Philosofossilising- What is Palaeo Art (Matt van Rooijen)

This is a reply to the question:

What is Palaeo-Art?

This is an individual opinion on this topic. To read a number of different peoples' answer to this question click this link here. If you have your own answer, read the last paragraph of this post for details on how to get yours posted.

We have our first guest essay entry to this topic from Matt van Rooijen! We would like to thank Matt for taking the time to send us his thoughts, and hope our members and readers could take the time to show our collective appreciation for him taking the time to enter this discussion!

The administrators would just like to apologize to both Matt and our readers, that due to blogger's formatting restrictions, we were unable to underline the capital A's in Matt's essay as he wished them to be. So whenever you encounter the word "Art" with a capital A, Matt places emphasis on this as per his discussion.

Hi, my name's Matt van Rooijen and I'm an illustrator and animator living about as far away as you can get from anywhere else in Tasmania, Australia.

You might know me from illustrations such as these:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100319-new-dinosaur-species-raptor-killer-claw/ or this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8592000/8592749.stm

I really wanted to talk about the notion of Art and art/illustration, and why the majority of Paleo-art isn't Art.

Before you rush to the keyboard to set the comments section on fire, take a deep breath and read on to discover why this is a good thing.

Now you might have noticed I've used Art with a capital A which I've underlined to make it stand out even more (insecure ain't I?).

This is because when most people talk about art what they really mean is a practice that depicts the world or an idea through human craft.

This is art with a small 'a'. People who are in the capital 'A' Art world consider this to be illustration, or even craft.

Why? Well there's a couple of things missing before something can be moved into the Art category.

Art has two significant components that move it away from illustration.

First is a conscious act of interpretation on the part of the Artist. What does this mean? Stuffed if I know.

Sorry, wine talking.

It's the decision to use the technique of the Artist(whether it be paint, sculpture, etc.) as a vehicle to interpret the meaning of the subject.

After re-reading that sentence possibly the wine is still talking.

Essentially the Artist doesn't care about accurate depiction or technique beyond achieving the second component of Art, which is:

Commentary.

A modern Artists' function is to personally comment upon their subject, usually to send a message to the audience of the Art.

To most people this sounds like self indulgent claptrap and their 5 year old could do Jackson Pollock's 'Blue Poles' in a frenzied 5 minutes of red cordial induced paint frenzy.

This is because the majority of people see Art as it was before the advent of photography. Accurate or even photographic depiction is what people admire because it has recognisable craftsmanship and demonstrates an ability honed with practice and dedication.(remember I said this, it'll help below)

Art had to move on and many painful decades on, guys throwing cow blood at walls elicit the same reaction now as the Impressionists did in their time.

So where does this leave Paleo-art?

Generally in the same place as Fantasy art, Science Fiction art, Wild life art, movie concept art, comic book art etc. It's for the most part Illustration.

Before firing up the flame cannon in the comments section remember: this is a good thing.
Often when I've said this to people who consider themselves Artists (who are actually doing illustration) they've become a bit insulted, for some reason they feel I'm saying what they do is somehow inferior.

It's not, it simply has a different goal. Art's job is to subjectively interpret and comment upon human existence.

So just stop and ask yourself, is that what you're doing when you paint, or draw or sculpt?
Then ask yourself, "Why the heck would I want to???? I was just painting Styracosaurus as accurately as I possibly could! Look, it's drinking at a river! It makes me happy! Leave me alone!"
So here's the clincher, Art doesn't demand what most people admire and recognise as skill: craftsmanship, realism, beauty, accuracy, style, interest.

Illustration, on the other hand, is a cruel and demanding mistress who actually asks you to make something that looks like something! Draw in your viewer! Use your understanding of perspective, values, composition! (must stop drinking wine)

It isn't to say Art can't have those qualities, but they aren't a prerequisite, and they certainly aren't valued in the same way.

After reading a couple of essays on Paleo-art, for the most part the goal of Paleo-art is to create accurate images which are the depiction of a somewhat removed reality.

