MikeC1 wrote:
Believe it or not, that's what makes the whole thing realistic. I grant you, some of it appears garish and overdone as models, but the reality is that is how many inner city areas (particularly those in the larger, older cities of the east) appeared by 1936-40. I was skeptical of the "extreme" weathering some modelers seemed to go to, especially those who were modeling 1900-1920, until I saw some photographs from the 1890's.They were eye opening! The big city slums were already well established by that point in time; by the 1920's many of the buildings were either in worse shape yet, or had been torn down for new construction. By the mid 30's, the cycle of decay and filth was repeating itself, aided, of course, by the Great Depression. I don't think George is too far off the mark (allowing for a little artistic and modeler's license.)
Mike, what you are missing is an understanding of the motivation in the photographers who took many of those depressing 1930's images. The majority had been hired by the U.S. government as part of the art project and were either given some vague assignments to document such and such, or even left to their own devices as a method to keep up their art. Many chose to render their opinions or outlooks on society's condition through their art...often in a highly bias manner.
If you seriously research the matter, you will find that there were two dramatically different schools of thought among photographers during the Great Depression. The first was all dispare, decay and hardship; the other produced images that were bright, clean and looking toward a better future. The contrast between the two sorts of images is striking, as if obtained in two separate worlds and to judge the actual prevailing situation by the former's images alone is to be seriously misled.
During the early 1930's, America was just coming out of the most prosperous period it had ever seen and many industries had recently expanded their physical plants and were new. Further, once the Depression really set in, men were available for a song and, in fact, many kinder employers kept on some workers at minimal salaries just as repair men/painters, to keep from having to lay them off as long as possible. Along this same line, no company that appeared to be a rundown shambles and failing was likely to be considered for new contracts, so most tried to put on the best front they could. Decay to the degree represented by George on his layout could only evolve through several decades of neglect, not just a brief 6-9 years.
I will grant that every city does indeed have its run-down areas - always have, always will - but very few cities have ever appeared to be TOTALLY run down-looking, overall. What George, who I definitely consider as one of the great modelers, does is model in "caricature", rather than in a realistic modeling style. As Brakie indicates, George's style is reminiscent of the town depicted in the 1980's (?) film "Popeye". John Allen was also a practitioner of this style (who George considers his inspiration) with his often outrageously towering stone bridges and many quirky scenes. It's been a moderately popular style since J.A.'s time but never has been seriously considered as being realistic by informed modelers.
CNJ831
