Stix,The good part is each of those mention modelers moved the hobby forward to what it is today.There are many such pioneers whose works goes unnoticed that deserves to be remembered…
I think the one lingering thing that I learned by studying Allens earliest incarnation of the GD, was that a layout does not have to be big to be great.
I also think one of the prime reasons we remember Allen today over many other contemporaries was his skills as a photographer, that his skills as a professional photographer helped raised the bar when it came to documenting model RRs in print.
Untill 2003, when his under-construction layout made the cover of MR, unleashing such a [:O]storm of controversy here and elsewhere from all the negative nancy’s who couldnt stand that someone was actually having fun with model trains that he likely said “[:O]-it, I dont need this [:O]” and went back into seclusion. [B)]
Dont blame him either, I have no doubt if John Allen was alive and modeling today he would be every bit as controversial now as he was back in the day and that each new picture published would elicite an “Oh no not again” or “Oh thats not real model railroading” or “Oh its all just made up so it doesnt count” or other similar gripes that were hurled at Furlow back in '03 would also be being tossed at Allen today from the same group of dislikers amongst us today. [V]
I would point out that being a consummate photographer, also results in one generally having the ability to preceive and compose scenes so as to maximize their appeal, impression of size, etc… They can make the ordinary appear quite extraordinary very easily. Few here truly realize how often what they see in the magazines is a highly misleading impression of just how a layout appears in person. Even some of the hobby’s most famous layouts of the past were arranged more like dingy rabbit warrens than anything like the great, spacious, railroad empires we saw in the pages of the magazines.
Remember, with photography, what you see is not necessarily what you get. Did anyone else notice that the opening photo for the Beer Line article, on page 44-45 of the January MR, is not an actual scene to be found on the layout but results from a re-locating of several structures so as to create a more pleasing and attention-grabbing image? Such is a common practice when photographing layouts or dioramas and I would venture that the majority of shots one sees in MR, RMC, et al. have multiple elements that have been added at the last minute to further enhance the scene.
Absolutly! but the reality doesnt make the impression if you never see it in person, its the image that get printed that leaves the indelable mark on the psyche. Thats why some are often let down when they see how different a layout c
<Absolutly! but the reality doesnt make the impression if you never see it in person, its the image that get printed that leaves the indelable mark on the psyche. Thats why some are often let down when they see how different a layout can look in person vs how it was published, not seeing the furnace or the piles of dirty laundry under the layout makes a huge difference >
Ah but it does make the person who built look human.
Sure the greats are still great but we all need to realize that ther are human beings like ourselves and while they obviously have great and better skills then most of us, we still share our humanity with them.
One firestorm erupted because Furlow put a fellow in a sombrero holding a rifle on the pilot beam of the engine. People were complaining how sterotyped it was, if not downright insulting.
About a week later I went to local Mexican restuarant and noticed that among the pictures of 1920’s Mexico on the walls, there was a “prototype” picture of a fellow in a sombrero holding a rifle on the pilot beam of an engine.
What exactly is “real model railroading”? Does that mean prototypical? The nice thing about a model is that it can be anything you want it to be. If you want it to be a representation of a real place, it can be. If you want it to represent a fantasy world, it can. You can have even have hobbits riding passenger trains to Mordor with Orks working as engineers and conductors if you want to. That’s the beauty of creativity. I don’t think anyone should criticise anyone else’s vision over how they build their own layouts just because it differs from what someone else may do. I’ve seen people say John Allen’s G&D was too much of a fantasy world. I like that. If it was too real then what’s the point? Go outside and railfan the real thing. It doesn’t get anymore real than that! A model doen’t have to conform to any standards, necessarily be based on anything prototypical, and certainly doesn’t have to be politically correct.
“Real model railroads” can be anything from switching puzzles to basement empires. They’ve been built in shoeboxes, pizza boxes, on doors, window sills, shelfs, set up on carpet floors, etc. I have a hard time understanding what “real model railroading” is if John Allen’s was considered too fantasy like.