People talk about accuracy and current understanding of the science as significant criteria, not whether the work will convey the deeper meaning of that science on culture and subjective human existence.(yawn)

I've seen a few works here that do actually do this, but those quietly move themselves outside the realm of Paleo-art and into just Art. The Paleo tag becomes redundant.(Art's selfish ain't it?)
So what is Paleo-art? I know it's most often not Art, but most of what we think of as Art isn't anyway. What we usually value and regard as admirable doesn't need that label.

Nor should it want it.

Matt

PS: I trained as a Fine Artist, but what I admire and enjoy most in life is illustration, art with a little 'a', in all its forms.

-- Matt van Rooijen

http://www.optimisticpainter.wordpress.com/

ART Evolved is very interested in other opinions on this topic, and would welcome your answer to this question. If you would like to enter an article on "What is Palaeo-art", please read the brief criteria here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Philosofossilising- What is Palaeo-Art? (David)

This is a reply to the question:

What is Palaeo-Art?

This is an individual opinion on this topic. To read a number of different peoples' answer to this question click this link here. If you have your own answer, read the last paragraph of this post for details on how to get yours posted.

Some great thoughts on what paleoart is and isn't here already, and I can only stand on the sidelines for so long. Here's my take:

Paleoart is obviously art - the name says so. And since no one can agree on what that is, I'm not going to make the mistake of offering any answers here... I couldn't do better than the talented Andreas Cau in the image above. What a great summary. It has everything: the geeky latin name-throwing, the pop culture fascination and a wonderful humor. Paleoart is art, and thus a matter of its perception.

This changes drastically if you follow John Conway's lead and call it palaeontography however. Then you cut the camp out of it and focus on the intent to communicate, illustrate. Whether you take the art out of it in the process is another question... I think not. But palaeontography certainly sounds a lot less fun than paleoart - it sounds like measurements and analysis and scientific debate. If that sounds like fun, you may be the palaeontographic breed of paleoartist. You're more likely to understand the power that you wield in your pen - be it ink or wacom: the power to prove. Because if you draw it, it's out there and it unfairly has an impact that the science itself lacks. 3D realism has the added punch of potentially making something look as if it really was photographed, and thus assumed to have existed as presented... one of my gripes with the overall praise-worthy 3D visualization ala Walking with Dinosaurs. There's the responsibility of paleoart. You have the long years of a number of people in your hands - a community of fossil-hunters, preparators, scientists and publishers. This responsibility generally follows two different tactics: get science in there and keep implausibility out. The remaining space is there to - bluntly put - make it rock.

Getting science in

The purest form of palaeontography is the drawing of fossils with the intent to create a document which states and which communicates (I here prove my point by being unable to name the artist of this coelacanth). There is a lot of skill and knowledge involved in this, but this type of work is seldom admired to the degree that life reconstructions are.


That it doesn't have to be this way is demonstrated by Ernst Haeckel, whose drawings prove themselves to this day as valuable artistic prints, or the scientist David Goodsell who creates fantastically beautiful work of his research with the cellular subjects of his research. The initial intention in both these artists was to illustrate in the literal sense of the word: to show, to make clear. As they delved into their subject matter and mastered their craft, their imagery began to stand for itself, while retaining their function in transporting scientific knowledge. While Haeckel only partially engages in paleoart (here his ammonites) and Goodsell not at all, both are role models for how aesthetically ambitious scientifically accurate paleoart can be.

One of the most influential artists in this direction has been Greg Paul, who goes beyond the fossil into its reconstruction... the skeletal as seen below, or the life reconstruction. The intent then is to visualize his vision of the creature in question as plausibly as possible. The skeletals have less conjecture, the life reconstructions a good deal more. The formulation is very important: What could the animal have been like? The drawing is a proposition and acts as a sort of dialogue. The animal is presented as a sum of scientific discussion. There is a good deal of imagination involved in this work, and the reaction in the general public has been immense... up to the point of introducing a paradigm shift about how we view dinosaurs. Despite the large amount of fantasy employed in this art, I still categorize his drawings within the scientific approach.

