For my “novice modeler” readers I just posted a blog on my business site on dealing with rail gaps and rail joiners. You can read it HERE
Model Railroad Blog
Hitting The Artistic Sweetspot
Often, when I tell other modelers that I’ve just made a photography trip to Allapattah (Miami) or Vernon (LA), the immediate response is, “Wow, you’re brave. Weren’t you afraid of being mugged?”. Let’s get one thing straight up front, I’m not brave! But no, I can’t say I’ve ever felt even remotely threatened. Granted, I always go during business hours. Both areas are essentially industrial parks focused on the heavy lifting of commerce.
Dangerous just isn’t the adjective I’d use. Better descriptors for both places would be: authentic, peaceful, serene, understated architectural elegance, quiet dignity. They have a soul. They have texture. They’re local treasures and won’t be there forever.
When visitors see my layouts in person they’ll make comments along the lines of “so detailed” or “so realistic”. I can’t say either is my goal. What I’m really trying to do is convey that sense of understated elegance and serenity, to convey emotion and not simply document by duplicating rivets in miniature. Viewed in person I doubt that I’ve done that and, due to the limitations of size, optics, viewing angles, etc., I’m not sure that it can be done. It can be accomplished however through photography where you can control the viewing experience via framing, low viewing angles, lighting, and cropping in actual sky backdrops. This is why I also suspect that when people see my layouts in person they’ll say “this isn’t what I expected”.
There is a vast distinction between simply using modeling as a form of documentation versus conveying emotion. It’s the ageless debate across all artistic mediums of “is this illustration or is it art?” The latter is much more difficult to achieve. The litmus test is whether the subject conveys information or emotion. On one side of the spectrum is simply illustrating a point in 3D. This is the purpose of an architectural model. You can copy a scene shed by shed, window by window, be one hundred per cent prototypically accurate in a technical sense, and still leave the viewer emotionally unmoved. If however, we go too far the other direction we either end up with a cute, amusement park like caricature, or just a layout surface with modeling subjects plopped down in an incoherent, unbalanced pattern. The sweet spot in the middle is where art lies and it can be a hard target to hit indeed.
Figures 11/8/17
Following my last post on figures, UK modeler Steve J. wrote:
“regarding figures – have you seen the work of ModelU? Based over here in the UK , they use a 3d scanner and printer to accurately create realistic figures. Many have been done from preserved railways and of you catch them at a how you can get yourself scanned so you can live on your own layout!
Having handled them in both 00 and N I can tell you they are spectacular. See more here – https://www.modelu3d.co.uk/
Having just looked at the ModelU site, Steve’s right, those figures are unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. I emailed the company, received an immediate response (always a good sign) and they stated they do ship to the US. Thanks Steve!
Figures
I’ve always felt that the old modeler’s adage of “no detail is better than a bad detail” made sense. If we need a specific detailed part, and the only thing on the market is a crude soap carving, you’re better off omitting the detail as opposed to trying to represent it with an unsightly placeholder.
Working with a figures is such a Catch 22 for us. On one hand, representing human activity in our scenes can bring them to life. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, manufacturing the human form in anything that is even remotely believable can be elusive and is quite possibly impossible. The challenges are enormous. How can you possibly sculpt in miniature the fineness of hair, the thinness of clothing, fingers, facial expressions, and the subtle, relaxed slouch we humans assume in the day to day. I’m not sure you can. Even if a deep pocketed manufacturer threw a lot of resources into it, I think they’d fall short. What we have now are representations of the human form with odd postures, creepy expressions, and overly thick details. In many cases, era correct figures don’t exist. Trying to sledge hammer a round peg in a square hole and include the figures anyway, has ruined many an otherwise well executed model scene. For this reason, the world renowned modeler’s of the Thorne Rooms, the Kupjacks, refused to include figures in their work (and they were working in a much larger scale). I can say with certainty that, in every published photo where I included a figure, I now regret doing so.
Still, I find it hard to let the subject drop entirely. If there were a way to somehow work in at least the suggestion of humanity in our scenes it would add so much. The 64 dollar question becomes, how do you do so without ruining a scene by trying to include a modeling detail that looks like somebody came up behind them and zapped them with a taser?
It becomes an exercise in finding a way to work around limitations that, in all liklihood, will always be there. I haven’t come to any decisions but my thoughts are that “maybe” some things can be done if we:
- Spend the time to look for those figures that have the most relaxed poses
- Face them away from the viewer so facial expressions aren’t visible
- Place them in less prominent locations
- Perhaps paint them a muted gray and rely more on a silhouette look.
That’s the experiment in the photo above. If you look carefully you can see the brakeman seated in a relaxed pose near the front steps of the switcher.
Number 3 Crossing District Blvd.
My immersion in model railroading is largely a selfish pursuit. I like getting compliments as much as the next person but my drive is primarily internal, a desire to create images that give me pleasure to look at, to create scenes that I enjoy operating, experiencing, and interacting with. As modelers we have an advantage that commercial artists do not. I call it the audience of one. Our livelihoods and legacy aren’t dependent in the least on whether anybody else likes our work. All we have to do is please ourselves and it’s a lot easier to satisfy one person than the world at large. It’s pretty liberating when you think about it. However, from time to time I do reflect upon why I publicly post my images and have yet to drill down into my self awareness enough to fully get a handle on it. If I can’t fully explain it to myself it is certainly harder to articulate it to others. As an internally wired person my needle isn’t moved that much either way by compliments or criticisms of the image postings. The best I can come up with is that “putting the images out there”, making them public, part of the community, somehow gives them life.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about my largest outside influences…. Hopper, Ted Rose, Vermeer. I’m just so taken by the mood of serenity, lighting, and visual texture that typifies their work….how they can take the ordinary and create something that is considered some of the most influential art of the ages. I’m fortunate to live where I do in that some of the best art museums in the world are either in town (Washington, DC) or in nearby Philadelphia and New York. It’s hard to measure but I do get the sense that spending more and more times in those museums is improving my modeling, or perhaps more accurately, helping me get better at creating images that I like to look at.
Note: Full format versions of my images (which can now be downloaded) are stored on my Flickr page HERE.