RE: In (premature) defense of the USNM

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@cox.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Michael Skrepnick
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:29 PM
To: Dinosaur List
Subject: Re: In (premature) defense of the USNM

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.<<
You know I respect Dan and Mike very much, but ah, hey guy's simmer down!
The Smithsonian just had Peter Rabbit as an exhibit at the Smithsonian for
jeepers sake! WE do not OWN dinosaurs. Jim Gurney does do good work and I
see NO REASON why the Smithsonian shouldn't display his work or story. We
need to get off our high horses and let kids imaginations run wild! Let them
enjoy the exhibit and then explore paleontology as it really is. Besides
most of the dinosaur skeletons at the Smithsonian are wrong, why not
complain about that if you need to complain. Hell, most of the newly mounted
dinosaur skeletons at the AMNH are wrong.

>>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.<<
The Smithsonian is free so they aren't getting any money from people, but of
course studios do, but that's how they make money.
  >>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.)<<
So, it's ok to EXPLOTE other natural science (or Science Fiction for that
matter) and not paleontology? We can't tell people that it's not ok to do
something but ok to do it with others. Besides do we really want the movies
to be 100% accurate? Then people would really believe everything they see.

>>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!)<<
This is why I write my How to Draw Dinosaurs articles for Prehistoric Times.
To help the professionals and lay person alike (not that the professionals
actually listen to me that is, I'm not exactly contacted by ANY
paleontologist doing a book on accurately portraying dinosaurs and I know
the majority of them. Ignored? )

>>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.<<
I hope you don't mean that people shouldn't include dinosaurs in their
science fiction? I doubt many of us would be here if we ever did.

Mike Skrepnick


Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074