Philosofossilising- What is Palaeo Art (Jenn)

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.

A long time ago (in a galaxy far far away) I stopped trying answer the question, "What is art?" If you've ever really made a serious attempt at answering the question, then you'll know how tedious the process is; if you think you've come to a pretty good definition- maybe not perfect, but good- someone will eventually come along and show you something that will violently disrupt your understanding of what art is. And even though you might confidently look at said object (or performance... or musical composition... or whatever) and think, ".... that's not art... definitely not art...," there will always be that voice in the back of your head saying, "...is it? Maybe it is." At that point you have to begin redefining, and, eventually, your brain explodes.

All that given, you can imagine my hesitation to jump to the front of the line to answer the question, "What is palaeo art?" The writing and re-writing I've done so far in this post is just a sign of how eerily similar the questions "What is art?" and "What is palaeo art?" are. Maybe not because they're the the same thing (because I doubt they are), but because both are so difficult to define verbally. Incorporate the word "art" into any term, and you're heading into murky waters. Whatever one's personal definition of palaeo art is, I think they'd be surprised at how many artworks they never viewed as palaeo art might somehow fall under that definition. Once again, time to redefine.

Ultimately, I believe that art and palaeo art are NOT the same thing (in that not all art is palaeo art, although all palaeo art is art). But that doesn't mean we can define them (in the traditional way). I think that [palaeo] art can only be defined as "I know it when I see it." And how appropriate that we CAN see it! In fact, so many of the things that we spend time defining are things that have to be defined verbally because there is no other way to understand them, and they can be defined verbally because the scope of their form and function is so limited. For art, I think it's just the opposite. We don't make art and THEN define "art". We make art TO define "art." Every artist's creative career is the exploration of answering the the question "What is art?" just as the creative career of every artist who's interested in paleontology is the exploration of "What is palaeo art?"

So, what is palaeo art? It's this, or this, or this, or any host of others.

As a last note, does this mean that I believe asking the question "What is paleo art?" is futile? No, absolutely not. It challenges preconceived notions, and anything that does that is certainly not futile. Similarly, does this mean that I disagree with the other artists' definitions? No way. In fact, that we all have different views and definitions that are so equally valid and true just goes to show how dynamic this art form is, and while we all might read the responses to this question (my own included), we are never so sure as when we have a-punch-in-the-face, clear-as-day, why-didn't-I-think-of-that-before?, it's so obvious! reaction as we do when we LOOK at the work of artists who say, "I made this, and this is what I think paleo art is."

For me, for now, in response to the question "What is paleo art?" I have only one thing to say definitively:

"

"

Feel free to disagree :)

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.

The Paleoart Teaching Event

A public service announcement from Santino Mazzei.

Late this summer (near the end of August early September) the Museum de Lourinhã, will be hosting the "PALEOART TEACHING" event. Put on by Santino Mazzei, Fabio Pastori, and Jordan Nenna this Palaeo-art event will be sure to teach something to artists new and old!

For more information check out the PALEOART TEACHING website in a couple weeks (they are still getting it set up... we'll do a reminder post once their site is up and running).

Also be sure to check out their overall blog Jurassic Park Italy!

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.

Reconstruction Tips: Flukes Part 4

Yet another installment of...

Craig brings you the next chapter of his...

Flukes go on Whales... NOT in your Art!

Part: 4

Flukes of times past...

Part 1- I decided to try and create some palaeo-art for New Zealand Palaeontologist Ewan Fordyce. This was unrequested art, and this is probably a good thing considering what I first produced! Find out the HUGE mistake I made and the first lesson you should learn from my folly.

Part 2- After regrouping from my first embarrassing version of the Shark Toothed Dolphin, I proceeded to try and rework it. However in this second attempt my strengths and preferences working on Dinosaurs created an odd reptilian-whale hybrid. This has yet another key lesson to learn here.`

Part 3- Tracking down as many references as I could get my hands on, I reworked the "Dolphinsauriod" into something that roughly resembled a Shark Toothed Dolphin! Find out how important references were to my process...

