[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: who made the Art?
I surmise that because there is so much room for interpretation in paleo
art, its validity is somewhat suspect. As such it often gets relegated into
the "kiddie art" category by the public. . . after all the majority of
dinosaur fandom is made up of kids, except for a "twisted" segment of the
population that doesn't seem to outgrow the fascination, right through our
adult years. Because to many, its not regarded as "legitimate art", it has
no significant value to most, so therefore what harm could there be in
stealing an image or two for some project that is only going to appeal to a
juvenile audience. Since the "mainstream" of paleo art ( from Knight on
forward ) is barely more than a century old, maybe it just requires a little
more time to become well seasoned. Once the art form starts gaining more
acknowledgement as a legitimate record of natural history, the artists
involved will start getting some respect as well. And maybe we're no worse
off then any other group of artists pioneering a new art form. If you were
alive back in the time of Van Gogh, you could have probably swaggered into
his little yellow house and bought up a handful of original sunflower
paintings and "A Starry Night" for a couple of bottles of cheap wine and
left with an "earful" (;o) couldn't resist) of interesting stories to boot!
> I'm still rather upset that Raul Martin didn't swipe any of my
> my current goal as far as improvement in my own artwork goes.
> On a related note, why does it seem that paleoart gets ripped off more
> (as far as my own experience goes) than other genres? Perhaps there is a
> misunderstanding of the Fair Use doctrine...?
> -Chris Srnka