For many years I have believed that building model railways is a genuine form of art. We take an abstract idea and turn it into something that can be seen and enjoyed by others. It could be said that model railways are 3 dimensional moving artworks. I think building a layout is just as valid an art form as painting or sculpting. Yes there are some great model railways and some poor ones, there are some layouts you would pay to see and some your would happily throw in the bin, but the same applies to paintings.
I think we should be more forceful on this and see ourselves as artists. We should describe our layouts as works of art to others. After all, building a fully scenic layout takes a lot of different skills and deserves to be seen as rather more than just playing with trains.
Just wondering what others think?
I am a kind of artist. :beers:
I think you could probably make a similar argument for many activities as well as model railways.
OXFORD DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF ART - 'The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power'
Probably depends on how good your layout looks, operates etc.
I certainly wouldn't call my layout a work of art yet, probably not even art in progress.
:hmmm: :beers:
Chris, Steve, I'm 100% with you both. :NGF:
I think Chris has a fair point. Let's face it, when you see some of the inordinate amounts spent on :poop: by Tracey Emin and the like, I reckon my efforts should be revalued (up from nothing).
My art teacher said once in a report "his work always turned out how I expected it to be" - so that was good, eh? :-\
It's only what the individual sees in a piece of work that determines, in their mind, whether it is art or rubbish. I am very much taken by local Leyland artist Jack Schitt's work :thumbsup:
Quote from: newportnobby on May 13, 2016, 12:08:28 PM
Let's face it, when you see some of the inordinate amounts spent on :poop: by Tracey Emin and the like, I reckon my efforts should be revalued (up from nothing).
Right, let's nip this "modern art is rubbish" blossom in the bud. Modern art is nothing to do with pretty pictures. Your Rubens and Da Vincis are, because in those days the best art was the most realistic. Invent the camera and suddenly everyone can make realistic pictures. So modern art is about something else -- challenging the way the viewer (and by extension, society) thinks.
Tracey Emin's unmade bed piece isn't about the bed as such, but about the state of mind that allows a person to live in such squalor. Something many viewers can relate to.
This is a whole separate issue to why some modern art is worth millions and some isn't. In all honesty that comes down to the art critics who hype up on artist while playing down another. Modern art is a business, or more specifically a way for business to make investments and patronise the development of contemporary artists generally.
You are free to call your model railway art if you want to, but the question for a modern art critic is whether it forces the view to reappraise their beliefs or assumptions. To give you a tangible example, there's a Polish artist who created a (mock) LEGO packaged product version of a concentration camp. The modelling skill is excellent, but it's clearly very different to someone who simply makes LEGO cars or houses from their own imagination.
http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/feinstein/auschwitz.php (http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/feinstein/auschwitz.php)
There's lots of modern art I don't like or understand, but before dismissing a piece, you do need to think about what's trying to be said. Sometimes it is very cynical and there's like a mass production of Damian Hursts and the like ready to be sold to the highest bidder. But sometimes modern art pieces are thoughtful and worth looking at.
Cheers, NeMo
I wouldn't suggest railway modellers can be compared to famous artists. I see us more as on a par with the many amateur painters or photographers spending their spare time creating their take on a subject. They gains pleasure from what they have created and are appreciated by others but are unlikely to change the way the world thinks.
Maybe building model railways is an artistic outlet for people who don't realise they have any artistic tendencies!
I consider myself to be more of a theatre director.
My "actors" are my locos, with a supporting cast of coaches/wagon.
There is some "decor" but I have to confess it is rather minimalist.
Best regards,
Joe
P.S. I think is probably the most intellectual post I have ever posted on this forum :)
The answer to the question is almost certainly 'no'.
I consider myself an engineer in this respect. I'm dreading having to do scenery. There are others on here who have expressed the same sentiment.
While it could be argued that there are other aspects that might be considered art, it's mainly the visual representation that's generally considered 'artistic' (note: this is a generalisation, YMMV).
But as Nemo has observed, it's the intention behind the work which really determines its status. Just representation doesn't cut the mustard.