Now for Flukes of times present!

So I'd managed to get my Squalodon looking something like a Dolphin should. Showing it to Dr. Fordyce I got my first passing grade on the restoration! It got a C- so to speak. All the details were wrong, but I'd gotten the general layout right. Which was a first!

However my set of renders were not overly helpful for Dr. Fordyce to go into the models details. Like this one above, all my renders were in a 3D environment, which I quickly learned weren't useful for critiques. I was going to need something better for the good doctor to look at...

This is the format I came up with. A schematic of my Shark Toothed Dolphin from ever basic view available.

Rule #5 of Scientific Restorations: Before getting your piece reviewed by an expert make sure you prepare some easy to approach material for them to look at. If you can (or have the time to) make a schematic view of your creature. This allows the expert to look at preciously what you are doing in your restorations, and thus give you useful feedback.

Dr. Fordyce much preferred these to my original in water shots.

I for the first time got some immediate feedback directly on my model. Before I'd been given some verbal suggestions, but with print outs of the schematic Dr. Fordyce could directly mark where and often what he wanted the Dolphin to look like.

So with these modifications in mind I set off to work on upgrading my mark ;P

By this point in late 2009 I had been making some big breakthroughs across the board in my 3Ding (in large part thanks to ART Evolved). I now had a better method of creating underwater effects, which I promptly plopped my Squalodon into.

By now I also had a firm grasp on 3D rigging, so the Shark Toothed Dolphin became my first model to be rigged by a single skeleton! (I typically rig each part separately, and simply pose them relative to each other).

Even before Dr. Fordyce's changes, my Squalodon was starting to look pretty sweet!

With the changes this is what it looked like. I hadn't managed to get in the neck folds Dr. Fordyce had wanted (and I still haven't...), but tried to tweak everything else.

I got a B. Which was huge for me. Still not publication worthy, but Dr. Fordyce was starting to believe he might want to use my Squalodon for his description!

I got a very cool anatomy lesson on the very precise details of how he thought these whales went together. From this point I was armed with the most up to date view on Squalodon ribs, flippers, and echo locating melon organ.

This was the "final" version (at least as of the time I write this).

Before I took this version in to Dr. Fordyce I wanted to test out my than new direct fossil comparison technique. This was the second 3D model I tried it on.

So taking the skull above, I cut it out of this photo and than laid it over my model semi-transparent.

I was amazed to discover it was a perfect match! Through my hard manual work, and input from Dr. Fordyce, I'd modelled my Dolphin exactly in line with the fossil. Even most of the teeth were the same! Though I will never be waiting to the end of the modelling process to do this test ever again!!!

Showing it to Dr. Fordyce, I got the highest mark to date. An A-!!!

Apart from the neck wrinkles and removing some of the model induced lines from the skull area, this Squalodon met with Dr. Fordyce's standards!

It was now time to develop a scene for this critter to steal!

Building some test Penguins I toyed with updating the main picture of Squalodon used at the University of Otago. Sadly, Dr. Fordyce has asked me not to post this picture, but it is of two (older style) Squalodons chasing some of the giant penguins that lived alongside them.

This was the "final" test shot I came up with. In principle Dr. Fordyce rather liked it. Some of the scene, like the Dolphin, need some fine tuning (the bubbled and Penguins basically), but overall this is the direction I'll be going in with the final piece.

`

This is now currently where the project stands. It has been on pause since December 2009. When is the final piece due? I hear you asking. We are not sure.

`

At moment I need to do some work fixing the Squalodon's neck, but overall we are awaiting Dr. Fordyce getting the chance to finish his publication. However hopefully that day will come soon. Until it does though, I'm forced to leave you and Flukes on this art note.

`

Don't despair though. I have a side part to Flukes about my experience working with Dr. Fordyce, and some suggestions on how to start doing work for actual palaeontologists. So watch for this Going Pro edition of Flukes soon!

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.

New Gregory S. Paul Dino Book

Thanks to Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs for bringing this to my attention!  Looks like Greg Paul has a new book out called The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs.

