[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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
> > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:41:02 -0400
> > From: GSP1954@aol.com
> > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> kits were posted. The point here is that for items to be truly comparable
> 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