Porcy Mane Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Indeed it is - but was painted by an artist - and a b***dy good one at that. He's got the grays all wrong on the mineral wagons. He should have asked a modeler for advice or maybe sought out some Humbrol Authenticolour. Divisive this art stuff, innit. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Whizz Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 There are occasional crossovers ... I seem to recall there was extensive debate in one of the magazines many years ago (involving, IIRC, the late, great Jack Nelson who certainly knew a thing or two about the 'art' side of model railways) regarding what specific shades and colours various bits of a LNWR station would have been painted, "back in the day". Paint specifications only tell you so much, and attempting to identify specific colours from Victorian and Edwardian b/w photos is a mug's gane as we all know. The clincher anyway seemed to be a painting of some sort of romantic farewell between a young couple by one of the great artists of the period, set at just such a station. It was eventually accepted that, because he'd got so many of the technical details of the railway infrastructure spot-on, it could be concluded that he must have got the details of the structural painting right too, and "honour was satisfied". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headstock Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) Hi LNWRmodeller, some well thought out points. To use an analogy, this afternoon we went to see 'The force Awakens'. It was great fun, full of emotion, artistry, it looked good, and was jolly entertaining. The production process involved in creating the film, I feel has a relationship with what we all do with model railways. However it is not Art. (I did actually say Fine Art) Surely railway modelling is about aesthetics, ideas and emotion - especially the latter. I did say purely about aesthetics, or ideas and emotions Painted portraits were functional, to show off the subject's wealth or beauty Not in the way that a pocket watch is. More of a job for a master-craftsman, and a better comparison with model railways. 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. That is Art. There will never be a satisfactory definition of art, although those who consider themselves connoisseurs probably believe that they know how to define it. I Agree, however it is easy to describe what it is not. Come on guys, Railway modelling is really about playing trains isn't it? Edited December 29, 2015 by Headstock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Painted portraits were functional, to show off the subject's wealth or beauty Yes, but there was always a difference between society artists, who could portray, and even enhance, a person's wealth and status, and a jobbing limner who was at best able to catch a likeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Indeed it is - but was painted by an artist - and a b***dy good one at that. I don't think that being able to copying a photograph in a different medium has anything to do with being an 'artist' however skill goes into producing the final product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headstock Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Ah!! Railway modelling and art, especially kit building..................does my badly made MTK class 40 count as a modern abstract sculpture Only if it was intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnarcher Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Come on guys, Railway modelling is really about playing trains isn't it? I hope a bit more than that, also about nostalgia, history, aesthetics, landscape, craftsmanship, engineering etc. Whether any of that adds up to art (or even Art) I have no idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) Come on guys, Railway modelling is really about playing trains isn't it? I wish that were the case. Having witnessed some rather heated debates and one bout of fisticuffs over the years I fear some take it far more seriously. Apparently things are a lot worse (but the handbags are lighter) in the art world. P Edited December 29, 2015 by Porcy Mane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted December 29, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 29, 2015 THIS is art. Brit15 Not only is the painting a work of art, the subject in the picture is a work of art too...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Philip Hawkins is one of the best railway artists. We were taught in art school not to paint so good that it may as well be a colour photograph. We are supposed to be better than a camera lens in that we can instill feelings, personality, abstract and . I also listened intently to another teacher 'on the top floor' who made us aware of bull do-do in all its forms from art to advertising. If people consider someone has created a work of art with track, scenery and buildings, then why not. It has a lot more going for it than a pile of bricks or a womans boob poking through a hole in the ceiling, although Duck might dispute the latter. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted December 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 29, 2015 Hi LNWRmodeller, some well thought out points. To use an analogy, this afternoon we went to see 'The force Awakens'. It was great fun, full of emotion, artistry, it looked good, and was jolly entertaining. The production process involved in creating the film, I feel has a relationship with what we all do with model railways. However it is not Art. (I did actually say Fine Art) Come on guys, Railway modelling is really about playing trains isn't it? Oooh! Performance Art, too.