[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dino clip art book from Dover
On Wed, 24 May 1995 Willa25743@aol.com wrote:
> Here's a just-published reference I haven't seen mentioned: "Ready-to-Use
> Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Mammals Illustrations" by Bob Giuliani, Dover
> Publications, Inc.: New York, 1995. 64 pp., 294 black-and-white illustrations
> of 98 different copyright-free designs printed on one side. ISBN 0-486-
> 28470-0. Paperback, $5.95.
> As a graphic artist, I can vouch for the quality of the pen-and-ink drawings,
> but I'd like to hear some opinions on their paleontological accuracy. Are
> they more scientifically correct than the usual dino art we see in popular
> publications, or less flawed?
> Would you buy it, or recommend it to a teacher or others who would
> use dinosaur illustrations?
> Willard Harrison
As I mentioned in a posting about this book a few weeks ago, I feel that
the drawings are much more accurate than clip art I have seen elsewhere.
But there's a reason. If you look at the "Allosaurus" and compare it with
the Allosaurus on the cover of _The Ultimate Dinosaur Book_ by David
Lambert, you will note that the _body_ is pretty much the body of the
Allosaurus sculpture in Lambert's book. (The head has been changed, but
the pose and much of the skin rendering is taken from the sculpture.) The
Tyrannosaurus is based on the Tyrannosaurus sculpture in the Dorling
Kindersley book. I'm not sure, but I think I've seen the body of the
"Diplodocus" in a Carroll Lane Fenton book. The Stegosaurus is drawn from
a Stephen Czerkas sculpture. With "models" like these, one would expect
the pictures to be reasonably accurate.
Copying from established artists is nothing new. We all know how often
Charles R. Knight's work was "copied" (see Glut's _The Dinosaur
Scrapbook_ which has many examples of how Knight's work was "borrowed" or
Quite a bit of John Sibbick's work seems to have been used as the basis
for the clip art, such as "Ankylosaurus" (which is really Sibbick's
Euoplocephalus), Brachiosaurus, etc.
If other artists on this list have seen the clip art book, I'd like to
hear what they think. I have a graphics background myself, and I don't
think I'm imagining the similarities at all. (I could cite other examples
of Sibbick or Paul art appearing--somewhat modified--in other books, but
this is the first time I've seen a commercial clip art book based on
published artwork. I see no credit in the book to any artists. Many times
when one artist bases a drawing on that of another artist, they qualify
the picture by saying, "Drawing by Smith after Jones.")
I would recommend it to teachers, but if John Sibbick, Stephen Czerkas or
any of the other artists asked that we NOT use it, I would respect
All of the above is my opinion, of course, and does not necessarily
reflect the opinion of anyone else connected with this listserv.
----- Amado Narvaez
(As I also mentioned in that earlier posting, I would be happier if the
Dinosaur Society published a clip art book for educational use.)