The answer is no, modelling is more akin to handicrafts. Modelling ( especially rail) is representing
a real object in miniature as precisely as possible , so there is no room for personal interpretation.
Quote from: NeMo on May 13, 2016, 12:49:17 PM
Right, let's nip this "modern art is rubbish" blossom in the bud.
There's lots of modern art I don't like or understand, but before dismissing a piece, you do need to think about what's trying to be said.
Sorry - did you miss this piece of my post?
Quote from: newportnobby on May 13, 2016, 12:08:28 PM
It's only what the individual sees in a piece of work that determines, in their mind, whether it is art or rubbish.
In other words, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My opinion stands, M'Lud :P :)
I would say Rachel Riley is a work of art........ :D
Pis artists maybe when the drugs let me
Quote from: Agrippa on May 13, 2016, 02:37:40 PM
The answer is no, modelling is more akin to handicrafts. Modelling ( especially rail) is representing
a real object in miniature as precisely as possible , so there is no room for personal interpretation.
As most layouts are works of fiction they must be a personal interpretation. Even a model of a real location is adjusted with to fit the canvass (baseboard) and give the effect the creator is looking for.
And many exhibition layouts have an extremely wide interpretation of what stock might have been used together!
I reckon the "Kanbsy" stencil graffitis I've added to random buildings on my layout will be worth a mint in years to come. Now, what to do with these cows, some miniature aquarium-like cases, a bottle of liquid smelling like the chemistry lab at school and this sharp cutting knife... :hmmm:
Quote from: Chris m on May 13, 2016, 03:11:35 PM
Quote from: Agrippa on May 13, 2016, 02:37:40 PM
The answer is no, modelling is more akin to handicrafts. Modelling ( especially rail) is representing
a real object in miniature as precisely as possible , so there is no room for personal interpretation.
As most layouts are works of fiction they must be a personal interpretation. Even a model of a real location is adjusted with to fit the canvass (baseboard) and give the effect the creator is looking for.
And many exhibition layouts have an extremely wide interpretation of what stock might have been used together!
Yes but they are works of fiction based on real objects , a fictional layout may be an imaginary place
but the track, buildings and infrastructure also the landscape elements like trees, hedges,etc have
to be realistic and to scale otherwise the layout would be nonsense . i dont think Rule1 can be used
to support the artistic argument, anyway in the end its just playing with trains. :D
We are all quite conservative and work within quite strict parameters, here are some interesting models:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/30804/10-amazing-artists-working-miniature-models (http://mentalfloss.com/article/30804/10-amazing-artists-working-miniature-models)
An interesting discussion so far. Thank you to all who have participated.
Agrippa: re: 'Modelling ( especially rail) is representing a real object in miniature as precisely as possible , so there is no room for personal interpretation'
FWIW, you may not realise it, but with that statement you have effectively eliminated the 'Freelance' modelers such as myself from the scale. The buildings (aka 'real objects' ) on my layouts, especially my mining ones are anything but 'real' in that they have actually never 'existed' as 1:1 items BUT are however based-on places I've been, things I've done and buildings I have been in and worked in. They are 'composites' and definitely 'personally interpreted' and by your criteria are definitely NOT 'real', yet, by being able to be touched, handled, uplifted and painted their are 'real-ness' can certainly be verified.
Perhaps you may need to reconsider your criteria?
And are my model railway layouts (I have several) 'works of art' and am I an 'artist'?
My answer to both questions is 'Yes'. I view my model railway creations as 'Three Dimensional Works of Art' , a view that (judging by reactions at exhibitions) others seem to concur with, and, indeed, at a national model railway convention I attended, the Tag Line for the convention itself was 'Model Railways, Works of Art in Miniature'. With a line like that , it would seem that others evidently share the same view...
I am also an artist beyond and outside my model railway interests, working primarily on 'mechanical / industrial' themes and using acrylic paint and pen and ink for the purpose. I see my layouts as multiple and multi-dimensional canvases which can be filled and worked upon to create a larger, completed 'whole'; the finished ('completed') layout being a larger world that contains a multitude of 'smaller' worlds (and sometimes even worlds within the smaller worlds), summarised by the statement 'The More You Look, the More You'll See'.