This approach can be very exciting when it comes to communicating movement an biomechanics. This illustration by Julia Molnar is at the top of my "achieve this" list.

Keeping implausibility out

This other approach is best presented via the work of Douglas Henderson. His steps back and shrouds the unproven details in atmospheric landscapes. Its like a safari snapshot. He favors every day river-crossings and stand-off encounters over sensational beast vs beast moments. Despite his deep-rooted knowledge and apparent amount of research, the details of anatomy and behavior are only alluded to. He leaves them to be filled in with the level of knowledge that the viewer brings to the table.



There are endless degrees between these approaches, and others that focus on a translation to anthropomorphism or a dramatic function within an entertainment format. I also hope to revisit this discussion with the question: what can paleoart offer the paleontologist? Beyond inspiring future scientists, I'm convinced that there are opportunities for visualization and art to pay back a scientist's engagement in consulting its creation.

But, enough for now. Keep the discussion going!

ART Evolved is very interested in other opinions on this topic, and would welcome your answer to this question. If you would like to enter an article on "What is Palaeo-art", please read the brief criteria here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Philosofossilising: What is Palaeo-Art? (Craig Part 2)

This is a reply to the question:

What is Palaeo-Art?

This is an individual opinion on this topic. To read a number of different peoples' answer to this question click this link here. If you have your own answer, read the last paragraph of this post for details on how to get yours posted.

Craig once again weighing in on this topic. This is partially a rebuttal to Nima's reply. You can read my own definition of Palaeo-art here.

One of the major issues with defining Palaeo-art is determining what proportions of palaeontology and art are needed to make a piece. Does Palaeo-art need to be very creative and artistic or does it have to be very confined within scientific understanding?

At the risk of sounding non-decisive, I'd argue any ratio works just fine. So long as it has some science and some art it is a perfectly fine piece of Palaeo-art.

In his recent essay on the topic, ART Evolved member Nima took the question of "what is Palaeo-art" to a different level and answered "what is good Palaeo-art". He than outlines why he believes scientific accuracy is a key ingredient to "good" Palaeo-art.

Now immediately I appreciate the fact he took the time to explain this was his definition of what is good Palaeo-art. As this way the artworks he criticizes and deems not good, are still implied to be Palaeo-art. If he had not done this, I would have had to take aim at his definition altogether. As is, I'll leave this as his opinion, and admit I also share a large part of his opinion for some standards on scientific illustration.

I however find this lacking as a definition for overall Palaeo-art, as there are a number of sub-genres in the art form I feel serve an equally important purpose to scientific illustration that would be excluded if we adhered to the standards of simple this one sub-genre.

Sadly the attitude that absolute scientific accuracy being an opinion of"good" palaeo-art has shifted into an outright definition of Palaeo-art for some people. I find this both paradoxical, and frankly a little egotistical. No matter how much we stick to scientific facts, our reconstruction will always be wrong.

If there is one thing history should have teach us with palaeontology, is that our scientific understanding keeps expanding and changing all the time. Meaning what is a fact today typically won't be a fact in the long run. Additionally the fossil record simply doesn't record all the information we need to "accurately" restore prehistoric creatures.

So how can you define Palaeo-art as a piece that accurately depicts an extinct creature when there is no such thing as accuracy for that creature?

Here is my argument boiled down (so you don't have to bore yourself with my very long version in a moment).

Let us imagine an artist in the remote land of Kookamunga is given a skeleton of a Magpie and asked to create a totally accurate recreation of this creature. Let us also say there are no Magpies in Kookamunga and no record or trace of them apart from this one skeleton. The artist creates a perfect Magpie, having meticulously measured and studied the skeleton. Somehow determining all the unknown muscle attachments, soft tissue arrangements, even the feathers perfectly! Than in the end coloured it yellow and grey... Would we consider this a accurate drawing of a Magpie?

