't believe that art is only the purview of established artists or people that a select group of "experts" have agreed are artists. You don't need an Academic background to be an artist. You don't need to be a highly-skilled painter, sculptor or draftsman. Everyone is capable of artistic expression and I believe that a lot of model railroads fall into that category. Another, related category is photographs of model railroads. The framing and atmosphere created by a photograph of a really amazing model railroad can tell its own story and become an independent work of art in and of itself. That's why I love Fred Lagno's photos so much. They tell a story. Check out the one below. -Jason  |
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Mar 6, 2015 9:35:40 GMT -8
Its back.... From beyond the grave! Its the Thread that Would Not Die!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bar on Mar 6, 2015 9:39:14 GMT -8
 Not art. But a forum ad masquerading as a post may be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 9:54:17 GMT -8
I've seen Fred Lagno's layout in magazines in the past and have not been particularly impressed. Fancy photography, but some of the modeling could be better. I KNOW I'm looking at model train with his work, because of something such as an over-sized a street lamp and the scenery is scraggly in places. In other words, its not 100% convincing. But this is what I see and your mileage may vary. Now to me, George Sellios "Franklin & South Manchester" and Tom Johnson's "Logansport and Indiana Northern" qualify as art. When you see photos of their layouts you are nearly convinced that they are photos of the prototype. That is what I consider to be art, when you can't tell if you are looking at a model or prototype photograph. Many people dismiss model trains as legitimate art, since they are realistically toys. Grown men, transforming into little boys and playing with their toys. Most if not all layouts are inaccessible to the general public. Nearly all layouts are housed in private homes basements, spare rooms and garages. Well known layouts like the one at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago are viewed more as an action exhibit than art. Go to a serious art gallery and set up a very well done layout get the trains running and people will call the models "cute", etc. Rembrandt is art, models are considered collectible toys. We take our hobby very seriously, but I feel the vast majority of the general public feel its just grown men playing with expensive toys. To me, Fred's layout (like Lance Mindheim's and Pelle Søeborg's) looks more realistic than the Franklin & South Manchester. The F&SM (like the Gorre & Daphetid) looks more "Disneyesque", theatrical. Yes, they are "art", but so is photography. I like layouts and models that look more like photographs of the prototype rather than have too much artist's interpertation. www.soeeborg.dk/photogalleryeng.html |
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Mar 6, 2015 13:38:26 GMT -8
 is Pelle Soeberg becoming the "New Malcolm Furlow" ? and didn't that " John Olsen" Character actually work at the Disney Land Park,then later at Disney World ? some real Artists in that bunch. Edit - Thanks BAR for the correct 1st name,its been years since those articles. any relation to Mary-Kate and Ashley ? Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Mar 6, 2015 15:03:20 GMT -8
is Pelle Soeberg becoming the "New Malcolm Furlow" ? and didn't that " Dave Olsen" Character actually work at the Disney Land Park,then later at Disney World ? some real Artists in that bunch. Spikre Model Railroader has a habit of falling in love with certain authors over a period of time. Its too bad, because it becomes tiring seeing feature articles by the same person nearly each and every month. Some of the topics are excellent others seem like page fill. Malcolm Furlow's work nearly all had an old west feel. He did some project layout for MR and had an Athearn SW7 on a layout that looked like it was high noon at the Okay Corral. I didn't get the connection. Pelle Soeberg has done some interesting things. The one that lost me was when MR did a feature article in which Pelle wrote on how to save buildings from a layout being dismantled or rebuilt. That to me was a real head scratcher as I'd assume most people can figure out how to save their buildings. After all you planted them, you should be able to know how you planted them and make a plan to safely remove them. I agree with Spikre that I believe Dave Olsen had something to do with Disney or some other entertainment based operation. But I haven't cracked open a page of MR in about three years or more. |
