[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur illustrations
Artists take "cracks' at things all the time, and sometimes don't
need ANY bone at all to attempt to re-create an animal. If I (as an
artist) were to try and show what I thought the ancestor to
Archeopteryx were, I have NO physical evidence at all for this
ancestor, but lots of clues in what is known about the animal it
Artists have full freedom to do what ever the heck they want and
aren't required by some governing body to include only the known
facts. As it should be.
Artists should TRY to display facts in a scientific journal, but
much of 'sketchy' scientific evidence is having paleontologists argue
whether the evidence means X or Y. Artists _tend_ to have opinions
about such things, just as paleontologists do. And FORTUNATELY have
the freedom to depict the view they WANT to display. And the freedom
to get nasty comments about it form their peer groups if they are
found to be wrong, or if the particular feature represented is
outdated by new discoveries on that subject.
Publishers should perhaps use descretion in what they display as
"known" verses "artist's impression". Publishers should be aware just
what it is they are recieving from the illustrator, and whether the
artist feels the illustration is truly representative, or a flight of
I'm sorry if this harsh reply, but the original comment offended me.
Illustator, animator, and likes to collect dead things
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Dinosaur illustrations
Date: 11/15/95 11:15 PM
Many books etc contain illustrations of dinos known from only 1 or 2 bones.
Leaving aside the often considerable artistic talent exhibited, do these
really contribute anything useful? What should be the minimum skeletal
material required before an artist gets a crack at it?