Subject:
|
Re: Pic: New Green Building
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:15:27 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.&StopSpam&net
|
Viewed:
|
612 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
> >
> >
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
> > > > But whether or not my structures end up as a part of the layout or not
> > > > isn't my concern. They all will fit in nicely on my home layout:-)
> > >
> > > ??
> > >
> > > Why the talk, even in jest, of starting letter writing campaigns, etc., then??
> >
> > Well, it is more of a philosophical argument, really. I am coming
> > from more of a
> > model railroading POV, where buildings are merely facades and it's all about
> > *external* appearances. Then there are those in the club who
> > build a building,
> > completely detail the inside of it, and close it up so that it will never be
> > seen. I'm not against detailing interiors, but am more interested in
> > detailing
> > the exteriors. I would rather finish all the exteriors and *then* move to
> > detailing the interiors.
> >
> > Yeah, all the little minifig details are cool and everything, but to say that
> > large, detailed (but minifigless) buildings are invalid is wrong IMO.
> > Maybe in an ideal world you have both, but I don't have the time or
> > energy to do
> > it. And as it is, I am (again) a lone voice in the wilderness.
> >
> > But as I finish them, I will let my buildings speak for themselves
>
> Ah, excellent, a philosophical argment. Recall, if you will, that I've been
> getting TRAINS since 1970, and it was only recently that I let my Model
> Railroader subscription, started in 1969, lapse. So I'll see your "model
> railroading background", and raise you, you're holding a busted flush.
>
> First, let me carefully say... in what is about to follow *there is NO right
> answer*... except the answer that you, dear reader, decide to choose for you
> or your club, for your own good and sufficient reasons, because it's about
> fun, after all, not fitting preconcieved notions.
>
> The crux of this argument turns on what the basic purpose of the layout is...
>
> is it a scene in its own right and the trains are secondary (which, if
> you'll recall, is how some train clubs view things, they are primarily town
> layouts that happen to have trains... WAMALTC and MICLTC, for example, seem
> to fit this)?
>
> Or is the layout, as famous pioneering model railroader Frank Ellison said,
> "a stage that serves as backdrop to showcase the primary actors, the trains"?
Perhaps one could argue that it's all about *LEGO*. When push comes to shove, we at
the GMLTC don't push *trains* necessarily, but the concept of *LEGO*-- creativity,
etc. Most of us were fans of the brick first. So whether dad is inspired by a
prototypically designed diesel, or Bobby is inspired by the sheer magnitude of our
layout, the bottom line is that it's about inspiring minds young and old through the
medium of LEGO bricks.
> Frank was a huge advocate of selective compression, of using scene dividers
> to "stage" trains from one scene to the next, of using shorter trains than
> prototypical in order to fit the trains to the available layout, of using
> fast clocks, train waybills, dispatchers with headsets and a bunch of other
> stuff to make operation the focus. (the latter few are not always feasible
> or appropriate for shows but can make club operating sessions huge fun)
>
> If you take that latter approach, you will advocate leaving building
> interiors out unless they somehow add to the scene as a whole. As you do.
> But more importantly, you will advocate selective compression, reducing a
> building to the merest sliver that still conveys the essential message of
> why the building is placed there. And that you do not do.
>
> So you've got some conflicts to work out to resolve what you say, you are
> speaking at cross purposes to yourself.
Perhaps, but the GMLTC is conflicting itself as well. Our back buildings can only
be half-wide due to space constraints; our subway cars are only detailed on one side
(facing crowd) due to structural issues, and yet there are Spamcake Diner-esque
detailed buildings on the layout. So it's not just I that is contradicting myself.
In fact, if anything, a double standard is being applied to me. One comment was
made that if I made my green building 2 studs narrower, it would be fine for the
layout. Well, as if I will go back and go through all that trouble! Besides that,
my buildings dictate how large they will be; I don't know until I finish them. For
example, a building with 3 windows across can only be so narrow-- there are
constraints of the medium. And then there are aesthetics to consider as well.
> Another facet of the hobby to draw parallels from is the creation of models
> *as models* in their own right. If you do that, you will WANT to add detail,
> even if no one but you knows it is there (consider Spamcake diner, which I
> saw in the flesh, week before last, It has details that no one would see
> were it in place on a layout... lots of them).
Tom's Diner is fantastic, and I love the detail of it. I would love to put rooms
and toilets in all of my buildings; I just don't have the time, or I should say that
I'd rather spend that time and effort on the *next* project.
> But your focus then is NOT the show or operation, it is the craftsmanship of
> creating a highly detailed model. And this faction of modelers, rather than
> focusing on large operable layouts, focuses on winning craftsman
> competitions... something we, in this subhobby don't have much of (yet...
> but witness the awesome models submitted to the recent Town contest... so
> there is an interest there, one I would like to see nurtured).
Me, too, because I get my inspiration from the minilands.
> Of course it's possible to do both but one has to be clear about purpose or
> one risks muddying one's message.
>
> Food for thought.
>
> PS, the sackcloth and ashes ("they're all persecuting me", "I am a voice in
> the wilderness", etc) schtick is a bit overdone, but this being the vernal
> equinox celebratory Sunday (1), I guess I can see it... :-)
Remember, it's all about having fun...--playing the martyr can be fun, too:-)
> I hope other people will choose to chime in about this, it is always
> interesting to get more than two voices. But those that say "I just want to
> hang back, not think about the Zen of it, and just build"... that's OK too.
> Remember it is about having fun.
>
> 1 - you know, the holiday the Christians appropriated to be Easter... :-)
Not biting;-)
-John
>
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Pic: New Green Building
|
| (...) Right, point taken. I neglected that perspective, but it is indeed the one that most of us come from (and rightly so(1))... LEGO hobbyists who happen to do things that train shows attendees enjoy, rather than model railroaders who happen to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | Re: Pic: New Green Building
|
| ...snipping... (...) ...Snipping... (...) John- There was no surprise that we were going to have problems with some of the building you've built. We talked about it before you built them. We talked about our focus not being miniland, but more along (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | Re: Pic: New Green Building
|
| With all due respect to all parties involved, I don't understand what is going on here. In our club (GFLTC) we have created an environment that is malleable enough to accommodate anyone’s ideas and creations. This is not work, this is play. Play is (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Pic: New Green Building
|
| (...) Ah, excellent, a philosophical argment. Recall, if you will, that I've been getting TRAINS since 1970, and it was only recently that I let my Model Railroader subscription, started in 1969, lapse. So I'll see your "model railroading (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
