[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Critism of critic criticism
<< Paul's work is consistently excellent. So is John Gurche's. So is
John Sibbick's, once he caught up with modern dinosaurian anatomical
thinking. Henderson's paintings are *usually* pretty poor, although his
drawings are really, really nice. (Oops! I guess that wasn't well-spoken
and thoughtful, either.) >>
I beg to differ. I sort of feel (and this is, of course, my opinion only and
no offense to any of the artists) that Greg's work used to be better than it
is now. The paintings and drawings weren't as "2-D" as many seem to be now.
Plus, I find that some of his earlier dinosaurs (before the sauropods turned
into wingless dragons or his hadrosaurs into mutant horses) were much more
believable and looked more like true animals.
John Gurche's work is excellent, artistically, but I can't say I like his
dinosaurs on the whole. Some of his paintings, I am very fond of
(Archaeopteryx and Sauropod, for example) and others I rather dislike (the NG
ones ... :P) But overall, his dinosaurs don't impress me .. Sibbick's work
is excellent, more or less, but he really needs to develop a taste for
Doug Henderson's work I simply adore. I find very little of it to be "poor,"
as you put it. Most of his pencils, lithographs, pastels, are all-in-all
magnificent. I often compare his work to that of other paleoartists along
the lines, "Which one would I rather have on my wall?" Henderson's work is,
well, just _artistic_, among the most aesthetic paleoartists can offer.
My silly little $.02...