Submitted for what it may be worth and as my contribution to what has so far been a very interesting and informative discussion.
Next...
There is no doubt that there is an element of art involved with our hobby, I wonder if painters go through what many railway modellers struggle with "scenery", I for one dont have an artistic bone in my body but I have been called an artist from time to time but they usually put the word bull before the word artist :D
Certainly an interesting discussion.
Personally, I see our hobby as a craft although I'm very aware that the distinction between art and craft is very blurred.
I feel that a scenic layout (whether representing a real place or a purely fictitious location) is bordering on the artistic (ie being an artistic interpretation of a scene or period).
Scenic layouts can be much like paintings. ie some are super detailed and realistic (perhaps akin to detailed paintings be eg David Shepherd). Other scenic layouts are less detailed and accurate but portray a feel for a scene or era extremely well.
Some people prefer detailed paintings but I've heard those artists described as illustrator rather than artists. Others prefer more abstract or representational art.
It's all about opinions.
Quote from: Komata on May 13, 2016, 07:44:30 PM
An interesting discussion so far. Thank you to all who have participated.
Agrippa: re: 'Modelling ( especially rail) is representing a real object in miniature as precisely as possible , so there is no room for personal interpretation'
FWIW, you may not realise it, but with that statement you have effectively eliminated the 'Freelance' modelers such as myself from the scale. The buildings (aka 'real objects' ) on my layouts, especially my mining ones are anything but 'real' in that they have actually never 'existed' as 1:1 items BUT are however based-on places I've been, things I've done and buildings I have been in and worked in. They are 'composites' and definitely 'personally interpreted' and by your criteria are definitely NOT 'real', yet, by being able to be touched, handled, uplifted and painted their are 'real-ness' can certainly be verified.
Perhaps you may need to reconsider your criteria?
And are my model railway layouts (I have several) 'works of art' and am I an 'artist'?
My answer to both questions is 'Yes'. I view my model railway creations as 'Three Dimensional Works of Art' , a view that (judging by reactions at exhibitions) others seem to concur with, and, indeed, at a national model railway convention I attended, the Tag Line for the convention itself was 'Model Railways, Works of Art in Miniature'. With a line like that , it would seem that others evidently share the same view...
I am also an artist beyond and outside my model railway interests, working primarily on 'mechanical / industrial' themes and using acrylic paint and pen and ink for the purpose. I see my layouts as multiple and multi-dimensional canvases which can be filled and worked upon to create a larger, completed 'whole'; the finished ('completed') layout being a larger world that contains a multitude of 'smaller' worlds (and sometimes even worlds within the smaller worlds), summarised by the statement 'The More You Look, the More You'll See'.
Submitted for what it may be worth and as my contribution to what has so far been a very interesting and informative discussion.
Next...
Yep its an interesting question, however I don't regard it as art, for example I painted
some Peco trucks in colours I liked, but its not art in my book, however if anyone wants to
call their layout art who's to argue, I've done some landscape painting in acrylic and its
b***** hard to do and get right but I don't regard these as art but third rate efforts,
in the end do what you do and call it art if you wish.
I don't consider myself to be an artist but I do believe that art is part of our hobby, if its good enough for a sculpture to make a statue and have people look at it and call it a work of art why not a model railway layout ?, making scenery takes as much imagination as making a statue so I agree building a model railway can be considered a work of art, just don't look at mine because an artist I ain't :D :no:
I spotted this in the Tate Modern a few years ago....
[smg id=11591 type=preview align=center width=400]
.... if that's art, then my model railway is starting to look like the Mona Lisa :worried:
Yes of coarse we are, 3D artists.
Steve.
Quote from: Bealman on May 14, 2016, 07:02:53 AM
I spotted this in the Tate Modern a few years ago....
[smg id=11591 type=preview align=center width=400]
.... if that's art, then my model railway is starting to look like the Mona Lisa :worried:
Hope that is not subject to copyright.... :D
Agrippa
Wot, no bricks? :)
This thread beginning to look like Pseuds Corner
in Private Eye !