New Greg Paul art?  I'm interested!  Who's picking this one up?  Amazon's got it here.

Going Pro: copyright in the new digital world

In the past few posts of Going Pro, we've looked a lot at copyright. Again, a lot of people have opinions, but it's important to see what the legal definitions -and what steps you can take to protect your creations- really entail.

Today though, I want to propose a question.

Suppose you post a nifty image of a prehistoric critter online. It's awesome, you're proud, people give you kudos. You put it under a Creative Commons Licence, the most restrictive one that says your image a) must be attributed to you, b) cannot be altered, c) others cannot profit from it, and otherwise, it's okay to post and share.

1. Then someone copies it. Another blogger. Does their own riff. Are you okay with that?

2. What if they're more famous than you, getting lots of illustration gigs, but they notice it, do their own version, and give you a nod for your cool idea. Still excited, feeling the attention?

3. What if your painting happens to hit the zeitgeist and goes all viral all over the interwebs. Everyone is sharing it. There's a day on Facebook where all the users switch to you image. But you haven't made a dime. What do you do?

We're in interesting territory. Personally, I don't believe overly restricting images (insanely huge watermarks, disabling right-clicking) are helpful to make a successful career anymore. But neither is completely open sharing.

Consider this:

[h/t Boing Boing]

It makes a strong case about question number 3, doesn't it? But how do you capitalize on that image going viral? How does it put food on the table?

I suggest it's how you parlay that viral dinosaur image into getting new contracts.

As for questions number 1 and 2, consider the post-modern, remixed, mash-up, variant-cover culture we live in. Think an Indiana Jones video game is fun? What about Indiana Jones Lego! Like Batman? Sharks? Lightsabers? Ta-da! (artist here) Authoring mash-ups and riffing on others' work is an integral part of pop culture.

Painting gets started at about the 4 minute mark in the video above.
[h/t to Boing Boing, again]

In the past, I've sometimes been the dissenting voice here at Art Evolved about all those posts showing past-art about upcoming themed galleries. I dislike them because sometimes attribution to the artwork cannot be easily found - though yes, as Peter and Craig have pointed out to me, sometimes we attribute an "orphan image" after the post goes up when a reader identifies it.

I'm uncomfortable with those posts because in a world of remixes and fun Photoshopped images, attribution and authorship can sometimes be your only coins to bank on. Literally.

Everyone has different comfort zones. Where do you feel comfortable with your images on questions 1-3 above?

-Glendon Mellow

Greetings! from my Version of Planet Earth

Alright, let's talk about the elephant in the room. And by "elephant in the room," I mean "strange new member whose profile is suddenly on the ART Evolved blog." For those of you who spend your time scanning this blog with a fine tooth comb (as I have been known to do), you might be wondering who I am. And for those of you who didn't notice me there and this is the first you've heard of me, you might want to locate your fine tooth comb, because this is one awesome blog; you wouldn't want to miss anything.

So, who am I? You can read a quick overview on my new shnazzy bio on the sidebar, but there really is more than a couple sentences to who I am- I swear. As an artist, I'm a graduate of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts where I received a certificate in Printmaking. I also have an art degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Somewhere along the way during my journey at Penn, however, I got distracted by Earth studies and became enamored with geology and dinosaurs (although to say that I wasn't enamored with dinosaurs and using them in my art before I started at Penn would be a lie). Turned out I wasn't too bad in that field, either, so I picked up geology/paleontology and received a minor in that, too.

I could wax poetic about my philosophy on art or dinosaurs or the study of paleontology. Or I could just show you some of my work. Seems unfair not to give you something visual at this point. This is a paleoart blog after all! This is a drawing that I prepared especially for my debut on ART Evolved:

It's a simple pencil drawing on paper, although it's not done. It's based on one of my recent digital pieces:
Ultimately, as I have written on my blog, I see dinosaurs... EVERYWHERE. They're always lurking around in my brain, chewing on something or telling me they want to be turned into art.

