Re: In (premature) defense of the USNM

[Michael Skrepnick <palaeopaint@dinosaursinart.com>]

Dan Varner's observation is a valid one.  The Natural History Museum
presents the "subject matter" of Dinotopia out of it's intended context.
Although Jim Gurney is a gifted and innovative painter and his dinosaurs are
loosely based on reality, the world of Dinotopia is strictly fantasy. As a
"cultural phenomenon", it's best relegated to display in an art gallery /
museum, where the focus on artistic technique and storyline development can
be best showcased to a target audience.

Paleo art, as it relates to science is already "cloudy" at best and need not
be impaired further ( in the public eye )by competition from the genre of
fantasy, showcased in a scientific institution.  When it comes to separating
"fact" from "fiction" concerning dinosaurs in the popular media, the public
can easily be misled, alla "Jurassic Park", etc. . . While the topic of
dinosaurs may become more popular within the public mindset, it also results
in years of needless back peddling as paleontologists spend their limited
time and resources "dispelling the myths" injected by overzealous writers
and producers more concerned with "lining their pockets" then maintaining
any reasonable amount of fidelity.  And yes, I know it's JUST A MOVIE!. .
.but I would rather see the "mental dynamos" concentrate their efforts on
"The Blob", "The Thing", "King Kong" and the like. . .  There are also
snakes, sharks, spiders, tsunami, and endless other forms of natural
denizens to exploit, without having to "rape the Mesozoic" as well! ( I
personally think that dinosaurs in movie plots would be a lot more
terrifying and fascinating if they were not tampered with and
sensationalized and you got a sense that what you were watching approximated
the real thing.)

If scientific (paleontological ) "fact" is based on physical evidence or
repeatability, then truly "scientifically accurate" paleo art must be
restricted to illustrations of skeletal material or paleo ichnological
evidence.  Fleshed out reconstructions of dinosaurs, etc... although
referenced to skeletons, myology, modern analogs and developed in
collaboration with paleontologists STILL remain speculative in terms of
outer integument, other external soft anatomical features, color, etc. . ..
While this imagery remains our closest hope of experiencing a living
terrestrial dinosaur, it is both hypothetical and speculative, subject to
artistic taste and skill and ( as much as I might not like to admit it)
inexorably bound to the annals of a nebulous "grey" zone, from an academic
standpoint.  (Not that this for an instant would dissuade me from the
pursuit of my artistic bent!)

Artwork that includes dinosaurs within modern fiction stray much farther
afield, but don't do any favors in helping the public make the distinction
between dinosaur art "extrapolated from real fossil material" and fantasy
art that resembles the "real thing". In the end, the forum in which the
artwork is displayed may make a big difference in how said art is perceived
by the masses and while I wish Jim every success, I think the exhibit would
have better served on display at an alternate venue.

Mike Skrepnick