Going Pro: Name files for Google searches

This is my last post inspired by Kalliopi Monoyios' amazing Symbiartic post. This tip is one I've been doing for years now, but I thought it'd be just as good a time as any to share it.

Something I've noticed many people don't do, is use their picture file names as optimally as they could (I'm not stalking people or anything. I just get sent a lot of artwork for galleries is all :P). Instead of just saving the final version of your piece with a simple name, think about instead cramming it full of as many Googlable key words as you can.

Zealandia Dinosaurs by myself (Craig Dylke)
Though in reality as far as search engines are concerned its name is
Zealandia Dinosaurs New Zealand Dinosaur fossil fossils ornithopod Sauropod titanosaur ankylosaur minmi Craig Dylke 2012

The Internet is a funny beast. Search engines such as Yahoo and Google don't care what name or typing you put around a picture file. They will outright search the file's name itself first (though the wording around the picture can also play a part). Meaning if you type every possible related search word into your piece's file name, you've increased Google's odds of grabbing it that much more. When I name a file I'll only use these sorts of key words, and not bother with its fancy title.

The important thing is to pick realistic search words normal people are going to use, not just technically correct terms only an expert would use. A couple technical terms sure to maybe put you apart from the crowd, but you want as much exposure as you can. Unseen work won't sell or get used, and even better the more search engine hits you get the higher up list you appear in future searches!

The only problem I've ever had with these key words is that most software will only let you use about 15-20 words in a file name, so you do have to choose them a little carefully.

My formula is roughly:

1. The genus' and any possible variants of the genus name, such as the plural or dropping letters from the end (ex. Tyrannosaurus, Tyrannosaur, Tyrannosaurs or Iguanodon and Iguanodons) I personally don't use species names, as 99% of people probably aren't going to search for it (but you can include it if you have the space)
   
2. Any similar genus to the one you've depicted (especially if yours is obscure, but the other one is more popular ex. Triceratops to go with Pentaceratops) 
   
3. The family name up to order (ex. Tyrannosaur + Theropod + Dinosaur. Wolf = Canid + Mammal)
   
4. The time period depicted (especially when you've done a palaeo-environment)
   
5. The words fossil and fossils
   
6. The geographic region or palaeo-region when it is likely to be unique or of interest to someone on the web
   
7. A generic description of the creatures eating habits (meat eating, plant eating) When combined with the family or order name above, you've covered a common Google search many lay people use to describe animals (meat eating Dinosaurs)
8. Any popular names or nicknames for the critter (Dromaeosaurs = Raptors, Hadrosaurs = Duckbills)
   
9. Any relevant or related pop cultural connections to your piece. This is a cheap, but sadly extremely effective trick. Two of my most popular images are popular simply due to hits from their pop culture names (This one due to Jurassic Park, and this one due to "Sea monster")
   
10. Your name in case someone searches for you personal!
    
11. The date as it is only four characters

Give this a shot. I know in my case it has done me wonders (both my museum gigs were secured through their finding me in Google searches for specific topics). This versatility of search terms can see your piece appear in nearly any search for such animals, and is especially effective for more obscure animals (good luck ever getting high up on the popular subjects, in particular Tyrannosaurus Rex). 

The best part is the more hits a piece gets from any term the higher up it will appear on that specific search engine. Meaning hits to something silly like "meat eating marine reptile" can get you higher up the much more competitive "Tylosaurus" list.

Going Pro: Think about a Logo

This post now exits my tribute (aka ripping off) of Kalliopi Monoyios amazing post on Symbiartic from last year. This and the next post are both bits of knowledge I gleamed myself. However I mention Kalliopi and her post again, as I never would have thought of this logo idea without the wake up call that post gave me.

My current claim to palaeo-art fame is my renditions of the extinct Squalodon dolphin. Two museums are now using them in their exhibits, and the images are 2 of my 3 most viewed pieces of art (losing out only to this silly one from Traumador). In fact I'm starting to get a minor reputation as the "Squalodon guy" (in fairness I've only been referred to as this by one potential client, but as I've only ever seriously dealt with 5 of those I think it is fair I might have a nickname/reputation in the making).

As I've been further focusing on branding my art, something that some people on the net, and my wife (with a degree in marketing) have all said is thinking about creating a logo.

I suggest this as something you consider for your work too. It's not something that will immediately make an impact on your success. However I think in the long term it could have a cumulative effect.

My logo to commemorate/celebrate the subject of my first successful palaeo-art.

There are two difficulties in creating a logo. The first is picking an image that you want to visual represent yourself and art for a really long time (ideally, my wife tells me, your whole "career", given you are not a company with massive exposure. Switching your logo defeats the purpose). The second is composing the logo.

Now for me the choice as to my logo was made easy. The instant I got that email referring to me as the "Squalodon guy" I figured I might as well embrace the title and run with it. So one way or another I really will be the Squalodon guy for the rest of my palaeo-art career.

When choosing your own logo there are a lot of considerations to make. I think one of the biggest is picking something distinctive and memorable. Tyrannosaur skulls, rock hammers, thigh bones, Archeopteryx, and Trilobites while very iconic are also cliched nearly to death in palaeo logos. I'd say find something a lot more unique, or have your own distinct twist on the topic (like Glendon's Flying Trilobite). Above all else make sure that it jives and emphasizes your art and artistic style. A lot easier said than done I found out.

By myself (Craig Dylke)

Here is my logo with its inspiration. I think they go well together.

When refining the final look of my logo I followed this general philosophy (though at the time my wife was reading it out of one of her uni text books). In a nutshell keep the logo simple, memorable, and versatile.

