1/87 Fishing Trawler

[Frederic Testard]

Even though I realize it is idealistic, I would have business lead by example, not cater to an ever lower demographic with the hope of making more money.

I totally agree with you, Russ, and this is why I felt exactly like you about the guy who wouldn't publish excellence lest it could deter readers from his magazine. I've always found it utter nonsense, and I have heard it for years and years. But as you say there is business and there is the individuals.

On the opposite side, if other types and levels of modeling are belittled by us, then we might get viewed as elitist snobs and possibly turn off someone that may have otherwise been interested.  I'm sure many modelers we never know about view this website, many of whom that get lumped into the "caricature" modeling genre, and if they see us just bashing their style of modeling they may automatically just tune us out rather than staying and perusing and learning and possibly some day even be inspired to give it a shot.

An observation I've often made. Being kind and not openly negative will often get better results, and may sometime reveal very unexpected talents.

Marc, how I understand your feeling about the attitude of some people with God and what God lovers think they have the right to love and not to love. But I'm not sure sharing our views publicly wouldn't degenerate into a really bad and probably not very rationnal argument...

[DaKra]

Those modelers who buy "caricature kits" may not be aware that they are working in "caricature style"  instead believing they are building to realistic standards.  The advertising used by the companies that make these cartoons stress "realism" and "typical" they mention specific eras and locations, with no reference at all to the C-word.  Model builders' discussions online are full of prototype concerns and buzzwords, realistic weathering and painting techniques, scale lumber dimensions, endless debates over nail holes and roofing materials... what good is it, if what you are after is a cartoon?  Has anyone ever seen a kit praised for its cartoonish qualities?  I haven't.  Are people unhappy with super accurate rolling stock that has become commonplace?  I think not.  No, the caricature term is mostly something I've seen used to squelch advocates of higher standards of accuracy.     

[Philip Smith]

godda love the simple machine forum! quite a discussion. BTW I concur.... keep tearin ass!

"can't stand the heat then get outta the kitchen"

Pillup

[marc_reusser]

To be honest, I do not mind or dislike caricature in a model or scene...I often quite enjoy it.....IF it is done really well (not only design, but also build, finish, and consitency)..... I can also appreciate rust, nails etc. done in caricature or over emphasized....AS LONG AS IT HAS IT'S BASIS IN REALITY/PLAUSIBILITY...and that is where so much of the stuff falls apart. Modeling caricature, without the basic knowledge or understanding of what you are modeling and why. Caricature is not an excuse for ignorance, laziness or lack of skill.....quite the contrary.....it is an art, and you need to understand what you are representing, and what to accentuate, what to dramatize and what to leave out, and you need an eye for detail. You need to understand the basics of 1st, 2nd and 3rd read. ....unfortunately, the vast majority of don't have a clue, and simply copy, someone's copy of a copy, of an ill informed original....when they should be researching the what/where/why/how of what the are doing/building/representing, occurs in the real world.
(BTW. all the things that need to be understood to do a successful caricature, are the same things that need to be done/understood to do a realistic model like Chucks.....the only difference is the artistic interpretation/approach.)

....heck, I don't model prototypically accurate (probably couldn't  if my life depended on it)...but I do try to model "plausibly", try to "imply" reality...and have a basic understanding of what I am doing and why. Why, do I do this?.....because I want to enjoy my model building time, and I personally do not have the patience or interest to sit down and build an exact model of something....so, Frederic, in many ways and at some level, I model exactly like, and have some similar sentiments to, those that are sometimes ranted about here.....but you see;  I don't care what people say about me, or about what I do, I am secure in who I am.....so I do not feel the need to be defensive when comments are not favorable, or I get criticized......I can chose to ignore such comments, or I can look at them to see what validity there is in them, and then try to improve/learn/grow....but I do not find it necessary to hide behind lame excuses of "it's only a hobby", or behind the support of other forum members, as is so commonly the case on other RR forums.

There's a an apt saying for these modelers that feel hurt by the slightest critique: "Grow a Pair!"


Marc

[finescalerr]

... And that is the reason I suggested we appoint Marc our Minister of the Arts. -- Russ

[jacq01]

  Marc,

  amen,

 

To be honest, I do not mind or dislike caricature in a model or scene...I often quite enjoy it.....IF it is done really well (not only design, but also build, finish, and consitency

One of the best sample of the type of modeling mentioned is the Rymenzburger Chnollebahn from Marcel.

Jacq

[DaKra]

I like a good caricature too, have absolutely nothing against it.   

