[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: REHEATING THE "PALEOARTIST" DEBATE
---"D.I.G." <email@example.com> wrote:
> It strikes me that what is going on here is a form of "semantic
> ad absurdum" which misses what I have always understood to be the real
> point which is: what scientific background does a given artist bring
> his/her paintings?
Not necessarily, as I think you've expanded the pool of artists we
were discussing in the first place. We need not make this
distinction, as artists sitting down with a sculpture of a dinosaur
and painting it for a cereal box are hacks. We were only discussing
artists who prepare life restorations of dinosaurs from their remains.
I think it's fruitful to be precise in language; if we all understand
what what we mean by "paleoartist," that's fine, but there's no
particular reason to avoid precision in our terminology.
> By, forgive me, bickering about what to call that, the emotional issue
> is obscured.
This may be true if you see an emotional issue here in the first
place, but I personally don't.
> We don't get quite so bent about drawings of Superman, do we? I
> they don't all have to look like Christopher Reeve do they? Would
> be a conversation about calling someone a "superartist?"
I suspect that comic book fans may disagree with
this . . .
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com