Simple is talking about the use of lines and details. Less of these is more in a logo. The rule goes the simpler the better. Admittedly mine won't be winning awards, but I'm not a major corporation or ad firm.

Memorable hopefully is explanatory. Again avoid the above list of palaeo-cliches would be my only real suggestion (Tyrannosaur skulls, rock hammers, thigh bones, Archeopteryx, and/or Trilobites)

Versatile means you've designed your logo to go anywhere anyhow. Does it look good in both small and big formats? Does it look good in different colour combinations? It is suggested in various places you design it in black and white, and worry about colour later (if at all).

Beyond that there really isn't much to say.

Good luck and have fun creating your logo should you choose to give it a shot!

Going Pro: Over sign your work

Last year Kalliopi Monoyios put up this amazing post on Symbiartic, that forever changed my approach to marketing my art. Go read it, but I wanted to expand on it with a few twists of my own (which have seen me now land two museum exhibits).

Kalliopi had a great section on how to put your signature on a piece. I've not only followed her to the letter, I've expanded on her technique a bit.

Kalliopi insisted you:

1. Sign your full name
2. Put it somewhere that it can not be easily cropped

Great advice. I'm adding two more (for online use material):

1. Always put your web address somewhere on the piece
2. Include two signatures, one obvious, and one subtle but difficult to remove

Purpose of a Signature

This might seem obvious at first, but it never hurts to repeat and remind. We all the know the purpose of a signature is to identify a piece as your own, but there are two direct but different purposes to this.

Property- Right away a signature denotes not only the creator of the work, but additionally who the owner of it as well.

Promotion- If a signature is obvious it can work as an excellent part of your promotion when the art is first looked at by an interested party.

How not to sign your work...

There are a ton of different ways to sign your work, but here are some ways work that don't use the signature to its full advantages.

Can you find the signature in this piece?
It's not much help if no one knows it's there...

This is an example of how I was signing my work as of the summer of 2011. The idea was a minimalistic stamp that denoted the work was mine (in the case of attempted theft or misuse), but otherwise didn't ruin the overall piece. The problem being of course any interested people would never find my name without a very exhaustive search for the nearly invisible signature (it is in the wood paneling below the Dinos belly). Meaning I'm missing out on promotion from the piece itself.

This has a clear signature, but it has a clear problem. Who the Hades is Prehistoric Insanity?!?

Another silly one I used to do (back in the Traumador days) was signing everything with one of my online aliases. This is just confusing and unprofessional. Don't repeat my mistake, just sign with your (full) name! No one is going to take an alias as seriously as you being yourself.

This is definitely signed... a hundred times more than it needs to be

Now I've never signed my work like this, but I've hit several professional palaeo-artists who do. The idea here is your name is really out there, and it is obscuring the piece (so no one else uses I think is the theory).

In my opinion though this is not a good idea (especially if you aren't a big name pro yet). It ruins your art (enough said really). When I hit pieces like this, even if they are brilliant, my attitude/opinion of them gets a little tainted. I can't fully appreciate the art on its own merits, as I have to waste so much effort trying to see "past" the signature.

Instead of obscuring the art with a signature, if you're worried about misuse, instead just post a really low resolution version of the picture instead (400X400ish). That way people get a real feel for the aesthetics and look of the piece, without being able to do more than that (you can't do anything useful with that small a pic).

The only golden rule for digital signatures...

The only thing I am going to say about any signature you add via a computer is make all your signatures somewhat transparent. If they don't bleed into the piece the add distracting visual information for the viewer. Taking the edge off the writing with a bit of transparency makes the signature a bit more a part of the piece, and thus doesn't compete with your imagery as much.

If you sign your stuff in a non-digital medium ignore me, as you already know that being the same medium as the piece it'll just blend on its own...

How I sign my work

Now there are a million options on how you can sign your work, and don't feel I'm saying this is the only way. If anything my signing process has been evolving the past year, so go play with yours yourself. I just offer this as a starting point.

I do one big "in your face" signature (my website), and one subtle but still visible signature (my name and the year). I figure the web address is the important information I want people to get from my pieces about me, if they've found the picture elsewhere on the web.

I place the address in the least important corner of the piece so it doesn't take away from the visual or the narrative. Yes this puts it at the risk of cropping by a misuser, but that is why my subtle signature is in there, as a backup.

The subtle signature is a tip right out of Kalliopi's post, and so I merely restate here. The idea is that you put your full name somewhere important, so it won't be cropped, but not big enough or harsh enough to distract from the piece. On critters I tend to put it somewhere near the rear limbs/tail.

Good luck signing your own stuff, this is me signing off... pun intended :P

Going Pro: Don't Portfolio Here...

If you ask me what the most influential blog post of last year was, I'd have to say this amazing post by Kalliopi Monoyios of Symbiartic. In it she hits on three major mistakes many of us artists make online, and it is a must read for anyone hoping to have their work break out...

I wanted to expand a bit more on some of her points over the next little while. Today we look at how NOT to get a central online portfolio up and running. There are many options for us artists to post our work online, but in the past year I've been finding some that are not as promising as they might seem.

Getting a clear and central online presence for your art is key these days if you want to be discovered. Up until this time last year, I was myself without a clear Craig Dylke's art site, and this I think can be directly tied to my lack of success up until Kalliopi posted getting me to rethink this strategy. I put up a proper portfolio blog, and within a month I was contacted by an author interested in some of my NZ Dinosaurs (it was just a bite sadly, but more than I'd ever gotten before). Since then I've had two museum commission my stuff, and fans order prints.