No we wouldn't, as he got the colouration (a key aspect of what makes a Magpie unique from other birds). This is just with the colour in mind a definite unknown, for the most part, in palaeontology. As I hinted at a moment ago if all you have is a skeleton of an animal things like the underlining muscle arrangements, the overlaying soft tissues, and finally ornamental loose bits like feathers or hair are all impossible to directly determine. You can guess yes (using lots of scientific evidence), and possibly get very close, but you are never going to be correct (or demonstrably correct in any case... without getting your hands on the real animal!).

Before anyone argues that we know lots about Prehistoric animal's soft tissue, think about how much we know about them. A whole picture's worth?

For example I attended a talk the other month that clearly demonstrated how we've been recreating Theropod tails completely incorrect due to misunderstandings of their musculature systems. Luis Rey excellently illustrates (literally) how we know next to nothing about Dinosaur soft tissues, by drawing Turkey flapped raptors and puffy nosed Ceratopsians. The debate on this very site about Pterosaur wing attachments demonstrated there is no where near a consensus on that topic.

So to attack a piece because it hasn't measured out the skeletal proportions, and claim yours is more realistic simply because you have, is a little silly. In the end yours is only slightly less made up than theirs. In the end both both works are inaccurate! When you think about it the degree by which it is not important. Wrong is still wrong... Setting up a defination based in right means both pieces are equally useless.

That is the end of my short argument.

To coherently explore this topic, I'm going to draw on the following definition of Palaeo-art provided by palaeo-artist John Conway, as it perfectly illustrates the philosophic problems of this type of definition. I am not taking aim at Mr. Conway personally here, I consider him a top notch Palaeo-artist, however I consider his definition in the following explanation of his artwork, which he calls "Palaeontography", very flawed.

"Palaeontography is the reconstruction and depiction of fossil organisms (this is often called "palaeoart"—however, this is both pre-occupied by ancient art, and horribly mal-formed). My main interest is trying to formalise many of the methods for reconstructing fossil organisms, in an attempt to bring a cohesive and critique-able methodology to the field. " (Click on the quote to be taken to Mr. Conway's site)

Now I consider this definition to about Palaeo-art. My reasoning is that he admits Palaeontography should be called Palaeo-art, and he than makes no real effort to differentiate the two other than Palaeo-art is "pre-occupied by ancient art, and horribly mal-formed". This than implies that Palaeontography is an artform with no body of work to reference, and thus does not actual exist.

I want you to read and think about the line Palaeo-art "is both pre-occupied by ancient art, and horribly mal-formed". I find this definition of Palaeo-art baffling, and frankly a little elitist. In a single sentence we have all the problems of a scientific accuracy model of Palaeo-art fleshed out. The first is this concept of previous work being "ancient art", and the second is a blanket criticism of these previous works all being "horribly mal-formed".

To view Palaeo-art as "pre-occupied by ancient art" is a dangerous road for any palaeo-artist to go down, no matter how talented they are!

A Palaeontography attitude would hold that when our scientific knowledge has changed since a piece was created, this renders this older Palaeo-art inferior. Thus the amazing work of say Charles Knight would all have to be thrown out of Palaeo-art, as far too many of the ideas that fueled and shaped his work have been discredited after the fact. Yet when the pieces were made this was the cutting edge research of its time!?! More to the point this is a great insult to the the people who pioneered early Palaeo-art. The artform wouldn't exist without them, but that doesn't matter now as their "ancient"...

What about our "modern" palaeontographer? I believe the statement goes "time stands still for no one". Sooner or later your piece is not only going to be old, but it's going to become "horribly mal-informed" despite the current research you used at the time. To define an art field like this is to voluntarily admit your art is going to be rubbish eventually.