|
|
|
Post by bar on Mar 6, 2015 16:54:41 GMT -8
Credit where it's due: it was John Olson, a Disney artist, who created the signature Mescal Lines in the Seventies. Here is some of his work:   |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Mar 6, 2015 16:55:13 GMT -8
I am missing who is Fred?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Mar 6, 2015 17:19:10 GMT -8
 Atsfan, FRED is the Lite at the End of the Train that has replaced the Beloved Caboose !! Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Mar 6, 2015 17:26:11 GMT -8
Atsfan, FRED is the Lite at the End of the Train that has replaced the Beloved Caboose !! Spikre Fred Lagno.... |
|
|
|
Post by slowfreight on Mar 6, 2015 17:27:54 GMT -8
Sorry for being late to the conversation. It's not a perfect Silverton, in fact it's a Silverton that never existed, my interpretation of Silverton. I've been trained in several art forms with varying degrees of failure. I still don't know what is truly my art form the way Duke Ellington or Salvador Dali did. But mlehman's point IS the point. When you are interpreting something and expressing it, you are an artist. Let the critics decide how good your art is, but that's what separates playing with trains from playing with art. And I'm not afraid of being accused of playing with trains. I've spent a number of years trying to interpret Chicago's north side for people who never saw what I know and like. So for now, model railroading is my preferred art form. Much as I love the trains, I see it as a form of sculpture, and I'm sad that we're considered "folk art" at best, and toys at worst. Still, I don't need recognition from critics because it's one way that I burn my creative energy. I feel renewed after I complete something and see realized an idea that I held. The picture below shows what I feel is my efforts at their best. The modeling is so-so, and the layout had tons of limitations. But in many ways it captures that feel, that aesthetic, that made me love the railroading I modeled. Photography, sculpture, technology, mechanics--all combined to interpret what's inside my head. Maybe I'm a little bit geeky and philosophical, but it's how I make Model Railroading fun for me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Mar 6, 2015 17:42:18 GMT -8
 Atsfan, Hmmmm, that Fred, apparently a Member that doesn't post too often. Spikre
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 18:24:32 GMT -8
Credit where it's due: it was John Olson, a Disney artist, who created the signature Mescal Lines in the Seventies. Here is some of his work: Thanks for the photos, they confirm what I mentioned earlier- Olson's work looks like something you'd see at Disneyland, a caricature. It's free-lance on many levels, not that there's anything inherently wrong with that. I prefer more realistic layouts, rolling stock, and operations. |
|
|
|
Post by bar on Mar 6, 2015 19:17:23 GMT -8
Keep in mind, this was an era where freelance layouts were the rule, not the exception. But Olson's scenery techniques, such as carving foam for desert rockwork, were on the cutting edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Mar 6, 2015 19:35:15 GMT -8
notice on page 1 that Howard Zane is mentioned. have only seen pics of His layout in magazines. but what gets me is that He grew up in Glen Rock NJ. a quaint little town with 2 Erie Mainlines running thru it.so my question or take on that is,How Come He models PRR ?? years back He did mainly model Erie,did the lack of models make Him Embrace the Keystone ? how many other smallish towns had 2 Mainlines of the same railroad running thru it ? Author Karl Zimmerman also grew up in Glen Rock NJ. interesting coincidence ? Spikre
|
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Mar 7, 2015 2:12:57 GMT -8
Keep in mind, this was an era where freelance layouts were the rule, not the exception. But Olson's scenery techniques, such as carving foam for desert rockwork, were on the cutting edge. IMHO freelance layouts is still the rule and freelance railroads hasn't exactly faded into the sunset.The real issue the majority of the modelers don't know the difference between the two. As a example..A modeler may say my freelance railroad is the Hooten Hollow & Western railroad and yet all you see is (say) CSX or NS locomotives. That's not freelancing a railroad. Another modeler will say my freelance railroad is the Scioto River RR and you see locomotives and cars lettered for the Scioto River RR. That's freelancing a railroad. |