The form your portfolio takes on is up to you, there is no one solution. Rather a happy spectrum of workable venues ranging from free blog sites to custom URL websites. I'm not an expert in these, and won't waste your time speculating about does work (I just went the lazy route and setup a standard blog for this purpose).

What I have gotten a grip on in the past 5 or so years are sites that are not your best bet for being your art flagship. I highly recommend not putting your main hopes and dreams into the following sites. Do feel free to disagree in the comment section, and I'd love to entertain debate and discussion.

DeviantArt

 Kalliopi hits on some of the problems she's had with DeviantArt in her post, but I am going to go further. She suggests against it, I tell you straight up don't set up your main portfolio on DeviantArt (there are uses for the site mind you, and I'll emphasis that at the end of this post, but serving as your  main portfolio is not one of them).

DeviantArt is not a user friendly laid out site. Getting around it is not clear if you've never used it before, and you should never make a potential client work to look at your stuff. While these days I can mostly get around, I still recall the days when looking around DeviantArt drove me up the wall, and I still don't like it. This is not me telling you this due to an inflated sense of my importance. If even just one person like me doesn't like using DeviantArt, that is one less person who'll find your stuff.

Worse the inbuilt DeviantArt search engine is terrible, and even when looking for posts you know exists on the site it is damn near impossible to find them. I've done searches to try and find a John Conway post many of his annoyed fans insisted I needed to read... They claimed I'd been an idiot for not finding it in my Googling his stuff. Not only did it not turn up on Google, but it didn't turn up in DeviantArt when I typed in everything from the key words all the way to the exact title in the Deviant search engine!!! That is not a site or search engine you want to count on as your main artisitc base of operations!

A lesser, but still important thing to remember is that DeviantArt (and the other sites I'm going to look at in a moment) is that it is a uniform community site. This means that overall you're corner of DeviantArt won't make you stick out as an individual, and in all likelihood won't leave any impression with a visitor other than "they're just another DeviantArt user".

Finally DeviantArt is covered in ads. It is never good to having someone else's ad competing with your work. Additionally some people are instantly turned off by the sight of an ad, and this could easily effect their option/take on your work.

Renderocity

Is much like DeviantArt only it is even less popular. It is not the easiest site to navigate, it's internal search engine is nearly useless (unless you are looking to buy 3D model files... which unless this is what you're trying to sell isn't much help), accounts display identically to each other making you just another user, and it is covered in ads (and as most of these are internal ads, they end up being for 3D models of nearly naked girls... not a good initial impression for a potential client).

The format of the site is a hold over to the site's origins in the late 90's, and it still feels like a bit of a 90's site in places. This also adds navigation and use problems for more modern net users.

The biggest reason not use Renderocity as your central portfolio is that pieces from this site do not readily show up in Google searches!!! Nuff said really.

Flickr

If I had to pick Flickr or DeviantArt I'd go (and have) with Flickr. It is a much friendlier to navigate site than DeviantArt for new users, its account display is much cleaner than DeviantArt, and it doesn't have ads. All this said don't use it as your main portfolio!

While easier to get around intuitively than DeviantArt, Flickr still suffers some navigation problems. These are mostly due to bell and whistle options on the sidebar. Flickr gives too many options that have the potential to send your visitors away from work and even worse possibly to other peoples work!

Flickr also really suffers the uniformity problem. Your account displays exactly the same to a visitor as every other Flickr user's.

I've had a flickr account for 5 years now, and I've gotten no action off it other than that Alien archeology show wanting to use my stuff... for free no less GRRRRRR!!!


ART Evolved (or any other joint community blog)

I've got to be honest, we here at AE are not a good option as a central portfolio (I tried it). Here you are competing with everyone else on the blog, and while we provide an individual flair from other palaeo-blogs, we can't do so for our individual members within the site. While we label all the work on this site, if a visitor isn't paying close attention they might miss who the artist of an individual piece was.

Best again to get your own site or blog, and use us as an auxiliary form of advertisement for it.

These sites do have their uses though!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying never use these or similar site (especially ART Evolved :P) at all. They all definitely serve purposes a dedicated portfolio site never could.

They are all great means of networking with other artists (DeviantArt and AE in particular). There certainly can be no replacement for the feedback, idea sharing, and inspiration of discussing art with like minded peers on venues like these.

They are definitely a good secondary advertising and promotion location. In fact when it comes to getting soft hits on your portfolio and main site all the above are great places to have a secondary galleries up and running. Just make sure you link back to your main site on all of them.

All I'm saying is that when it comes to getting yourself out, make sure it is just you you're putting out there! Start up your very own site...

 Use all the sites I listed here as backups and/or supplementary tools in promoting your art. Just remember if you want to stand out, you typically need to stand alone.

The Cylce of Palaeo-art Mythology

So I'm not quite done with Andrea Cau's 10 Commandments for Palaeo-art.

While I disagreed with many of Mr. Cau's ideas for palaeo-art guideline I left one of his points untouched. It is something we palaeo-artists (and really all palaeontology enthusiasts in general) need to consider when thinking about accuracy in palaeo-art...

This issue being palaeo-art "myths" as Mr. Cau calls them. Alternatively palaeo-art memes as Darren Naish calls them (here, here, and here), or palaeo-art "type specimens" as I called them way back when.