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) Wow, I leave the classroom for a day and you're all at it! May I add my little bit to the 'art' discussion, please? Firstly, thanks Apollo for your comments on my book. There are, though, a couple of bloopers in the captions with reference to numbers and dates; but then I only taught maths up to third year (I haven't a clue what that is in modern education, but the kids were aged up to 13). I suppose having trained in art and then going on to be head of art at a large comprehensive school, I can speak with a little experience of art. Not that I was any good - those who can, do, and those who can't, teach - and those who can't teach, teach teachers (or is that too cynical?) However one defines art (and that's probably impossible) with regard to railways (full-size or model), I think it's fair to say that some subjects show enormous artistic flair. Who would deny that Surtees on the SE&CR didn't show a total grasp of the aesthetics of colour with his painting schemes for Wainwright's locos? Wainwright just signed them off. Or Gorton's painting of GC locos in full regalia? There are many more. Several real loco designs also show a complete appreciation of mechanical form in an artistic way in my view. Though biased, I think the lines of a Gresley non-streamlined Pacific are in complete harmony and as graceful as many great pieces of sculpture. However, getting on to models, an artistic ability is not always a complete bonus, especially with regard to working models. If one used a rule in an art lesson, that was often despised, yet if one drew freehand lines in a technical drawing lesson, a clip round the ear was often the result. The thing is, working models have to be technically/mechanically accurate (I'm talking here about model locos), otherwise they won't work. I've known some highly-skilled (fine) artists who just make a complete mess of anything mechanical. I was lucky; I had a dear colleague who also taught metalwork in my department (thanks Jerry) who showed me how to make small-scale models accurately. Yet, he couldn't draw free-hand to save his life. With regard to the Hawkins painting, if that isn't art then I'm stumped as to what is. A soiled bed? Years ago, a great mate and colleague arrived in the staff room in a rather worse-for-wear state, proclaiming 'Move aside Wrighty, I'm the new head of art!' When I asked about this change of role, he shoved a newspaper picture in front of me with the notorious bed illustrated. 'Come and see mine', he bellowed, 'it's much worse (by abstraction, much better) than that, I've been on the p*ss all weekend - so it's perfectly-soiled!' As an aside, the same colleague drew a Desperate Dan cow pie on the mark book's cover of a rather rotund lady teacher. On seeing it, she yelled at me, accusing me of drawing it. I was affronted! The cow pie was so badly drawn; its ellipse (a circle in perspective) was crude and ill-defined, the shading was very amateurish and the rendition of rising steam from the crust was very poorly observed. I grabbed the book, and drew a proper cow pie on its cover, complete with horns protruding through the crust. What happened to it, work of art or not, I cannot say. Returning to models, I'd say that Bramblewick, having photographed it, was an example of a particular kind of work of art. Martyn Welch's Hursley would also meet the same criterion in my book, as would anything produced by the Gravetts, or John Birkett Smith, or John Greenwood, or any other of the modelling greats. The thing is these are particular examples of figurative kinetic art, in that they are perfect representations of something, and they work. In that they differ from static art, whether 2D or 3D. Certainly, the artistic skill required is immense - how much skill does it take to defecate in a bed, pickle a dead shark and saw it in half (is that what was done?), fill a house with concrete then knock the outer walls away or arrange a pile of bricks? There might be technical/chemical issues, but an ability to draw (which every great artist must have) is certainly not necessary. Though many might disagree, it's my belief that the greatest model railways ever created are far more works of art, than boxed air, piles of towels/blankets or evidence of incontinence! Finally, though I don't think any artistic flair was evident on Little Bytham today, a great time was had by five great friends and me, operating it. In two and a half hours' continuous running, not a single thing failed/didn't work on the railway. Thanks chaps. I've also taken on a selection of locos built by the late Andrew Kinsella (I hope that's the right spelling). I'm going to examine these, service them and make sure they all work properly. Once done, I'll take pictures of them and post them on this thread. I don't know whether this'll contravene site rules, but they'll then be offered for sale, all proceeds going to his widow. I've done this with some of Dave Shakespeare's locos and Geoff Brewin's locos, and no problems were evident. When the pictures are posted (they include a B17/5, a pair of V4s, an A5 - all in LNER guise - and a J72 in BR colours). Anyone interested can then send a PM. Edited December 30, 2015 by Tony Wright 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 Just a passing thought. Philip Hawkins' paintings of steam locomotives are far more accurate than Monet's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PMP Posted December 29, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 29, 2015 Just a passing thought. Philip Hawkins' paintings of steam locomotives are far more accurate than Monet's. Perhaps. For me the Hawkins image doesn't do it for me, things like the minerals being too 'sterile/uniform' with lack of weathering, almost like trying to be almost photographic, but not quite making it. This Monet however does, it has life in abundance for me, vibrancy, passion and atmosphere all immediately transferring to me as the viewer. The Hawkins picture, (good as it is), for me, fails to capture that emotion and connection to the subject matter 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 You townies know nothin about art http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511288/Spoof-Turnip-Prize-showcases-total-lack-talent.