Also, the question has been answered, as several of us have said we are not artists, therefore, no, we are not all artists.
At last, someone with a grasp of logic !
We could be being artistic but not realise that we are. Creating a scene is art (ok or maybe craft). Creating a diorama without a railway would almost certainly be seen as artwork.
Chris M
Re: 'Creating a diorama without a railway would almost certainly be seen as artwork'.
You've evidently attended our local polytech; that seems to be their approach.:)
The railway (or lack of) seems to be the key.
With railway: Merely a 'Toy' and definitely NOT a work of art.
Without railway: A 'Work of Art', and I'll pay you very large amounts of money to purchase it.
The difference that two rails can make... :)
I often find myself referring to the train stuff as a 'hobby' to those who aren't interested, and then afterwards thinking no, I'm selling it short there ... seeing as it involves memory, emotion, etc.
An interesting discussion going on here.
If we're not artists wouldn't we all just choose the layout we want (with no modifications) and use peco set track? The fact we add colour to our rails to make them more realistic is itself artistic. Bushs, shrubs, buildings all make up our artistic diorama. I'm feeling that the hangdog brigade are up in arms claiming "art, not me" more than anything else.
I however, love the scenery aspect. It's the real life glue between the toy and life. Without it; it's just a very expensive marble run.
I do though consider myself as a bit of an artist (personal trumpet time). I enjoy painting my landscape, my buildings and general scenery. I paint pictures in both oil and watercolour and especially enjoy pencil sketching.
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/1/thumb_39623.jpg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=39623)
Smug me. That's my little girl. She's 4 and can already use the controller, point motors and decoupling magnets. :thumbsup: Proud daddy.
Will do commissions for loads of cash.
Great drawing and a lovely daughter. You have every right to be proud of both. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bealman on May 17, 2016, 01:43:03 AM
Great drawing and a lovely daughter. You have every right to be proud of both. :thumbsup:
She has one done by me every year. Not sure how many more years that will be!!
"No Dad, it;s just not cool". Dread the day when I'm not her moon any more .
I have three daughters, mate, and I can assure that you have nothing to worry about. There maybe a "not cool" period, but as they get older they get over that. My oldest daughter (30) just went to a Bowie tribute show with me & Mrs b. She was the youngest one there!!!
Quote from: slippyshome on May 17, 2016, 01:34:29 AM]
Smug me.
You have every right to be smug, (and proud). You have quite a talent. With her facial structure, your daughter is going to grow up into a very attractive young lady - and she is into model trains! What more could a Dad want? :thumbsup:
Quote from: Agrippa on May 14, 2016, 10:22:04 AM
At last, someone with a grasp of logic !
I think we may be outnumbered here. :uneasy:
Firstly, one cannot unconciously be an artist, because there is no intent. It's possible to do things which are
artistic, but that in and of itself doesn't make the practitioner an artist.
Secondly, an individual professing to be an artist cannot speak for the whole group, in exactly the same way as some watery tart chucking a sword at you doesn't make you the king.
and thirdly, arguing that if you're not an artist, you'd just chuck a few bits of track down and that would be good enough (I'm paraphrasing here) is on a par with 'well if you're not a Christian, why don't you just go round murdering people?' Which is a question I've seriously had to answer.
A part of what many people consider art is created by craftspeople. These are people who are highly skilled and creative, and take a great deal of care and pride in their work. They are not artists. I am with them.
So the answer to the question: 'Are we
all artists?' is '
NO' because I am not.
The answer to the question 'Are
some of us artists?' is '
YES' because some of us undoubtedly are.
....absolutely!!!!
or we strive to be....
just that some of us are a bit Jackson Pollack..
If you want my opinion, which you probably don't, but I'm opining anyway (probably opining for the fjords...), the layout I have is a mixture of craft and engineering (neither particularly good) - certainly something creative, but it's never struck me as "art".