Palaeo-art memes or myths are the artistic phenomenon in which one original artist creates their own version of something prehistoric. Other subsequent artists, due to a lack of other references (or just outright laziness) copy concepts or components of the first piece as though it was a direct source. Suddenly the prehistoric subject is always recreated just like that first artwork. Whether that first artist was (or still is) correct or not.

In his commandments Mr. Cau outlined:

7. Thou shall not create mythology

So there is no confusion on his intended meaning, I provide you with Mr. Cau's definition of "mythology" directly from a comment he made on Stu Pond's post about the commandments.

"When I say "mythology" I mean: unsupported image/idea that the profane can assume uncritically as a scientific knowledge... Since a false/wrong/obsolete/mythological idea in a paleoart image can spread more rapidly than the correct scientific concepts in a (boring) paper, paleart-mediated mythology is very dangerous for scientific progress."

I think there are certainly some very valid points here, and I completely agree with the spirit of what Mr. Cau is saying, so long as the emphasis is placed on the "spread" of an incorrect idea rather than the creation of one!

To me the problem is not the initial idea presented by the first artist in a meme chain. They are not "spreading" a "false/wrong/obsolete" idea, as their first work was original and highly creative. I think the presentation of ideas, whether they right or wrong, is critical in all avenues of life (science and art included). The problem is when people don't check an idea, and as Mr. Cau astutely puts it "uncritically" "assumes" it to be true. This is how we get the "spread" of inaccurate memes, subsequent artists who don't bother to do their own research and rip off the ideas of others.

I'm sure the first artist could explain their rational for their choices. Whether you agree with their logic or not is irrelevant frankly. The point is they made a legitimate creative decision for a reason, and that to me is all that counts. It is the copy cats who when asked why they recreated subject X the way they did can only respond "that's what the other guy(s) did" who we should take to task.

That having been said we should be cautious in our attacks and witch hunting. What is accurate now won't necessarily be tomorrow. Suddenly all our current art could be seen by future artists as some "false/wrong/obsolete" meme. Further more if people through legitimate research arrive at a similar reconstruction, that is totally acceptable.

So where does that leave us when creating new works?

Should we shy away from creating palaeo-art that contain "unsupported" ideas or concepts? Hell no!!! So long as it is a brand new idea, and not something you saw someone else doing. If you are going off someone else's artwork you should also do you're homework.

In a discussion I had with Dr. David Eberth on palaeo-art and reconstructing deep time, he sagely summarized my whole view on the topic (in this approximate "quote" I'm pulling together from my memory...) "Palaeontology is a story based science. We certainly collect and study data, but at the end of that we need to tell a story for it to really make sense. This is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. No matter what story we try and tell, due to missing variables or information, we will be unable to ever tell the whole story."

This should be the true view on accuracy in palaeo-art. It can only ever be partial accuracy, no matter what!

The worry I have with focusing on preventing "false/wrong/obsolete" reconstructions and memes, is that we could end up creating even more dangerous myths. Those that are based on supposed facts!

I present a few case studies for your consideration:


My first example is this tutorial piece by Tomozaurus that is aimed at getting artists to feather Dromaeosaurid (raptor) dinosaurs "correctly". I do like his intended take home message, but sadly he frames this completely wrong.

Tomazaurus does fantastic work, check out the rest of his great artwork here, so don't misunderstand the rant I'm about to launch into. I merely take issue with the format of this poster and false impression it creates. While he may of used quotation marks around the word "real" to alert us to the conjecture he engages in about reconstructing a Velociraptor, I feel Tomazaurus (inadvertently) is creating a myth about what we do and don't know about this animal.

The problem are the magic red X's and friendly green check marks. These symbols automatically imply black and white right and wrongs. Yet those do not exist within our scientific knowledge of Velociraptor. I'm sure Tomozaurus meant the X's and check marks ironically or in fun, but speaking as a teacher, these two symbols can carry powerful assertions about absolute correctness (60% of my incidents with parents were caused by disagreements over marking! "X"s in particular can become quite contentious in subjective areas). They should not be used lightly, especially when discussing science!

My issue is there are not many actual scientific facts about how to reconstruct a Velociraptor. The level of detail and commentary we see presented here (especially about soft tissue) is NOT possible! I don't care how much secondary (and soft) supporting evidence there is for his assertions. The point is he is basically making up his Velociraptor as much as anyone else.

Using totally different animals (Microraptor mostly) is not proof of anything about Velociraptor (Microraptor is not even close to being a direct relative of Velociraptor within the Dromaeosaurs)!. All we legitimately know about Velociraptor is it had some sort of large feathers on their arms. That is it! Not even the whole feather, just the quill base stem they've actually found in the fossil record! Yes it makes for a crappy picture, the underside of the arms, but with this format that is all you'd be allowed to show!

Frankly there is absolutely NO science to say the "half-arsed" Velociraptor is incorrect (beyond the point about the hand). The Greyhound/lizard can be said to fair analysis, but this is mostly due to the outright terrible anatomy that doesn't even match the skeleton.

Whether he was aware of it or not, Tomazaurus was essentially attempting to start a myth here. The intentions were noble, but because it was based on half truths (we know Velociraptors had quill knobs on their arms, but not what the feathers actually looked like that alone how far up the body they did or did not extend) and misused science (other feathered therapods) this had the potential to become a super-myth of sorts. Something so plausible sounding (and maybe found to be correct in the future... but don't count your fossils before they are found) that we could start to believe it to be true (without fossils!?!)... Which is just as bad as totally incorrect information becoming a wide spread myth!

My other case involves the dismissal of the unfounded palaeo-art myth/meme of ceratopsian defensive circles (seen above as created by Peter Barnett). However through the case presented in debunking this meme, a new (and not true) myth started to take form...

Ironically this was by Mr. Cau himself, and really illustrates the dangers of trying to directly confront mythology. The issue of defensive circles was raised in the same quote I used earlier from Stu Pond's blog (backlink here)

"When I say "mythology" I mean: unsupported image/idea that the profane can assume uncritically as a scientific knowledge (for example, ceratopsids forming a ring around their youngs when attacked by predators).Since a false/wrong/obsolete/mythological idea in a paleoart image can spread more rapidly than the correct scientific concepts in a (boring) paper, paleart-mediated mythology is very dangerous for scientific progress."

Mr. Cau starts to (accidentally) create a myth in this different comment further down the discussion:
"We know a lot of adult ceratopsians in bone beds, but few juveniles (if none at all) are recovered in these bonebeds. We also know that most of the known dinosaurs had a social system with juvenile and reproductive adults that lived in distinct associations: these facts support the hypothesis that juvenile and adult ceratopsid did not live together... so, the evidence actually reject the defensive ring hypothesis."

In advance I'm certain Mr. Cau was speaking from the best of his knowledge. This is not meant to belittle him, or question his knowledge. Far from it, on subject of Theropods he is one of the best in the business! However theropods and ceratopsians are not the same, and I suspect he can only afford the time to casually read the ceratopsian literature.

As a fan of both Centrosaurine dinosaurs and Taphonomy (the study of how fossils end up being fossils) I am well read up on both topics. I can say with some certainty, that while what Mr. Cau says is empirically true (in the sense of the number of juvie specimens found), the reality of the conclusions he draws are incredibly incorrect! The reason being he has only (accidentally) presented a portion of the data and findings important to Ceratopsian bonebeds. Simply counting the bones isn't enough. You have to take into account how they got there...

If you are to read any of the many papers or articles in the Dinosaur Provincal Park volume on the Centrosaur bonebeds in Alberta by Michael Ryan, Donald Brinkman, and/or David Eberth you would discover that through taphonomic analysis we have found some pretty serious preservational biases in many of these bonebeds that favour larger bone material. Meaning, yes, we get mostly bigger bones from adult animals. Yet despite this bias we still find the remains of juveniles at these sites, which means there had to be juveniles there too. More to the point there had to a lot of them to begin with for the bias being unable to wipe them all the record!

The juveniles material we have found from (Albertan Centrosaurine) sites is so good we've pieced together very complete and comprehensive osteologic series for many Centrosaurine genus solely from material recovered from these bonebeds, as we had animals of all ages to reference. Why would we have animals of all ages together unless they were living in proximity? (though this is not necessarily supporting family groups admittedly, but it is not countering family behaviour either! It does disprove Mr. Cau's statement "juvenile and adult ceratopsid did not live together." Whether it was a family group or something less social, the point is they were living close enough together to end up dead together!)

What does this evidence actually mean? You (and the experts) can (and have) drawn (pun intended :P) all sorts of things from this (I can discuss the literature in comments if people are interested). I think it emphasises how much we have yet to learn on this (or any other) topic, and that artists have an amazing amount of flexibility for palaeo-art that still falls within the factually "limits".

It also emphasises the problems with sorting myths and the truth. Mr. Cau was speaking from what he knew to be true. Yet that truth was missing some key relevant information, which actually meant it was another myth... I hope you see the very real potential for a vicious circle we could find ourselves in worrying about myths.

So I caution us from going after the myths themselves.

Not because the myths or memes themselves shouldn't be snoofed out! Far from it... There is NO reason, despite the evidence that they travelled with their young, that we should depict Ceratopsians defending their young by forming a circle! Our evidence doesn't support it in any way (especially given the herds in question are thought to have been hundreds to thousands of animals large, not something that could or would need to make a circle for defense!)... It is really time for new visual thought experiments on Ceratopsian family behaviour if anything!

I just worry in militant efforts to eradicate myths, we'll create new strains of super-myth based on partial science/fact that will cause even more entrenched damage to palaeo-art than blatantly wrong ideas.

I think rather than target ideas, we target artists and entice them to create new and different ideas. If we all do that, there will be no "spread" of any one idea (wrong or right) as we'll all be generating new ideas and expanding the current state of palaeontology.

That should be the take home message and goal... No more memes or myths, because we're all being original (or well researched) art! (I say well researched as people can come to very similar conclusions with more limited subject matter)

Your thoughts?

(By Craig Dylke)

Andrea Cau's Palaeo-art Commandments

So I'm way behind on things I wanted to say in our recent discussion on accuracy in palaeo-art(funny how a move to Hong Kong with less than 4 days notice can really disrupted everything in your life... this is why I've been pretty quiet as of late if you were wondering by the way!).

I wanted to touch on a tangent of palaeo-art discussion from earlier this year that didn't really take off (which is due to the tremendous year it has been in meta palaeo-art topics!). These are the commandments of palaeo-art...

In his essay, Taylor Reints touched on the "ten commandments of palaeo-art" drafted by Italian blogger extrodinare Andrea Cau. This list of directives is intended for us artists, and they have sat somewhat untouched or discussed within the palaeo-art community beyond David Maas and Stu Pond.

I thought why not throw the spot light on the commandments right now. Do artists need such a code for palaeo-art? More to the point is this code the one we should be using?

In case you don't know the commandments here they are as translated as I could collect. The fact these were originally written in Italian is probably why they were missed or skipped by most. The original set that hit the net in English was very babblefishy, and many of the commandments were unreadable. Hopefully I haven't botched them too bad, and if any of our Italian readership could correct me on mistakes or misinterpretations in the comments that'd be appreciated!

1. Science is the source of paleoart




2. Thou shalt have no other reference than the living creatures, because they represent the only available animals; before representing those extinct you must be able to represent the existing




3. Thou shall not make an idol, model or inspiration out of any paleoart, and you will only be inspired by living creatures




4. Thou shall not call a work “paleoart” in vain




5. Thou shall honor anatomy and ecology




6. Thou shall not plagiarize




7. Thou shall not create mythology




8. Thou shall not create false reconstruction




9. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s techniques




10. Thou shall not desire to impress others

So there they are again. Soak them in and please do let us know your thoughts in the comment section or your own post (send us an email at artevolved@gmail.com with your essay on the topic if you're not a member of the blog). Are these the rules we palaeo-artists should all be following?

For what their worth here is my two cents... I don't think these are particularly helpful. They read to me as a desired rule set imposed by an outsider. While I can understand the motivation behind them, as the one who actually has to follow them I just don't like them at all!

I also really dislike the connection to the 10 commandments. Sure it is a cute literary reference, but I have problems with trying to connect palaeo with something so overtly religious. I'm also not a big fan of dogmatic rule sets. In my opinion THE palaeo-art rule guide should approach the artist like their a descent human being, and talk to them not at them.

Much like David Maas I had problems with 9 and 10 as an artist. Every artist I've ever encountered seeks praise and recognition for and through their work. Otherwise we'd hide it from the world and you won't know we were an artist! I can't see this ever flying in face of artists being some of the greatest attention seekers out there!

Number 9 might suffer from translation issues, but to me the not coveting what other people are doing or how they're doing it doesn't work. I'm going to be using the same techniques recreate prehistoric critters (painting, CGing, sculpting etc). Not being able to copy style is equally meaningless. How different do the pieces have to be? How do you judge? Why does it matter anyways? To me the issue is if I'm copying someone to the point where we're indistinguishable. In that case I'm plagiarizing, and that is a real problem!

Speaking of plagiarism, rule #6 is a pretty no brainer for any creative field (whether it be art or science or whatever), and I don't think we need to codify it. Those who are violating this rule are beyond a simple 10 step set of guidelines in their moral conduct in the first place, and we probably need to engage them a bit more aggressive manner.

Number 4 not calling something Palaeo-art in vain... means what exactly? This verges on scientific snobbery in my opinion. Being palaeo-art does NOT mean something has to be a scientific reconstruction...

Number 2 while I understand an infusion of living analogues is a good thing, misses the point. Fossils should be the number one reference, and the living animals should merely be additional inspiration. Looking through many of the palaeo-art memes that people complain about it is funny how most are due to the artist referencing ONLY a modern animal (here for an example)!Number 3 is okay, but again very preachy. While you shouldn't outright stick to someone else's reconstruction, taking some direction or inspiration from them is fine.

Numbers 7 and 8 I will tackle in my next post. I really am skeptical of this attempted paradigm for palaeo-art (as I'm sure you've noticed over the years!), and I think a proactive approach (rather than retroactive name calling/criticisms) is needed. This I will be getting to in my next post.

I do really like number 1, and it can stay (however I consider any picture or a Dinosaur, no matter how bad based on science if I can tell what it is supposed to be... it is funny how much even terrible pictures still get right)! Number 5 is also a reasonable request (though I don't know if I'd want to REQUIRE it of non-scientific illustrations... and people this can not be over emphasised, there are scientific illustration pieces of palaeo-art, but not all palaeo-art is a scientific illustration!)

These are just my thoughts, and totally feel free to disagree...

Philosofossilising: Want accuracy in palaeo-art? Do something about it!

This time ART Evolved's Craig Dylke responding to the question:

Just how important is scientific accuracy in Palaeo-art? Is palaeontology, and by association those who follow the technical side of the science, becoming too judgemental towards the artistic efforts of palaeo-artists?

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 on ART Evolved.

Are you someone who wants more accuracy in modern palaeo-art?

If so, I want you to help us here at ART Evolved develop a new method for bridging the gap between the science and the art. The current tactics by academically literate people are not working with many palaeo-artists. So stop complaining about the situation or the art, and follow me through what will hopefully be a drafting of a new glorious future for more accurate palaeo-art.

I see the main reason (many) artists are ignoring (or missing) modern palaeo understanding is that too much of the important information from current research is contained (only) within the academic literature. While there are many great science literate people out there telling us artists this information exists, I don't feel they are going about it the right way.

Simply pointing out to many artists their picture is wrong, due to a certain paper, isn't helpful. Even if the intention is trying to helpfully get the artist to look up the paper. Many of us don't have easy access to academic papers (if you're not attached to an academic institution this can be quite time (or money) consuming. Time (and money) we could use for art). Even if we had the paper, many artists don't have the scientific literacy to precisely decipher the information from a full on technical document.

Artists are visual literate, and they will reference things in this "language". This is why artists often reference previous reconstructions, and end up copying mistakes from older palaeo-art. For more obscure creatures we can even find the genesis of palaeo-art "memes" (as Darren Naish has coined them) that can continue to crop up within the field.

To break the cycle of palaeo-art memes, scientifically inclined people need to stop simply complaining about them, and help us artists out in a way that is actually helpful! I think it is fair to say the artists are carrying out their end of the palaeo-art equation. We've seen an ever increasing number of reconstructions emerging recently. However the technical literature side of the equation hasn't properly adapted to the new situation of many amateur palaeo-artists not being as science oriented as one might hope (again for many of us this is a hobby we do on the side of our otherwise busy lives!).