If you're wanting to counter by saying Palaeontography is "trying to formalise many of the methods for reconstructing fossil organisms, in an attempt to bring a cohesive and critique-able methodology to the field" and thus somehow remain relevant, think about what you're calling for. Art does not and can not follow a concrete "cohesive and critique-able methodology", that is engineering (again you can't reverse engineer an animal for which you are missing all but the skeleton). More to the point it implies that we are doing something radically different than old artists like Knight. He measured and proportioned his animals very similar to how we do it today. The only critique-able part of palaeo-art I have encountered working with a real palaeontologist, is the measurements, everything else is subjective. Sure soft tissues, muscle placement etc. might be based on comparison with real animals or scientific intuition but you could just outright make them up and there is no way to know for sure with is right. In the end they are all stabbing at the darkness shroud by deep time, we have no clue what the real thing exactly looked like.

I also find this idea of old efforts being "ancient" and "mal-informed" very presumptuous and egotistical. It implies that we today are somehow smarter than these people of the past, and that they were foolish for "mal-inform[ing]" their art with the current scientific knowledge of their time. We have had both the benefit of additional time to acquire new knowledge, and more to the point we couldn't have arrived at this new understanding without the basis of their previous work in the first place!

It also to me implies that we feel our modern understanding is the end of the scientific road, and we have arrived at the final truth. The whole point of science is it is constantly trying to refine the truth, and will never settle on a single answer (at least without relentlessly testing it all the time). More to the point modern palaeontology is nothing but change these days! So Palaeo-art should never get stuck in a groove (and it hasn't... I find today's palaeo-art to be among the most varied and diverse of any era!).

(Artwork credits from left to right: Charles Knight, Ely Kish, Unknown artists of the American Museum of Natural History, and Robert Walters)

When we look at all these depictions throughout the last hundred years of Laelaps (aka Dryptosaurus) I do not see them as a litter of "pre-occup[ying]...ancient art [that are] horribly mal-formed", I see a range of very believable possibilities of prehistory. Sure some are more probable than others (the ones on the right in particular), but we'll never know for sure one way or another (unless Dr. Brown invents a flux capacitor :P). More to the point the scientific facts that went into their construction are every bit as legitimate as the others. They were just put together at different points in our journey of scientific discovery.

More to the point, anyone you show these t0o would be able to instantly recognized them as a Dinosaur. Which brings me to my last problem with a scientific accuracy being the only criteria for Palaeo-art. It has the assumption that a scientific understanding overrides a cultural one.

Now I wish it were true that the average person cared about scientific accuracy, and the universal truth about the world around them. Sadly it isn't the case, and to impose this type of understanding on them is again a bit self important on our part, and off putting to those who might shift to our point of view (I hate it when people try to shoove their conflicting point of view down my throat... why shouldn't they?).

By an Unknown Artist, but this is unacceptable. They deserve credit for this great piece of work. If you know the artist behind this piece please email us at artevolved@gmail.com

While some science is essential in the make up of a restoration of any prehistoric creature, for it to be recognizable, beyond a general likeness this science is not crucial. In this example piece that Nima stated wasn't "real" palaeo-art, I know what all these creatures are supposed to be, and they communicate the core essence of what each was. Admittedly they are not the most correct versions of these animals, but again I don't see how this makes it inferior or "mal-informed". A mal-informed piece would give the Stegosaurus 8 legs, and the Tyrannosaurus breathing fire and having wings. There is more science in this sort of piece than palaeontographers give it credit for. It is just missing the finer details.

I follow Nima's desire for a higher standard of quality, but this is not answering "what is Palaeo-art?". He is answering "what is good Palaeo-art?" To me these are drastically different questions, and is telling me what we should launch for our next Philosofossilising topic ;)

So long as a piece communicates something about how the world has changed in the last 4 billion years, it a perfectly fine piece of palaeo-art... It just might not count as scientific illustration. Which is fine. There is room in any art form for different sub-genres.

For example I point immediately to Jurassic Park. Yes it had a lot of scientific input into it, making its Dinosaurs close to scientifically accurate, but anyone who knows the behind the scenes of JP knows that there were a lot of changes made for artistic and entertainment reasons. Yet this movie is probably the single most important and far reaching work of Palaeo-art of the last 20 years.