However - at some point early on I started taking close-up pictures of the layout at or near "ground level" to see what scenic flaws were evident - ,took me a few goes to work out how to do that (i.e. use something other than the camera's automatic mode) - and that has kind of developed (excuse the pre-digital pun) into setting up little scenes, which when photographed from the right angle could be said to have some artistic merit, or at least I look at the picture and think to myself "dang, that looks kind of nice". Admittedly full of flaws if you look carefully, but that was the main point of photo, but again with some much improvement and better photography I could kind of imagine an an arty-pharty photobook. So while the layout itself may not be art, it might be possible to make "art" from it.
Anyway, as the exam paper went, "What is Art? Discuss. Use additionally supplied 500 sheets of A4 copier paper if required".
For some reason I thought this thread was triggered by this year's Turner Prize nominations.
http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/turner-prize-2016 (http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/turner-prize-2016)
See Josephine Pryde's entry at the bottom of the page. Most definitely not N gauge!
Claude Dreyfus
And it's soooo radical and 'artistic' (not)! Although I can't enlarge the image, what is being exhibited as 'an original art work' would seem to be a 7-inch gauge train / rail set; the sorts of 'miniature' railways seen in parks all around the world.
Art imitating life perhaps; can't say I'm Impressed with the title: 'Pretentious' comes to mind.
Thanks for finding the article for us BTW; the Tate remains the same... :)
I consider my layout to be a 3D picture with trains moving thru' it,but I don't know if I would consider it a work of art, but I do a bit of real art as well mainly Dog portraits.
(http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u379/Diane_Tape/281838_2312328530031_4763971_n_zpso8esdjx7.jpg) (http://s1064.photobucket.com/user/Diane_Tape/media/281838_2312328530031_4763971_n_zpso8esdjx7.jpg.html)
(http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u379/Diane_Tape/284263_2311863278400_7125147_n_zpsybrimat4.jpg) (http://s1064.photobucket.com/user/Diane_Tape/media/284263_2311863278400_7125147_n_zpsybrimat4.jpg.html)
(http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u379/Diane_Tape/282474_2302475563713_7247285_n_zps2kybtvhl.jpg) (http://s1064.photobucket.com/user/Diane_Tape/media/282474_2302475563713_7247285_n_zps2kybtvhl.jpg.html)
Ditape: Impressive. Thank you for sharing the dogs with us; are they your own animals? What medium do you use? Acrylic; Oils or..? Your 'feathering' / softening of the edges would seem to indicate the possible use of an airbrush. is this the case?
Again, thanks.
Quote from: Komata on May 17, 2016, 08:23:43 PM
Ditape: Impressive. Thank you for sharing the dogs with us; are they your own animals? What medium do you use? Acrylic; Oils or..? Your 'feathering' / softening of the edges would seem to indicate the possible use of an airbrush. is this the case?
Again, thanks.
:thankyousign:
The dogs featured the German Shepard and the Rottie are friends animals and the Boarder Collie was my sisters dog,I use a mix of media and I do use a airbrush.I work from photographs I have taken.
Take your pick "Are we Artists ?"
Dictionary definitions
defines the noun 'artist' (Singular: artist; Plural: artists) as follows:
A person who creates art.
A person who makes and creates art as an occupation.
A person who is skilled at some activity.
A person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the older broad meanings of the term "artist":
A learned person or Master of Arts
One who pursues a practical science, traditionally medicine, astrology, alchemy, chemistry
A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice
A follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic
One who makes their craft a fine art
One who cultivates one of the fine arts – traditionally the arts presided over by the muses
Quote from: railsquid on May 17, 2016, 04:47:31 PM
probably opining for the fjords...
Opining for the fjords? What kind of talk is that? (were Monty Python art?)
Quote from: railsquid on May 17, 2016, 04:47:31 PM
Anyway, as the exam paper went, "What is Art? Discuss. Use additionally supplied 500 sheets of A4 copier paper if required".
N.B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.
(Literature - 1066 and all that)
We have some talented people on this 'ere forum. Maybe we should start a 'Gallery' ???. Certainly the works of Di and Slippy are worth looking at - how many other 'artists' are out there? :thumbsup:
Nobody has mentioned the alcoholic artist. :beers:
I don't reckon much to the Tate's offerings. And the artistic meta-language used......... It takes several passes to understand the garbage written. :confused1: