Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

There have been various musings on the subject of model railways as art. Is a loco any more or any less a sculpture than a bit of rock carved into a figure? Is a backscene, either hand painted or a photo, any less "art" than items that you see in galleries.

 

If some well known artist created a model railway and entered it into a major art competition, then that would be considered "art".

 

What we do is no less artistic in my view. the skill that some of our loco builders put into their work is right up there with the best jewellery makers.

 

But unless the rather odd world of "art" accepts you, then you will never be considered an art form by the rest of the world.

 

Not long before that lovely man and superb modeller Tom Harland passed away, he painted a section of backscene for a layout. The layout owner jokingly asked him to sign it as it would be worth more when Tom had gone.

 

It turned out to be not very funny when we found out how ill Tom was but the point was that Tom's painting was indeed art. There are some layouts that are as lovely as many a painting but just in 3D with movement. Was Tetley Mills any lesser an invocation of the industrial north than the paintings of Lowery?

 

I am not sure that I want model railways to be accepted into the "art" world. Much of that world is based on pretentious nonsense about what a bit of canvas with some paint on it is worth because a particular person painted it. Do we really want the work of the best modellers changing hands at auctions for hundreds of thousands of pounds because "It's a Beeson".

 

I would rather us stay as our gentle hobby of big boys (and girls) having fun building models and playing trains.

 

Tony G

[St Enodoc]

There have been various musings on the subject of model railways as art. Is a loco any more or any less a sculpture than a bit of rock carved into a figure? Is a backscene, either hand painted or a photo, any less "art" than items that you see in galleries.

 

If some well known artist created a model railway and entered it into a major art competition, then that would be considered "art".

 

What we do is no less artistic in my view. the skill that some of our loco builders put into their work is right up there with the best jewellery makers.

 

But unless the rather odd world of "art" accepts you, then you will never be considered an art form by the rest of the world.

 

Not long before that lovely man and superb modeller Tom Harland passed away, he painted a section of backscene for a layout. The layout owner jokingly asked him to sign it as it would be worth more when Tom had gone.

 

It turned out to be not very funny when we found out how ill Tom was but the point was that Tom's painting was indeed art. There are some layouts that are as lovely as many a painting but just in 3D with movement. Was Tetley Mills any lesser an invocation of the industrial north than the paintings of Lowery?

 

I am not sure that I want model railways to be accepted into the "art" world. Much of that world is based on pretentious nonsense about what a bit of canvas with some paint on it is worth because a particular person painted it. Do we really want the work of the best modellers changing hands at auctions for hundreds of thousands of pounds because "It's a Beeson".

 

I would rather us stay as our gentle hobby of big boys (and girls) having fun building models and playing trains.

 

Tony G

Some very interesting thoughts on exactly this topic by John Rodway in the December Railway Modeller.

[billbedford]

Not long before that lovely man and superb modeller Tom Harland passed away, he painted a section of backscene for a layout. The layout owner jokingly asked him to sign it as it would be worth more when Tom had gone.

 

 

Well Tom Harland was an artist by profession, that is he painted water colours as a living.

[Poggy1165]

Surely one would have to define what art is.

 

For example, if a recognised artist creates an unmade bed, that is art. If I produce an unmade bed, it isn't. Of course, I have my own personal definition of art, but what is the 'official' definition of it?

[t-b-g]

Well Tom Harland was an artist by profession, that is he painted water colours as a living.

 

I should have included that in my post for those who didn't know. Thanks for adding it.

 

His layout, Bramblewick, was one I could just look at and drink in for ages. His colouring and texture was as good as any I have ever seen. If any single model and modeller illustrates the idea of a model railway being a 3D picture with movement, it was Tom with Bramblewick.

 

If Bramblewick was built by a "proper" artist, does that make it more "art" than other layouts built by "non artists"?

Edited December 29, 2015 by t-b-g

[Headstock]

If you are talking about Fine Art, then it is concerned purely with aesthetics, or ideas, and emotion.  It dose not concern itself with the functional. Thus I would conclude, model railways are not art.

[coachmann]

If you are talking about Fine Art, then it is concerned purely with aesthetics, or ideas, and emotion. 

You missed out bullsh*t... 

[Headstock]

Lets put it this way. Thus I would conclude, that model railways are not B.S.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Headstock

[mullie]

If it includes sound is it sound art?

 

If a permanent layout especially in a museum or similar, is it an art installation?

 

How about if the public are able to have a go, what then, is it an interactive installation?

 

If it smells of B.S. then is it a model in 4D?

 

Sorry, I have worked with artists on a regular basis for many years and couldn't resist. I'll just get my coat and go!

[Clive Mortimore]

Ah!! Railway modelling and art, especially kit building..................does my badly made MTK class 40 count as a modern abstract sculpture

[APOLLO]

THIS is art.

 

 

Brit15

[billbedford]

Naar

 

If it includes sound is it sound art?

If a permanent layout especially in a museum or similar, is it an art installation?

How about if the public are able to have a go, what then, is it an interactive installation?

If it smells of B.S. then is it a model in 4D?

Sorry, I have worked with artists on a regular basis for many years and couldn't resist. I'll just get my coat and go!

 

Naar...

 

It is only art if it is sold by an Art Dealer.....

...

THIS is art.

 

Nope, that is a painting.

[Barry O]

according to the lady who holds the lease for our club rooms we, the Leeds MRS are extreme Artists....in all serious the other people who use the building (who cover most sorts of Art) regard us a being Artists because we develop and build layouts which are an artistic rendition of real (and imaginary) places.

