Comment on Why is Paleoart Important? - A Response to Cau by EWilloughby
Charles R. Knights representations of dinosaurs are now considered quite inaccurate, however I still view them as beautiful paleoart based on the knowledge he had at his time and our knowledge today.
It's all relative. Some kids will paint simple silly little dino images, thats fine, they don't have to be in a textbook and there's no real reason to critique them against professional paleoart.
Paint what you love, love what you paint.
Do research if that's what you want to do, if accuracy is your goal. It will show, it will be obvious, but what is most important is what you want to create for yourself and your audience.
Personally, when I'm wrong, I greatly appreciate being corrected. Unfortunately I don't have as much time to read as many scientific papers as I wish I did. I like to ask questions, and usually the community is more than happy to provide me with great answers and resources.
Interesting thoughts by all here but I (personal opinion) don't feel paleoart need be 'exclusive' for any reason. Again, it's still art after all and depends upon the artist and their intents.
Of course, as one who favors accuracy, I strive for that in my own work, but that's me, others are free to do as they wish.
It's all relative. Some kids will paint simple silly little dino images, thats fine, they don't have to be in a textbook and there's no real reason to critique them against professional paleoart.
Paint what you love, love what you paint.
Do research if that's what you want to do, if accuracy is your goal. It will show, it will be obvious, but what is most important is what you want to create for yourself and your audience.
Personally, when I'm wrong, I greatly appreciate being corrected. Unfortunately I don't have as much time to read as many scientific papers as I wish I did. I like to ask questions, and usually the community is more than happy to provide me with great answers and resources.
Interesting thoughts by all here but I (personal opinion) don't feel paleoart need be 'exclusive' for any reason. Again, it's still art after all and depends upon the artist and their intents.
Of course, as one who favors accuracy, I strive for that in my own work, but that's me, others are free to do as they wish.
Yes, great paleoart is like great science: we can still appreciate the vastness and clarity of Galileo's physics, even if it was blind to relativity and quantum mechanics. Endeavors that are among the best of their time have a beauty of their own, even if they're later rendered outdated as progress marches on.
The best paleoart (to me) is a melding of science and art, and exists in a different category from artwork of prehistoric animals that's meant to just be art on its own. Art for its own sake is perfectly legitimate and worth respecting, but it's a different thing altogether in its purpose and intent.
The best paleoart (to me) is a melding of science and art, and exists in a different category from artwork of prehistoric animals that's meant to just be art on its own. Art for its own sake is perfectly legitimate and worth respecting, but it's a different thing altogether in its purpose and intent.
I'd say I agree. There is "paleoart" proper. Then there is everything else. I wouldn't consider scooby doo to be "wildlife art" in that same sense.
That said, different art for different audiences/purposes which is perfectly fine.
That said, different art for different audiences/purposes which is perfectly fine.