|
|
|
Post by rmcroadster on Mar 7, 2015 3:38:36 GMT -8
Personally I don't find Fred Lagno's Allegheny Central or George Sellios' "Franklin & South Manchester" very convincing as to prototype. Tom Johnson's "Logansport and Indiana Northern" on the other hand has photos entirely the opposite and could be convinced that they are photos of the real thing. And I don't doubt that others find it different too. The way Tom's scenery blends into the backdrop amazes me as to the degree of invisibility of join between 3d and 2d.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Mar 7, 2015 3:59:23 GMT -8
Personally I don't find Fred Lagno's Allegheny Central or George Sellios' "Franklin & South Manchester" very convincing as to prototype. Tom Johnson's "Logansport and Indiana Northern" on the other hand has photos entirely the opposite and could be convinced that they are photos of the real thing. And I don't doubt that others find it different too. The way Tom's scenery blends into the backdrop amazes me as to the degree of invisibility of join between 3d and 2d. Matthew I fully agree.Tom's modeling and scenery is top notch and IMHO outshines the F&SM..I'm not acquainted with Lagno's Allegheny Central enough to say yea or nay.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 7:55:17 GMT -8
Personally I don't find Fred Lagno's Allegheny Central or George Sellios' "Franklin & South Manchester" very convincing as to prototype. Tom Johnson's "Logansport and Indiana Northern" on the other hand has photos entirely the opposite and could be convinced that they are photos of the real thing. And I don't doubt that others find it different too. The way Tom's scenery blends into the backdrop amazes me as to the degree of invisibility of join between 3d and 2d. Matthew Tom's layout is very realistic. His backdrops are some of the best I've ever seen. |
|
|
|
Post by rapidotrains on Mar 8, 2015 7:58:18 GMT -8
I think that one thing we can agree on is how many amazing layouts there are out there. I just read about two of them in the latest MR. Duane Ericson's On30 layout is hard to distinguish from the real thing, especially in his gorgeous photos taken outside. And Ed Swain's PRR layout looks like one I would love to spend a few evenings operating. It's amazing how much he's accomplished on his layout in 14 years. Looking at my progress so far, it will take me 40 years to reach the level of completion that he's at now.
I regularly read all the major British magazines, and you see layouts that are only a few feet long but the artistry is outstanding. And because the layouts are smaller, you can build a masterpiece in about two or three years.
-Jason
|
|
|
|
Post by buffalobill on Mar 9, 2015 7:37:56 GMT -8
I think Tom Johnson's layout is one of the nicest out there, his integration of the layout scene's and his backdrops is fantastic. I wish when my layout is completed, I can get the same effect, the Midwest farm territory with realistic detailed small agriculturally oriented communities. I would also say some of Fred's scene's are great, very realistic looking for the Northeastern- Mid Atlantic area. The combination of Fred's photographic talents and his eye for detail make for some great views. The 2007 Model Railroader article on his layout was one of my favorite MR articles. Jason's right, some great artwork is integrated in some model railroads. Personally I don't care for the "overdone" F&SM type of layout that overwhelms. But that's my taste.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by erniecsx on Mar 9, 2015 14:17:39 GMT -8
I agree with Buffalo Bill. I think the F&SM is a bit overdone. Way too much detail tightly crammed together. Not very realistic. I like Paul Dolkos work when I see it. Also Pelle Soeberg's layout is well done for those who like a more modern era. I've seen Fred Lagno's work on Facebook and it is amazing. Most of the photos are extremely realistic, and I don't think they would be if the modeling was just so-so.
As for model railroading being an art form, I guess it's whatever you make it. I believe you can carry it to the level of art (although I'm not that talented) if you choose to. If a model railroad can convey a mood or an ambiance then why shouldn't it be labeled art?
|
|
In any case, one doesn't need to formally study art to know what you like or don't like. Studying art may give you the ability to more formally express your reaction to art or to serve as a take-off point in designing a project, but it's not required to appreciate the work of others or even your own. 