However, if you're not into the marriage of dinosaurs and curiosity/cuteness that is so prevalent in my work, you might enjoy my more traditional work:
This image is also graphite on paper, about 2 inches by 3 inches. I'd show you more of my old school style work, but the illustrations I'm working on now are top secret. Seriously, I'm not kidding. Isn't that cool?!

Finally, if you feel like it just isn't cute enough yet, or even if you're doubting my commitment to create dinosaurs in every medium with every possible bizarre/cute twist, let me show you something I made at my work at Whipped Bakeshop:
I'm aware that the creature on the left is not a dinosaur. Under the guidance of my awesome boss and bakery owner Zoe Lukas, I work as a pastry artist who is lucky enough to enjoy executing the rare but awesome dinosaur pastry order. While I made the dinosaur and pig on top, the cake work beneath is all the work of Zoe and my co-workers (also artists).

I'm really glad to be here at ART Evolved and want to express my gratitude to Craig for extending the invitation, and to all the other amazing artists here, some of which I have come to be good cyber friends with, for allowing me into your community. I hope to post whenever my busy schedule allows, and if you get a craving for some of that cutesy Jenn Hall Art, please pop on over to my blog http://www.dinosauriart.blogspot.com/,where I feature not only my own work, but also the awesome places dinosaurs pop up in pop culture and indie artwork. And if you wanna see some of my non-dinosaurian art (mostly non-dinosaurian anyway), you can visit my website at http://www.jennhallart.mosaicglobe.com/, and, as always, any questions you might have can be sent to my email at wigwam1516@yahoo.com.

Nice to meet you all!

~ Jenn Hall

Prehistoric Times Update

As you may or may not know, many AE members have recently been having their artwork published in the Prehistoric Times Magazine. Much like submitting art on this site its great free advertising, but unlike this site, PT has the added bonus of seeing your work in print!

Sadly I haven't been able to track down a copy of the latest issue, which has a piece of my own (and a few other AEers) printed within. Hopefully someone will be able to get up a quick post alerting us as to who is in there (apart from me).

So besides this plug for PT's of Xmas past, the upcoming issue is calling for art of two prehistoric critters we've already done galleries for. Meaning if you submitted to our galleries, you have 2 instantly ready submissions for publication in Prehistoric Times!

The Prehistoric Times is looking for Therizinosaurs and Pterosaurs. The due date for submissions is June. 10th. Details for how to go about this can be found here.

The July Gallery: Trilobites!!!

I've been meaning to do this post for a couple weeks now!


A quick reminder that the next upcoming Time Capsule Gallery will be everyone's favourite extinct group of Arthropods the Trilobites! Be sure to tune in for discussions and examples of Trilobite art from the past...
If you're new to the site, we accept any and all artwork submitted that is themed around our gallery topic (again in this case Trilobites OR if you'd like to enter artwork into one of our previous galleries). Just send you submission, along with any accompanying text you'd like, and the link to your website/blog/online picture gallery to our email artevolved@gmail.com.

Guest Artist Artwork: Dr. Daniel D. Brown's "KT"

We're pleased to present yet another guest artist's work, though you'll have to wait for full profile/bio.

Dr. Daniel Brown has sent us this lovely piece of Palaeo-art...

A piece he calls the "KT"... for some reason :P

You can check out the making of this piece at Dr. Brown's blog Biochemical Soul.

A New Ceratopsian Piece

I "love" looking for work, and it has been going so "well". The one bright side is that I've had time in between failed applications to do some art! As today was a particularly pronounced day of lulls (between 3 rejections! a new record!!!), I decided rather than just revamping models, I'd build a scene with one of them.

Ta-da! I give you my new version of my male Styracosaurs. You can see a bigger version here (as blogger is still not letting pictures I upload enlargen! Anyone know how to fix this problem?)

I'm looking for some serious feedback from you Ceratopsian experts out there. I spent some major time reworking the skull in particular. What else needs anatomical tweaking?

Late Ichthyosaurs

Just a quick heads up in case you missed it...

We've had several Ichthyosaurs sent in since the gallery first went up. So be sure to pop back and check the new entries out!