If you are going to spend the time to call for accuracy, spend it constructively for all of us! Go grab that technical information out of the literature and translate it into a public artist friendly format!

Things like nitpicking reviews or full manifestos of rules for palaeo-art, essentially deconstructive responses, won't cut it anymore!

Instead go through your paper(s) of choice and write up a quick brief on what an artist should do or include in a reconstruction of *insert prehistoric critter of your choice*. We here at ART Evolved are aiming to launch a date base (whether it be hosted on this site, link to other blogs, or on a separate site) for such briefs/kits that artists can reference to get their reconstructions correct.

I think having something public and accessible, that we can point artists to, will be a far more powerful means of improving the base quality of all palaeo-art being created in the modern era. If we translate the technical language into artist language than people can start legitimately complaining.

We will do a more formal announcement on how we're planning to launch the database, but this shouldn't stop you from launching briefs for your favourite prehistoric critters!

ART Evolved member Matt Martyniuk (who is a very lucky individual being both science and artistically literate) has been doing an outstanding job of tackling papers and extracting the relevant information for a reconstruction on his own blog. Just check out how fantastic he took on Hesperornis' toothed beak and Theropod Wrists. You're brief doesn't even have to be this detailed as his!

The only problem I see with these briefs is the visual examples. Some technical people might be daunted by having to illustrate concepts. That is where ART Evolved comes in! There is bound to be someone out of our talented pool who would love to help you create the definative illustrated guide on how to accurately recreate your prehistoric critter.

So please don't just complain about the lack of science in palaeo-art, do something useful about it!

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 "Just how important is scientific accuracy in Palaeo-art? ", please read the brief criteria here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Philosofossilising- Is it Science or Art?

This is a reply to the question:

Just how important is scientific accuracy in Palaeo-art? Is palaeontology, and by association those who follow the technical side of the science, becoming too judgemental towards the artistic efforts of palaeo-artists?

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 on ART Evolved.

This post is brought to us by guest contributor Taylor Reints of the blog Beasts Evolved.

I've never really discussed palaeoart, or paleoart, which is the art (or science) of reconstructing, restoring, drawing, sculpting, painting and even animating prehistoric creatures before. We do know, however, that paleoart is restoring prehistory, but its a subdivision of... what? Art... science... paleontology - all of these come to mind. Is paleoart science or is it art?

Science or Art?

The amount of scientific involvement, paleoart's necessities and criteria are all discussed here. It seems that paleoart is a type of science and should be more like that, being cut to the scientific edge of correctness and accuracy. When paleoart is associated with art, usually there is more inferred speculation or even just some fantasy drawings. I'm a believer in science-paleoart, for without science and paleontology what is it?

Speculation in appearance, behavior and even coloration needs to take serious consideration into the science-art of paleoart. Without accuracy, what would the purpose of paleoart even be? This reminds me of Andrea Cau's wonderful ten commandments of paleoart:

I - Science is the source of paleoart.
II - Thou shalt have no other reference to the outside of the living creatures, because they represent the first extinct animals, you must be able to represent existing.
III - Thou shalt not make any idol, model or inspiration from the past or living paleoartist, because only nature is your inspiration.
IV - Do not call a work "Paleoart" in vain
V - Honor the anatomy and ecology
VI - Do not plagiarize
VII - Do not create mythology
VIII - Do not create false reconstruction
IX - You shall not covet other technique
X - not the desire to impress others

It is important paleoart is not biased towards art, for what is the reconstruction without science? Stu Pond of Paleo Illustrata wrote an excellent post in April about the purpose of and what is paleoart. Two commandments surprised him, as well as many other people,


VII - Do not create mythology
VIII - Do not create false reconstruction

Mythology refers to inferring behavior and extra ornamentation. Reconstructed behavior, in my opinion, is fine and adds pizzazz to a paleoartistic piece. "False reconstruction"... you wouldn't place an Iguanodon and Coelophysis coexisting in a grassy field, right? That's the thing being described here.

Conclusion

There should be much scientific involvement in restoring a prehistoric animal. All of reality should go into it, in my personal opinion. There are various differentiations in this term's definition from artist-to-artist. I just like restoring animals with a white background, not guessing or inferring a lot. However, behavior can be inferred, coloration can, ornamentation... As long as its not too extravagant.

Taylor Reints- Coauthor of Beasts Evolved

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 "Just how important is scientific accuracy in Palaeo-art? ", please read the brief criteria here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Philosofossilising - Setting Criteria, Drawing the Line (David)

To start off with, everyone is right and everyone has the right. Scientists are spending great efforts at their own cost on outreach projects to educate a Hollywood-brained general audience, enthusiastic bloggers are blithefully propagating the f*cking awesomeness of dinosaurs, including the flying ones, and artists are duefully filling the full pallette of niches from bone transcriptions to viking-ridden, frothing-at-the-mouth theropods. Everyone has the right and nothing is being forbidden. Animated series are announced with Sin-City press posters and theropods pruned by the scissors of budget efficiency and yeah - its all in good spirit. No body is proposing a prohibition of featherless raptors. But the cooler the medium the more convinced will be the generations that come, and the more futile the efforts of the scientists that consulted the film that - hey, they did have feathers and they belong within a lineage that includes the ancestors of our modern birds.