I love the scenery in Grant Wood paintings, Smurf and  TinTin comics, graphic novels, Tim Burton movies, the 1/1 scale buildings in Disney parks, French impressionism and so on.  I even love candy coated primitives like Grandma Moses and Michel Delacroix.  These unrealistic works are appealing on many levels, from humor to nostalgia, but ultimately they are all well crafted, artistic renditions that are pleasing to the eye.  And as everybody knows, art is one of those definition-defying concepts, like Jazz, that if you need an explanation, you just don't get it.

Marc nailed it. Kit designers use the "caricature" excuse as an easy way out of the research and precision work necessary to make a good scale model, and a defense against any criticism.   But caricature is very difficult to pull off well.   Besides the firm grasp of the real-world subject necessary for scale modeling, caricature requires a special form of artistry and imagination which few people are blessed with.   Otherwise as Marc said, they are forced to copy someone's copy of a copy, increasing the distortion with every generation, losing wit, proportions and charm, repeating a cliche ad naseum.  These models are primitives at best, but being knockoffs made for commercial series production, they lack the sincerity of a primitive. 

So I am back to my observation, they are just eyesores, grotesque fad items.   I don't see any craftsmanship or charm in them, nothing resonates with me.  The John Allen elements have been bleached out long ago.  The fuzed-together heaps of generic barrels, crates, toy car tires and clock gears only make them uglier.  The designer's struggle to repackage and disguise the same 3 basic structures in his repertoire is pathetic.   I only see mediocre work sold as something that it isn't, to people who aren't really looking at what they are getting.     

Its sad that so many adults automatically categorize observations like these as competitive, then start feeling defensive and put-down.  For one thing, criticism is essential to craftsmanship, its another set of eyes to find things you can improve.    For another, nobody here is interested in ranking, only in promoting better quality work standards and stop the decline into gibberish that Russ mentioned.   I don't think that can happen as long as people refuse to look critically at this "craftsman kit style" and start seeing it for what it is.     

[chester]

Not being a tremendously well educated person myself, I often find myself lost in the level of intelligence in the conversation on this forum. Does this intellect have something to do with the quality we see shown on this site (not a rhetorical question)? Marc points out that the quantity of understanding on a subject has much to do with the level of quality a modeler displays in his work and I agree. The more we know of the object we mean to model, the more we are able to replicate it accurately (given the level of modeling skills exists in us). I find researching a subject to be one of the most challenging (and enjoyable) aspects of modeling. The problem I see with the craftsman kit mentality is that there requires little or no knowledge of the events, locale, era and/or details of the subject meant to be modeled. It is all done for us with a plethora of cast metal, photo etched and laser cut materials already planned out and all that is left is for the piece to be assembled and finished. This is entirely understandable then, and acceptable to the average model railroader since they want to fill their layout in a reasonable amount of time.
   This discussion has led me to say that there are some questions to be addressed that go beyond merely tossing opinions on this issue. So what is it that modelers that possess a higher degree of modeling skill can do to improve the overall level of quality we see on the average layout? And how can they promote quality in the hobby in a way that doesn't exhibit what is perceived as an arrogant demeanor?
   Russ has certainly shown how with his wonderful publications but I ask these questions particularly of those that are just modelers and contributors to this form. Perhaps the answers are obvious. 

[Belg]

Chester, as a guy with a high school diploma and no other formal education I have thought the same as you, that the more education the individual has the more in depth the model research seems to go. I would love to be able to this more dutifully but time constraints and a general dislike for reading anything technical leads me to look at a picture and say I like that, I want to build that. Breaking this down is on me.
Folks that have the time or the ability to build a model in Cad before ever cutting a single piece of material have it hands down over those that can't. Computer skills also tremendously upgrade the building of quality models. The fact that most have some technical training like engineering, architecture and the like go a long way towards being able to think in scale.
I tried myself to work thru a presented diorama for information and either lacked the insight or ability to change, I also mentioned in my thread that constructive criticism as such also be tempered with a "softer or smaller hammer" if memory serves. 
Russ, I think one of the reasons there are not more folks on this forum is just because to the majority it is just fun, not a contest so to speak. If these folks come here first they are intimidated to ever show their things for the fear of getting bashed. You can't sugar coat generalizations like this by being blunt. I think the relationship between the membership here and  your publications go hand in hand. Also not really being to able to choose which books one can buy is what left me out. I understand that I can sell them later but that is not something that interests me.
My two cents worth, Pat

[finescalerr]

I don't think there is necessarily any correlation between education and superior modeling. I think it's more an attitude. Some guys like to research, plan, design, and approach things meticulously. Others create more impulsively. I'm kind of in the middle as I suspect most people are.