It connected millions of people to palaeontology like no scientific illustration or sculptor could have. Should we dismiss it because the theropods are all holding their hands the wrong way, the T-Rexes skull is way to wide at the base, the Brachiosaurs are somehow chewing, etc? That would only really come across as jealously to me. In my experience working with kids at the Tyrrell, this movie only did good things for the science. The tiny details can be ironed out with anyone who wishes to know them. Yet if any piece conveys a general idea about deep time it serves as Palaeo-art just fine.

Despite my beating up on the concept of "Palaeontography" I do follow what Mr. Conway is probably trying to say. I think a high quality within scienctific illustration or otherwise scientific reconstruction is needed for this subgenre of Palaeo-art. I however think one needs to be careful with their regard to previous work, and especially making blanket comments about the quality of their forbearers. It is also important to recognize there are many other possible realms of palaeo-art than simply pure scientific reconstruction!

I believe I will leave off on this note, and threaten my next post being on the sub-genres I see existing in Palaeo-art (or more to the point what parts of palaeontology we don't normal see as palaeo-art that we should reconsider!)...

ART Evolved is very interested in other opinions on this topic, and would welcome your answer to this question. If you would like to enter an article on "What is Palaeo-art", please read the brief criteria here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Article-Philosofossilising What is Palaeo-Art (Manabu Sakamoto)

This is a reply to the question:

What is Palaeo-Art?

This is an individual opinion on this topic. To read a number of different peoples' answer to this question click this link here. If you have your own answer, read the last paragraph of this post for details on how to get yours posted.

It has been a while since I contributed anything to Art Evolved, so I thought, 'when better to start than "Philosofossilising" (if I can ever pronounce it, let alone spell it right!)?'.

As a professional palaeontologist, I owe quite a lot to palaeo-art; palaeo-art is pretty much the sole inspiration for me to I go into palaeontology. I didn't grow up hunting fossils, neither did I grow up going to museums to see fossil on display. I can't even remember being fascinated by fossils as a kid. No, I grew up mesmerized by life reconstructions of dinosaurs. It was mostly books, but also Betamax (remember those?) recordings of TV shows featuring stop-motion dinosaurs, and the occasional roaring dinosaur animatronics that at museums and exhibitions that my dad would take us to. So for me, it has always been life-restorations, or palaeo-art, that drew me to palaeontology.

There was one book in particular that I liked very much. Some of the illustrations in it were so realistic to me, I thought for a long time that they were photographs. Of course, all the bipedal dinosaurs are rearing up like GOJIRA so it's not terribly accurate any more.

Photo of the book cover

But they did what they were supposed to do; bring extinct creatures back to life. Some may argue that research on fossils brings extinct creatures back to life, but I would argue that raw research output is not necessarily easy to visualise. What I mean is that research output wouldn't necessarily make it into a kids book of dinosaurs; but illustrations do. Palaeo-art puts the flesh on the bones, breaths life into fossils, and places the organisms in their living environment. Fossils and research on them provide evidence and educated inferences on the life-anatomy or life-function of some physical traits but it requires some extra steps for that information to be incorporated into a 'life-restoration', the organism brought back to life in a way people can see. People (not just kids) need to see these extinct creatures as they may have looked in life, in order for them to appreciate that such creatures existed as living, breathing creatures on this very Earth. Life-restorations have the power to convince people that fossils were at one time living organisms, eating and frolicking like cats and dogs (or maybe scuttling around like bugs or just swaying in the current of the ancient seas). And palaeo-art, whether it be painting, sculpture or animatronics, is pretty much the only way to present them as living organisms.

To close, I guess I should answer the question 'what is palaeo-art?' - for me, palaeo-art is the art of bringing long dead creatures back to life, and giving us excitement and inspiration as a result. Inspiration, because here is one palaeontologist that was inspired to be one thanks to palaeo-art.

ART Evolved is very interested in other opinions on this topic, and would welcome your answer to this question. If you would like to enter an article on "What is Palaeo-art", please read the brief criteria here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Philosofossilising- What is Palaeo-Art? (Craig Part 1)

This is a reply to the question:

What is Palaeo-Art?