Whoever made that comment must have not studied the Mexican Revolution, there are literally 100’s if not 1000’s of pictures of average soldiers, wearing Sombreros or similar broad hat carrying rifles posing in front of - or on top of some subject matter like a locomotive, church, fountain, etc.
I’ve even been in homes that have promenantly displayed a similar subject photo of their sombrero clad rifle tooting great-grandfather or great grand-uncle (and commonly great grand-mother or great grand-aunt) who they proudly boast “Fought right alongside Pancho Villa (or Emilio Zapata)”
I find that those mostly offended by such imagry are either not Mexican latino but Cuban,Central American, South American, and just dont like being lumped together with the Zapatistas, or their families are Mexican… but were on the losing side[;)]
You’re right about that. It’s great when we get a peek “behind the curtain” and find out that masters are just folks like the rest of us.
When I visited the National Gallery of Art I was advised to budget some time to visit the basement. After spending hours looking at the finished works of some of history’s greatest artists, I descended the stairs. In the basement were sketches by many of those same great artists. Seeing eraser marks on pencil sketches by Picasso, Escher, and others brought them much closer to me - just knowing that they worked things out like I do was a revelation. I look at their work with greater appreciation knowing that it was work for them and not magic.
Westcott’s book brings John Allen closer as a person. Among those pages I read about his challenges and frustrations, and the time he lost interest in model railroading and didn’t touch his layout for months. Identifying with him as a person makes his results seem attainable, at least it does for me. Simply put, he wasn’t born with all that skill - he had to learn it like the rest of us.
1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object. 2****a. A preliminary work or construction that serves as a plan from which a final product is to be made: a clay model ready for casting.b. Such a work or construction used in testing or perfecting a final product: a test model of a solar-powered vehicle.3. A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics: a model of generative grammar; a model of an atom; an economic model.4. A style or design of an item: My car is last year’s model.5. One serving as an example to be imitated or compared: a model of decorum. See synonyms at ideal. 6. One that serves as the subject for an artist, especially a person employed to pose for a painter, sculptor, or photographer. 7. A person employed to display merchandise, such as clothing or cosmetics. 8.Zoology An animal whose appearance is copied by a mimic.
Certainly any object concerned with a “model railroad” could be lumped into one of those categories. When you use the term “real model railroad” then you have a problem because you have to define what real is. If real implies reality, then Orcs and Hobbits other fantasy characters aren’t “real” and modeling them isn’t “real model railroading”. I view the 'model" in model railroading to be defined using the first definition. So by that definition it would rule out fantasy stuff (since they are an idea, not an object) and it does imply standards since the
I tend to think of us as belonging to two general camps:
Model Railroaders - These folks endeavor to depict a prototype in miniature.
Miniature Railroaders - These folks include the prototype modeling crowd, but also freelancers.
I find the two categories analogous to folks you find at car shows - restorers and hot rodders/customizers. The relationship between the two car groups is similar to the two train groups - respectful, but strained. It’s almost as if we worry that one or the other will force us to their ways.
Myself, I’m a car guy and model railroader (hot rodder and freelancer). I don’t find any reward in detailing anything to make it the same as something else - I like to bend the rules and see what happens. At the same time, I am truly grateful to the restorers and prototype modelers, because their research is what enables me to “get back to zero” when I try something on my car that doesn’t work, and the prototype guys help me to know what’s plausible on my freelance railroad.
I really don’t know what we freelancers give back to the prototype modelers - perhaps we create a larger market for the things they need, and that helps to ensure that the products they need will continue to be available (but that’s conjecture)
Well, there are many levels of reality… (see: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle for a start.) I remember a class on Philosophy at Eastman School many years ago where reality was discussed. There was, for instance, a chair… The physical reality of “the chair”. One that has dimensions and takes space in the physical world. That is the least form of reality. Then you could have a Painting of a chair which would be a step higher in reality. But then there is the “IDEA” of “chair” which has no physical space or dimentions but exists only in the mind. That would be the true essence of “reality”!
So, after all, the world IS what You think it is… (To you at least). And that goes for the rest of us as well! As for John Allen, his was a world well thought!