[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: dino-artist of the century
> Some of you have cast your vote for Charles Knight whose position in
> paleoart history cannot be challenged. Though the postures of his
> dinosaurs are now outdated, in his time they reflected current
> scientific thought. Moreover, his was a classically trained artist
> before he turned his talents and interests to paleontology. As a
> result, his paleoart fulfilled two very important criteria: it was
> artistically admirable and scientifically correct. His images remain
> important today for two reasons. First, they are cherished works of
> classic early-twentieth-century art, regardless of the subject matter.
> Second, they help document the history of paleontology; ironically,
> their technical inaccuracies are the very attribute that make them so
> valuable in documenting turn-of-the-century paleontological thought.
Actually, I was just looking through the book coauthored by Glut and
Czerkas on Charles Knight, and although his _dinosaurs_ are outdated,
much of his work, which was based instead on fossil mammals, and even
some pre-dinosaurian subjects, is still mostly correct. And frankly,
even though I find the new "image" of the dinosaur much more
aesthetically pleasing (and let's be honest: who would be interested
in a dinosaur that wasn't pleasing, at least in some way?) I'm
actually kind of nostalgic over the old image of the dinosaurs. I'm a
young enough fellow to have been born right at the early stages of the
"dinosaur rennaissance" so I was subjected, as a child, to almost 100%
old dinosaur views and books. I kinda miss my web-fingered swimming
_Trachadon_ and my snorkeling _Brachiosaurus_!
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com