This is an individual opinion on this topic. To read a number of different peoples' answer to this question click this link here. If you have your own answer, read the last paragraph of this post for details on how to get yours posted.

Craig Dylke answering the question above this time around. Though my answer seemed simple in my head, it has proven rather complex and difficult to capture in writing. This is just the introduction of a much larger essay I have been working on for 2 weeks now. I may or may not finish the rest depending on how people respond to my slightly controversial view of Palaeo-art.

My definition of Palaeo-art is:

It is any piece of work created through human effort that causes viewers to reconnect with (or more to the point re imagine) the prehistoric past.

Okay, easy enough, right? Any piece of art that invokes prehistory in people's imagination. In principle this is a simple enough premise. It is when the philosophy and semantics of this all come to bear I'm left with a rather interesting definition of Palaeo-art.

The biggest problem with my view of Palaeo-art is that it rests on 1. Prehistory and 2. more to the point people's understanding and connection with this "Prehistory" concept. None of us has ever seen it or been there before. This lack of tangibility with deep time becomes the fundamental issue in defining Palaeo-art.

From a pure knowledge point of view our understanding of prehistory comes from the scientific method. Which begs the question how important is science to Palaeo-art?

Science is an important part of the equation in Palaeo-art, but the extent of this science doesn't have to go as deep as many would hope, I suspect wish. The science is more of an artistic "flavour", and need only be added so much that the subject matter of a piece (the organisms) be recognizable as being "prehistoric" in nature. There is as much a cultural component to Palaeo-art as there is science.

These pictures are from here, here, there, and here (I do not endorse, nor have I read, the sites they are from. They simply came up in an image search of "Dinosaur" on google)

For example all the above images are instantly recognizable as both being Dinosaurs, and thus being of something "Prehistoric". However the majority of us here on this site know this isn't true, at least in reality (aka scientific terms). They are images that loosely draw on elements of real Dinosaurs, and thus conjure an association. In the realm of science they'd be torn to shreds, and look nothing like their flesh and blood name sakes would have in life.

Yet can we discount this cultural power when considering Palaeo-art? If anyone can tell you these pictures are of animals from a long time ago, how does this make these pictures any more or less valuable than scientifically accurate pieces by the likes of Gregory Paul or Charles Knight? If anything some modern scientific understandings of prehistoric animals are almost too alien for the public to accept (feathered Dinosaurs being an example that jumps to mind).

You could argue that my above prehistorically "inaccurate" pieces invoke a fantasy prehistory rather than anything resembling the real past, and thus they are not prehistoric renderings at all. However I'd be careful before making such an argument. It is a trap... for you!

I've noticed many people would like to have something about Palaeo-art being work that adheres to absolute science. This is probably what is going to differentiate my definition from many. I argue, on pretty solid grounds, you can not have a "perfect scientific restoration" of any extinct fossil creature at all, and so to define Palaeo-art as requiring such accuracy is paradoxical.

There are too many unknown variables with the creatures and times solely known from the fossil record. These unknowns must than be filled in by human imagination, which is the realm of art not science. At the same time these leaps of imagination can be completely tempered by science. However it is important to keep in mind this is not the same as having science fill in these holes!

This creativity is not just restricted to artworks, it finds its way into every step of palaeontology. Right from the time fossils are discovered, dug up, described, and finally conjured in art (painted, sculpted, etc.) there has been a lot of human creativity applied to interpreting the fossils through out these processes. This is part of what makes palaeontology so much fun, but also what makes it frustrating.

Yet I don't think we should despair in face of all this. Rather I think we should rejoice! Part of what makes Palaeo-art so much fun and so rewarding is that you can connect people with the MANY real chunks of science by filling in the unknown gaps with your own imagination. Your art becomes the closest thing we have to a time machine, and I think that is just awesome!

