[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes (plain text)


> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:52:54 +0000
> From: keenir@hotmail.com
> To: gsp1954@aol.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
> > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:41:02 -0400
> > From: GSP1954@aol.com
> > To: vrtpaleo@usc.edu; dinosaur@usc.edu
> > Subject: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
 > So skeletons prepared by different artists are not actually comparable,
 > even if in the same pose and equivalent in quality. In fact, their being in 
 > the
 > same pose is a problem because it leads to the illusion of false
 > comparability. Ergo, having different artists pose their skeletons in the 
 > same manner
 > is not scientific and is misleading.

 Just so I can be sure - you're the same Greg Paul who wrote _Predatory 
Dinosaurs of the World_ with all the skeletons in the same pose, right?

 (I ask because I know a non-paleontologist Greg Paul IRL, so i know its not a 
rare name)
 > You can sometimes see this effect in cladograms when skeletons by different
 > artists are used to illustrate different clades. Even when they are in the
 > same pose they don’t really look comparable – at least to the trained eye.

 Because they are from different clades, maybe?

 > The situation becomes worse when the quality of the skeletons varies. Let’s
 > say that the skeletons of that Greg Paul fellow are not all that great –
 > causing some to wonder why he doesn’t get out of the business and farm corn 
 > in
 > Indiana for heavens sake. In that case there is no point of comparing them
 > to the ace work of Susan Erickson. Doing so has no useful meaning.

 It does if this Paul fellow is the only one who's done the skeleton for, say, 
Umwhatraptor ibidensis.

 > kits were posted. The point here is that for items to be truly comparable 
 > they
 > have to be consistently produced in methodology and accuracy, and basically
 > from the same source.

 So in other words, you should be the only dino illustrator until you get too 
old to hold a pencil? *confused face*

 > As I posted earlier, artists regularly using the same pose used by others
 > is not a good idea for other reasons. Less well done efforts can impair the
 > reputation of the person who has built a body of high quality work based on
 > that pose.

 really? so if I start drawing dinosaur bones (ask anyone - i don't draw well), 
that will kill your career?

 > And it is a career mistake for a paleoartist to miss building up
 > their own distinctive brand by patterning their images after someone else’s.

 So now homages are bad too?

 > Some have claimed my standard pose is not a de facto brand because it is
 > supposedly based on Bakker’s running Deinonychus. I have explained elsewhere
 > that is not really so. In any case RTB never used the pose on a regular
 > basis, so it was not a characteristic of his work

 So now people have to use the same pose over and over again for it to 
matter/count ?