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

Re: The Knight analogy



 Say good old Charles Knight had adopted a standard pose for a bunch
 of side views -- skeletons and lifes -- that he used over the many
 years. It became known as the Knight Look

_Have_ the pose and the white-on-black convention become known as "the Paul Look"? Personally I never encountered this term before the present discussion. But I don't talk to paleoartists _that_ much, so I ask.

And if they have, isn't this just a byproduct of the fact that... I estimate... well over half of all skeletal restorations of Mesozoic archosaurs that have ever been done are by you? Haven't you simply swamped the field, so some people (perhaps even yourself) now equate the field with you?

 And say this occurrence seriously cut into his income.

Well, why do you think that the style you popularized has cut into your income? Is there evidence of this? How do you know it's not the economy and/or the lack of a dinosaur hype in current culture (think Jurassic Park) and/or the continuing lack of interest in science among people with money?

 If Knight were still alive today would you respond to his politely
 worded statement on the list – say it was worded much the same as
 mine -- by telling him to stop trying to protect his body of work?

If you want to word your statements politely, and even more if you complain about other people's tone so much that you use it as an excuse for not answering their questions*, why do you keep being passive-agressive? It may be polite, but's not kind at all to use phrases like "some people say" followed by an arguably distorted version of what they say, so they're left thinking "he probably means me, but he can always plausibly deny it".

* You _still_ haven't answered the question of which parts of your work should be considered art and/or science to which extents under which circumstances. I still don't understand why.