[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
Ah, another of those "I am too blind to read people's names" posts.
Mr. Paul, learn some decency or leave the list alone. Please!
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:26 PM, <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
> Having just replied to the kind of query that is appropriate, here is one
> of the sort I object to. That's because firstname.lastname@example.org repeatedly
> misrepresents what I said even when it is plain as day that he is not actually
> responding to what I said, but to what he thinks I said. It begins right at
> In a message dated 3/17/11 11:52:55 PM, email@example.com writes:
> I said "having different artists pose their skeletons in the same manner
> is not scientific and is misleading."
> Immediately after that statement firstname.lastname@example.org inserts "Really?
> 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?
> Aside from the snarky tone, email@example.com is making it seem that I
> think that it is not scientific when a given artist poses their side views in
> the same manner to make them comparable they way I do. But that is obviously
> far from what I said, and late in the post I note that a single artist doing
> so is a good idea science wise. What I said above is that "having DIFFERENT
> artists pose their skeletons" the same way. I then go on to detail why.
> I said that "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."
> Immediately after that statement firstname.lastname@example.org inserts "So in other
> words, you [GP] should be the only dino illustrator until you get too old to
> hold a pencil?"
> Note what email@example.com did here. It is a common tactic (often used by
> biased media reporters) of setting up a false argument by making a false
> and remarkably outlandish claim. I did not come close to saying that I should
> be the only one doing dinoskeletons. I would never do that. All I said was
> that for a given set of skeletons to be comparable that have to be done by
> one person. Say four equally skilled paleoartists each do their own sets of
> dinosaur skeletons. They will not be fully cross comparable with one another.
> That means if a given author wants all the skeletons they use in a single
> venue to be as cross comparable as possible, then he or she of course needs
> to go to a single source who produces skeletons of consistent quality (a
> comparable situation would be that if a modeler wants a truly comparable set
> 1/48 Spitfires from Mark 1-22 he would have to limit himself to just one
> high quality producer). If the artist prefers to use skeletons from a bunch
> artists by all means do so, just realize they will not be cross comparable
> (same if one builds a bunch of Spitfires from different companies). It is
> true that I am the only one that has done a skeleton for nearly every dinosaur
> that one can be done for (according to my criteria) so I hope scientists
> come to me, but if others want to do the work to build up a comparable set
> then get out there and do it.
> I said that "it is a career mistake for a paleoartist to miss building up
> their own distinctive brand by patterning their images after someone else’s."
> Immediately after that statement firstname.lastname@example.org inserts "So now homages
> are bad too?
> Yes, all homages are pure evil and all who do them should die!
> Sorry, couldn't resist that. Again email@example.com is snarkily raising a
> false claim about what I said, but his query is actually useful in that it
> raises a notable point. Say one paleoartist really admires another's work
> and wants to do an homage. Some artists might truly like their work being
> "honored" like that. But be careful. Some artist do not. If they feel the
> violates their rights they may take action of some sort. Especially if they
> feel it impairs their income or reputation. Hey, I'm just stating the risks
> one runs, it happens, so don't get after me about it. But where things
> become a real problem is when homages become chronic to the degree they are
> impairing the income of the artist who is not really being honored. What I
> get is why I have to say this, I am only saying what all should already
> I said that "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
> Immediately after that statement firstname.lastname@example.org inserts "So now people
> have to use the same pose over and over again for it to matter/count?
> Here is how this works. If someone wants to establish a brand one way to do
> it is to come up with a logo/image, trademark it and plaster it over a lot
> of product until it becomes recognizable. A way to develop a more informal
> popular brand is to make some aspect of their art recognizable via reptition,
> to the point that many who see and image will say "hey, that's a Greg
> Paul!" Which of course is why a person who does so might prefer others not
> use tha
> t same distinctive feature and muddy their waters. Think about this one. I
> have done lots of dinosaurs in lots of poses. But almost all of them do not
> trigger that "Greg Paul" impression, only a few iconic skeletal poses do.
> And if someone happened to pose their set of dinosaur side views in a posture
> that happened to be similar to a pose I happened to use at one point that is
> OK because I have done so many images that it would be hard to avoid being
> close to one of them. In any case it is a good idea to justify your own pose
> by doing it for a technical reason like I did.
> G Paul