This concludes my general definition. It was just my thesis for a much larger essay. I go into the various genres of Palaeo-art I feel exist (Fossil Preparation, Skeletal Reassembly, Scientific Reconstructions, Pop Culture, and Abstract/Symbolism). I also address the problems with science as a pure basis for Palaeo-art. If any of these interest you, just let me know, and I'll finish them up and post them!

ART Evolved is very interested in other opinions on this topic, and would welcome your answer to this question. If you would like to enter an article on "What is Palaeo-art", please read the brief criteria here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Philosofossilising- What is Palaeo-Art? (Rachael)

This is a reply to the question:

What is Palaeo-Art?

This is an individual opinion on this topic. To read a number of different peoples' answer to this question click this link here. If you have your own answer, read the last paragraph of this post for details on how to get yours posted.

There’s’ nothing I like more than waffling on about a self indulgence like ‘palaeo-art’.

But ‘ay, there’s the rub’ – I say self indulgence because, from my point of view, that is what it is. If I were a palaeontologist or scientific illustrator 'palaeo-art' would be a tool for communicating fact and self indulgence would be a dirty word (or two). My work would be a way to construct a creature or environment that has long gone - a way to use the evidence as a resource to illustrate a picture of the extinct with accuracy and educated guesses.

As an amateur palaeontologist and artist, ‘palaeo-art’, is a love affair. It’s an all consuming passion that people on the peripherals may think rather odd. Like a tiny god of retrospect I can re-create our prehistoric world or use it to stimulate a new one.

There is joy in research - the gathering of clues to make the work complete. Super- sleuthing in glorious details, where even the most minute creature is as intriguing and miraculous as the giants :- moulding and embracing a landscape where extinct creatures may hunt, play, mate, scratch, let off wind, dream and chase flies.

For me it’s like bringing back the dead. But there are compromises in my work that wouldn’t appear in a serious text book illustration. I will substitute scientific accuracy for composition and drama. Sometimes colour will rage through my work with no relation to reality and sometimes humour will twist facts in order to engage.

(Just a blink of scientific accuracy in this camarasaurus eye. Self indulgent all the way, even though I did extensive research into this amazing creature.)

So there we have it. My philosofossilising waffle for the day.

Definition: ‘Palaeo-Art’ - A pictorial or sculptural affair with the prehistoric dead.

ART Evolved is very interested in other opinions on this topic, and would welcome your answer to this question. If you would like to enter an article on "What is Palaeo-art", please read the brief criteria here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Philosofossilising- What is Palaeo-Art? Introduction

Welcome to our first philosophy question here on ART Evolved.

`

What is Palaeo-Art?

Don't expect the answer on this post. In fact don't expect any definitive answer at all. As this is obviously a very subjective topic. However you can (hopefully) expect some different thoughts on the topic, and possibly have these make you think about Palaeo-art in a whole new light!

What we now need are people's answer to this question! If you have your own answer to this question we want to read it!

We are accepting answers from anyone and everyone who would like to answer what they think palaeo-art is! If you are not a member of ART Evolved simply type your "essay" up in a word processor and send it our way at artevolved@gmail.com.

When we say essay, we don't mean pages and pages of writing with tons of references (though we also won't say no if you're so inclined :P). All we mean is that instead of simply replying "Palaeo-art is X", we want a little more of your reasoning to help people understand (or even be convinced by) your point of view. So a claim of "Palaeo-art is X" should be accompanied by a paragraph or two of support about Y and Z.

If you want art examples to accompany your article we'd love it. Though do please follow our art crediting stance on this site, and include the artist's name with their piece!

For our ART Evolved members we ask you to include the header and footer we are emailing you to keep them all nice, tidy, and easy to read as a series. If you make the cut and paste before typing up your essay you won't even notice the effort!

Guest writers of course do not have to worry about this, as the administrators will frame your post with this for you. In guest writers cases, if there is a specific format or place you'd like pictures or text to go, make it much easier for the administrators and create your article in a word processor rather than an email (where formatting can easily be lost).

So happy philosophising everyone, and check back for some big prehistoric ideas in the next few days!