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 and then there is this (but the colours are wrong on the web) http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Rain%2c+Steam+and+Speed+%E2%80%93+The+Great+Western+Railway&view=detail&&mid=32F4F0D93498A8A6801532F4F0D93498A8A68015&rvsmid=6E3C38CED341EF5D67846E3C38CED341EF5D6784&fsscr=-1650 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headstock Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Real painting. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I agree the above two paintings certainly have atmosphere, if little else. Lets not lock horns discussing railway art !!. Brit15 (Yes, they're antlers not horns - the horns are on the big orange thingys behind !!). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Focalplane Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Here's my latest work of art - completed yesterday. The bounce flash gun is 1,000 kilometers south, so on camera flash has to do. Back on track? No, that is 1,000 kilometers south as well. There's a limit as to what can fit in a suitcase. 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Just a passing thought. Philip Hawkins' paintings of steam locomotives are far more accurate than Monet's. I don't think that art has ever been concerned with visual accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I don't think that art has ever been concerned with visual accuracy. Aren't etches a form of art as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach james Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 THIS is art. Brit15 No, that is a 9F being flogged across the country, with 16 tonner's hung on the back, and a fireman who should be clobbered with the shovel as he is wasting coal by blowing off !. (and it is a fine painting too...) I think that model railways are a form of sculpture, which it is desired that they move as well. They are not strictly a "model" of any area, in spite of what Tony or I might try for. They are an interpretation of that area, an effort to draw from an inspiration of it and make it the artists own conception of the view of reality. I know the line "model what was there, not what you THINK was there" is out and about- and it is true, to a point. It is defining what that point is is where a layout crosses from being a model to being art. Over here, they called shop classes for quite some time "Industrial Arts", which is what I would think of them as being. It's not art to fix the alignment on your 87 Chevette, but it is art to build a kit car with welding, woodworking, leatherwork, electrical, plumbing, ect. It is not really anything else, so what else can it be called than "art" ? (Science is a pragmatic approach to something, starting with a hypothisis, and moving towards answering the question (singular) that is asked in that, artwork involves more than 2 possible correct answers, IMO). It doesn't mean that stinking piles of bull turds are art ! James 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted December 30, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 30, 2015 The 9F is blowing off, there's one injector on and a volcano of unburnt coal coming out of the chimney but if you take a look at the lifting link it seems to be in mid gear. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclebobkt Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Replying to my own & earlier query about the definition of 'Art.', my olde pal, my olde beauty Con O'Sewer defined 'Art.' as 'The quality of communication.'. Here's wishing all y'all an Happy and an Enjoyable New Year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 The 9F is blowing off, there's one injector on and a volcano of unburnt coal coming out of the chimney but if you take a look at the lifting link it seems to be in mid gear. It looks about right to me - Page 59, top picture, The Power of the 9Fs by Gavin Morrison. Blowing off, injector on and plenty of smoke. Most pictures I can find of hard-working 9Fs seem to have the lifting link just about horizontal. Carrying on, though I have no wish to prolong the discussions as too what constitutes art (railway or not), I'm amazed that no one picked me up on my muddling of Stroudley with Wainwright (now edited). My two favourite painters are Turner and Monet, by the way. That said, I'm still puzzled as to why Turner painted the firebox on the front of the loco in Rain, Steam & Speed. As far as visual accuracy is concerned in painting, it must have been important enough to Canaletto for him to use a camera obscura to ensure his architectural paintings were accurate. With contemporary railway paintings of the quality of the likes of Hawkins, Root, Heiron, Shepherd, etc, unless they were as visually accurate as possible, they would be rejected. However, I'll say no more on the subject, because I'm busy today making a loco and some carriages (as accurately as I can!) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now