What is much more important is the attitude toward excellence. Most dismiss excellence as "out of my league" and walk away muttering words like "snob" or "rivet counter". Others find it inspirational and try to apply some of what they see to their own approach. That doesn't mean copying. It means extrapolating.

Example: Until I read about Chuck Doan's approach to peeling paint I wasn't very interested in that technique. After I saw his step-by-step I decided to try to emulate it in my own way, on inkjet printed cardstock.

To be really blunt, I would say to the guy who shakes his head and walks away, "Good-bye. You may be a great guy in some respects but you are not somebody with whom I would want to talk about modeling. Your attitude is simply incompatible with mine." (That is not to say I might not really enjoy talking about music or politics or chicken recipes with that same guy.)

As for my publications, I never expected everybody to buy every book. After all, some guys simply have no interest in logging or in narrow gauge or in modeling. But the content of the books extends into all areas of the hobby: Finishes, structures, construction techniques, history, whatever. So I am surprised and very dismayed that a majority of people in our niche don't buy at least one book per year whether locally or by mail order. Why? Because, to me, I publish "Playboy for trains". And what red blooded heterosexual male does not enjoy looking at the girls in Playboy regardless of whether he could date one, whether he is married, or whether he is too old for it to matter? (Please, don't take this analogy too far, okay? It only works up to a point!)

And, Pat, the reason I can't offer just one book to guys like you is that the sale would occur after the book goes to press. From my standpoint, that makes every individual copy sale a "back issue" and would put me back into the unprofitable retail end of the business. That is what hobby stores are for. I create, I don't retail.

Russ

[chester]

Thank you Russ. All that having been said, I have a great chicken cordon bleu recipe.

[finescalerr]

I've been to your blog; I think you have far more than chicken to offer! -- Russ

[RoughboyModelworks]

Because, to me, I publish "Playboy for trains". And what red blooded heterosexual male does not enjoy looking at the girls in Playboy regardless of whether he could date one, whether he is married, or whether he is too old for it to matter? (Please, don't take this analogy too far, okay? It only works up to a point!
Russ

The issue is, of course, dependent on what point you're working up to...

Paul ---> heading back to the corner

[gin sot]

The refreshing no-bullshit attitude is why I joined this forum, even though I've only posted a few times.

I'm presently working on some waterfront stuff myself.  It started with one of Bar Mills' less goofy structures.  It was a gift, I never would've bought it.  But since it was given to me I'm kind of on the hook to complete it-- the things we do for love!  I've been able to un-fuck the thing into a fairly realistic model of a marine supply/chandler business, freelanced, yes, but based on lots of research of historical waterfront scenes. 

The next issue was obtaining the requisite region- and era-appropriate vessels.  There pretty much aren't any acceptable ones available.  There's no way I'm going to drop a hundred bucks on a resin Norwegian prawn trawler and simply plopping it down next to the dock and claim I have a representation of truth.  And trying to modify it to look like something one would see on a southern waterfront a hundred years ago would be an exercise in futility.  So now that I've researched the characteristic waterfront architecture of the southeast, I've been led into lots of research regarding the characteristic watercraft of the southeast, their use, and their construction so I can build a fleet of the things.  So now I'm scratchbuilding boats, which I never saw coming . . . I'm a train guy, damn it!

From my experimentation with psychotropic chemicals I knew in an academic sense that "like, everything is totally connected with everything else, man."  But it took modeling to really make me realize this interconnectedness in a concrete fashion.   

Sure, it's just a hobby, and hobbies are supposed to be fun.  But for me, part of the fun is doing it right.

[Ray Dunakin]

...So what is it that modelers that possess a higher degree of modeling skill can do to improve the overall level of quality we see on the average layout?

For some reason I only just now got around to reading this particular thread, and I'd like to take a shot at addressing this particular question.

I think the most important thing that any modeler can do to improve the quality of his/her modeling, is getting to know the prototype (whether it be a loco, a structure, scenery, etc.) I don't mean an in-depth, technical study (although that can, at times, be very helpful). I mean getting to know it visually, through study of the real thing either in person (when possible) or by photos -- preferably both.

To do this, one must often "unlearn" what they think they know. For instance, if you asked someone to make a model of their house from memory, and they'll probably get the basic layout more or less right. But unless they go outside and really look at it carefully from all angles, and examine all the little details and textural variations _with an eye towards modeling them_, they probably won't get those things right, even though they may think they know these things.

Another example: We all _think_ we know what an old wooden fence looks like, and most people can turn out a fair model of one. But to make an excellent model, you have to study the real thing (or photos of the real thing), drinking in all the little details.