[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
oh, and care to explain which OTHER "brand" was established by
repetition? Can you name even ONE?????? a single one?????
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 email@example.com 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, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> I said "having different artists pose their skeletons in the same manner
> is not scientific and is misleading."
> Immediately after that statement email@example.com 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, firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com inserts "So in other
> words, you [GP] should be the only dino illustrator until you get too old to
> hold a pencil?"
> Note what firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com 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