Apologies & Accomodations

Craig pleads for leniency, Glendon defends the freedoms of paleoart from tut-tutting scientists and Pete also seems to be excusing inaccuracies. At the risk of sounding harsh: why? Why should artistic license have such priority over hard-earned, tested and double-tested knowledge of likelihood and probability? Why should those of us interested in taking the long road to understanding and communicating the riddling complexities and inconsistencies, the fascination of interlinked ecosystems and 3rd or 4th level deduction of probabilities be extra accommodating to those whose interests don't go much beyond a kick-ass T-Rex?

I'm more than willing to accept the issue as a matter of wording: I'll happily surrender the term paleoart to a realm of anything-goes artistic freedom. Or at least part of me would... the other part of me recognizes how long the battle would be to establish whatever new term then stands for the same thing in the minds of a public disinterested in differentiations and shades of gray. But okay - I'm willing to talk palaeontography (explain that to your grandma) or paleo-illustration. But I suspect this path leads to an elitist ghetto of those in the know talking down to the enthusiastic plebes.

The goal has to be to transfer the kick-assedness from the brand names of roaring T-rexes and rearing sauropods to the encompassing processes of knowledge and respect. An uphill path, but the only one that leads to an inclusion of the masses on a basis of shared knowledge. All the downhill paths lead to frustrated enclaves and endless diaper-changes - poo-pooing the stubborn, and yes - talking down to people because they're simply not interested in the basic premise of paleontology. Dinosaurs are not organic Transformers. They were not created to sell merchandise or satisfy your creative urge. Being a dinosaur freak obliges one to a passion about the natural sciences as a whole, and ultimately to a respect for the systems within the planet we live on. Point.

Webster says...

Peter referenced ‘accuracy’ as meaning “the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect.” More or less an absolute state, as there is no perfection in the real world. Interestingly, plausibility is defined as having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable. The definition is all shades of gray, reeking of questioned authority: well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust: a plausible commentator.

That actually appeals to me... we're creating images that are worthy of trust but not above questioning, and ultimately, knowingly wrong. New discoveries will prove them so, but the images will still be admired as historical documents and - if we manage to climb to the heights of the form, still ooze fascination.

Philosofossilising- Scientific Accuracy in Art (Peter)

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 is no such thing as ‘scientific accuracy’ in paleoart.

“My raptors has larger feathers on it’s arms, so it is sooo much more accurate than your feathered raptor!”

We’ve heard this before.   

But consider this.  Dictionary.com defines ‘accuracy’ as “the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect.”   

The wonderful creatures that paleoartists reconstruct are unfortunately often extinct, leaving us unable to ever really know exactly what these critters looked like when alive.  We will never know exactly what colour scales dinosaurs had, what their mating behaviours were, or how fluffy a velociraptor’s coat was…   

It is really disappointing to realize that we will never know exactly how these creatures looked and behaved.  We will never know what is true, correct or exact.  Unless time travel becomes possible (I’m working on it), we will never know that truth.  As artists, our reconstructions will never be free from error or defect.  This is just the reality we must accept.  It's too bad, your paleoart will never be scientifically accurate.

What we as paleoartists can do is work towards a ‘temporal accuracy’ – the condition of being as true, as correct, or as exact as the current scientific research shows.  This is not striving for absolute correctness, because absolute correctness is impossible.  It is to strive to be as correct as current popular science dictates. 

This means that now in 2011, it is temporally accurate for all duckbilled hardosaurs to walk with its tail off the ground.  It also means that in 1905, Charles Knight’s tail-dragging Trachodon is also temporally accurate.  In Knight’s time, the upright pose (and even the name) was scientifically accepted as true.

 (from wikipedia)

And what of our young artists bickering over whose art is more scientifically accurate?  Well, neither is.  As we will sadly never know what is actually absolutely accurate, these artists have to accept that they are both temporally accurate. 

So stop bickering, do your homework, and make some art.  With the Internet connecting the billions, there is no better time to take part and join in the fun.

ART Evolved is very interested in other opinions on this topic, and would welcome your input.  If you would like to submit an article about Scientific Accuracy in Art, please read the brief introduction here, and send your essay to artevolved@gmail.com.

Philosofossilising- Scientific Accuracy in Art

Dinosaur Revolution artist Pete Von Sholly has had enough of the uninformed preemptive criticism that the show has been taking a month before the full program airs. You can read his "rants" (more like very restrained polite counters to the nay saying) here, here, and here.

By Pete Von Sholly

This is just the latest criticism against artists by scientific "purists" I have noticed going on around the web lately. While the majority have been against "amateur" artists, seeing it now extending to professionals I think this is a very interesting and important topic we examine on this site.

What do you think? Is palaeontology, and by association those who follow the technical side of the science, becoming too judgemental towards the artistic efforts of palaeo-artists?

While it can be agreed that many artistic reconstructions often include many inaccuracies (some well known, others contained only in technical articles), how certain are we that our current understanding is absolute? Is the line between accuracy and inaccuracy as black and white as it is conveyed by advocates of the technical literature. Or is accuracy merely a probability drawn from our current understanding, and that this probability could easily dwindle with future research and discovery (just as our old understandings of the past 150 years have?). So how accurate is palaeontologic accuracy (or for that matter palaeontologic inaccuracy)?


So expect some posts, and hopefully a series of ARTicles about this issue. We would very much like to read your thoughts on this topic. If you would like to write an essay to be seen on ART Evolved, but aren't a member of this site let us know at artevolved@gmail.com, and we'll make it happen!

Above all definitely let us know your thoughts in the comment sections of this post, and future ARTicles on this issue.