 

We found it funny at first but seems like we are not outcasts in the Art community in Leeds!

[APOLLO]

 

 

Nope, that is a painting.

 

Indeed it is - but was painted by an artist - and a b***dy good one at that.

 

Brit15

[Dunsignalling]

        Pray define 'Art.'.

 

      

Painting, sculpture, you name it. Anything except pickled dead animals in fish tanks.  

 

It might be interesting to ask those who deny the artistic nature of any modelling why (for example) a beautifully executed piece of three-dimensional scenic modelling on plywood is any less an art work than the same thing portrayed in two dimensions in oil paint on a similar piece of plywood...........

 

John

Edited December 29, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

Ah!! Railway modelling and art, especially kit building..................does my badly made MTK class 40 count as a modern abstract sculpture

Quite possibly and you are definitely not alone.

 

I'll see your MTK Class 40 and raise you a Q Kits 10201 (the whitemetal version) which is significantly longer on one side than the other........

 

John

Edited December 29, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[Jol Wilkinson]

If you are talking about Fine Art, then it is concerned purely with aesthetics, or ideas, and emotion.  It dose not concern itself with the functional. Thus I would conclude, model railways are not art.

Surely railway modelling is about aesthetics, ideas and emotion - especially the latter.

 

Painted portraits were functional, to show off the subject's wealth or beauty

 

The famous unmade bed was "functional" as well as evoking emotion (disgust in my case). How about the "artist who took all his non degradable waste for one year, had it crushed and put on a pallet  by someone else and displayed the Tate Modern. A load of functional items, the only thing he did was have an idea - and not a very good one at that.

 

There will never be a satisfactory definition of art, although those who consider themselves connoisseurs probably believe that they know how to define it.

[APOLLO]

Art takes many forms. I bought a book this afternoon at WH Smiths Wigan, entitled "The Green Blue Transition - By Tony Wright.

 

That book is pure photographic art, made better by the informative captions.

 

Super book Tony, brought back memories of trainspotting at the Cross & 34G back in the early 70's.

 

Brit15

[Fat Controller]

Quite possibly and you are definitely not alone.

 

I'll see your MTK Class 40 and raise you a Q Kits 10201 (the whitemetal version) which is significantly longer on one side than the other........

 

John

The Cubist one?

[t-b-g]

If you are talking about Fine Art, then it is concerned purely with aesthetics, or ideas, and emotion.  It dose not concern itself with the functional. Thus I would conclude, model railways are not art.

 

Aesthetics, ideas and emotion. Three words that could easily describe what I enjoy about model railways. A well thought out layout that looks good and creates an emotional response in me. I said earlier that I don't want to be in an art hobby, I just want to build and play with trains.

 

People have argued for centuries about what is or isn't art. Is there anybody who really believes we will find the answer to that question on RMWeb?

 

If we can, shall we have a go at the meaning of life next? 

 

Please don't say 42 or 43......

Edited December 29, 2015 by t-b-g

[Dunsignalling]

Surely one would have to define what art is.

 

For example, if a recognised artist creates an unmade bed, that is art. If I produce an unmade bed, it isn't. Of course, I have my own personal definition of art, but what is the 'official' definition of it?

That depends what you get up to in order to produce the effect.

 

I don't think just kipping in it counts........   

 

J.

[johnarcher]

If you are talking about Fine Art, then it is concerned purely with aesthetics, or ideas, and emotion.  It dose not concern itself with the functional. Thus I would conclude, model railways are not art.

What about a model landscape with no working bits in it (ie no railway), hence nothing functional, purely visual, ie aesthetic? (Dave Rowe got close to that sometimes).

 

I'm not making a point, I don't know the answer.

Seems to me that, nowadays, something is art if produced by an artist (even the notorious bed) and you're an artist if you can convince people that you produce art. Circular definitions?

Edited December 29, 2015 by johnarcher

[Focalplane]

My Legge Lane layout would appear to be an almost blank canvas but I do have two Philip Hawkins prints on the wall above it.  (and another one elsewhere in the apartment).  They help my creativity no end because they remind me of what I am trying to recreate.  I also simply like his work - see warwickshirerailways.com for more examples of railway art.

 

 

Edited with better quality photo (and a not quite so blank canvas)

Edited December 30, 2015 by Focalplane

[Dunsignalling]

What about a model landscape with no working bits in it (ie no railway), hence nothing functional, purely visual, ie aesthetic? (Dave Rowe got close to that sometimes).

 

I'm not making a point, I don't know the answer.

Seems to me that, nowadays, something is art if produced by an artist (even the notorious bed) and you're an artist if you can convince people that you produce art. Circular definitions?

Dave Rowe did exactly that quite a lot of the time IMHO.

 

John

[Stanley Melrose]

My wife's first degree was in the history of fine art and it is a joy to accompany her to a gallery where she will explain to me what I should look for and appreciate.  I confess I have learned a great deal from her and enjoy much more "art" than I ever did when looking by myself.  That said, I still have a snigger at some of the stuff that those "in the know" think fantastic and I truly believe there are some "artists" who just take the mickey - and worse still get away with it.  For example Picasso was doing that (IMHO) once he stopped painting "proper" pictures long before Ms Emin forgot to make her bed and the Hurst guy put a dead shark in a tank.  Fortunately for them there are idjits ready to part with loadsa money to own their junk but not me.

 

Of course, model railways are art and many are fine art.

 

Stan

 

PS Happy New Year . . .