[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Brian Franczak wrote...
< Funny, I always felt that it was the job of the paleolife artist to
< translate the science to the lay public, by distilling down the work of
< the paleontologist into a simple,
< easy-to-comprehend-without-an-expansive-technical-background piece of
< artwork (either two- or three-dimensional).
Personally, I think its value lies in being imaginative stimulation that
presents a plausible picture of the way things might actually have looked,
something to keep both the public and the scientist interested; basically what
Larry Dunn has been advocating (perhaps the single most important reason I'm
still interested in paleontology is because my Dad read William Stout's "The
Dinosaurs" to me when I was a kid). It accomplishes this by summing up the
findings and theories in graphic form, so I can see how it might be thought of
as something as an educational tool. I'm sure everybody on the list has thier
own idea of what paleo art does best.
< And from my point of view, a piece of paleolife art is no worse
< conjecturally than some of the ideas about behavior I've heard espoused
< by paleontologists .
Sure, and oft-times better. Baseless and implausible scientific
conjecture deserves less space in an exhibit then good art, which at least
serves a practical function. Done well, without making compromises with either
fact or plausibility, paleoart provides both an imaginitively stimulating and
and realistic depiction of extinct life. I simply feel that restorations
shouldn't be allowed to dominate fossils in MUSEUM exhibits because of the
amount that has to be conjectured, however plausibly. Space should be devoted
mainly to the actual tools and raw material of paleontology, with the art
distributed liberally to give the veiwer a sense of the complete world the
paleontologist is trying to reconstruct.
Sorry I mispelled yor name before. It was a typo.