Re: The Knight analogy

[Luis Rey <luisrey@ndirect.co.uk>]

On 18 Mar 2011, at 03:42, GSP1954@aol.com wrote:

> Let’s do a little historical thought analogy here.
>
> Some have claimed that it is not right for me to civilly insist  
> (see my 3/3
> posting) that others not use my regular side view skeleton and life  
> pose.
> Not all mind you, a number have kindly agreed with the request.

I don't think Greg you should fear that anybody will not heed your  
request from now on.

I think this discussion has arisen mostly based on a confusion. Your  
work can be neatly differentiated to my eyes:  your "art" pieces and  
your "referential" scientific work. And the definition of what is art  
comes also to the fore.
Most (if not all) never considered that your skeletal restorations  
were quite "art", they were "science",  It was not to be considered  
"art" even if some people find the diagram of a skeleton  "artistic"  
and despite all the admittedly important and consuming work that it  
entails to do the reconstructions.

Now we learn that they are really to be taken as "art" and we all  
should be careful to take them for granted at the scientific level.  
Granted that they were never taken as "watertight, sealed,  
unquestionable science"  but you yourself claimed so many times that  
you were teaching people how to reconstruct accurately  dinosaurs  
that everybody took your word for it. Bad move!
But remember that in the early 90's when people like Feduccia and  
other academics  try to  deride your work because you were "just an  
artist" (the reasons were obviously >other<) for many of us you were  
a scientist FIRST and then an artist, and we based our defense of  
your work in your referential pieces and your zeal for accuracy.

Scientific work is normally considered a bit like "maps"... for most  
people use maps and follow them and copy them (keeping eyes open of  
course) but not thinking of the maps as Picasso's paintings. That is  
the "mistake" most have done in good faith . Just like I said about  
Mike Taylor's work (and so many others)... neither of them claim to  
have the monopoly of their restorations of of their technical work,  
but alas, they don't  >also< do oil or acrylic originals, or graphite  
pieces that must be considered unquestionably your artwork and your  
artwork only.

So I think if this discussion has been healthy to the extent that  
should exclude the release of generalized paranoia,  arrogant tone  
and insults that it has unleashed. With reason and without.

One thing that I do not agree at all with is the pinning of the guns  
versus the young artists... who can think that young artists >have  
the duty< to  charge huge amounts of money for their work... what is   
pretended by that? Keep the competition at bay so the veteran or star  
paleoartists can reclaim their mastery by privileged default?
The main advice to novices and would-be paleoartists is not putting  
them off saying: "you are going to starve" or "you are going to take  
my job copying me and doing the jobs cheap"  but more: "what new do  
you have to say?" "what do you have to contribute to the field?" I  
never started getting into paleontology because I wanted to get rich,  
but because I had the passion and interest or it.

It would be interesting to do an own profile: if one's aims as an  
artist or as a paleontologist start by thinking of "what is  
marketable" and then follow a career of pretended "lucre" in Paleoart 
(?), well, we deserve all we get in a market-based society. Some  
might be lucky of course, but you are  nothing but  a merchant or  a  
producer of commodities; and the regulations there are simply  
depending on the market value, nothing else. A bit of what is  
happening to music and so many other art forms these days...
But if one's follow his or her passion or true interest to the best  
of our abilities, have something to say, and are convinced that their  
labour is something else than simple mercantilism, we might (be loved  
or be hated by it) carve a niche. To create could also mean a lot of  
the time a good deal of suffering unfortunately.
Obviously you cannot carve a niche without a reasonable economic  
support. Yes, the fact that we have to pay the bills and have to  
compete in a world that is brutal (and we know for a fact that all  
the best jobs are most probably going to go to the best "political"  
manipulators, not even the "best" in the field) should be secondary  
to pursuing your passions... if not, you better go on and be a  
banker, a politician, a celebrity or a member of the mafia.

But  personally, my guns are pinned against all those companies that  
really act as tyrants, exploit us and under-pay us, hijack our work  
and even modify it without permission... NOT against genuine budding  
paleoartists that might suddenly become "competition" (that in the  
long term is inevitable... although if you are original and liked  
enough, your own style is what publishers will be after... that is if  
you are still reasonable with your prices and not have "Star"  
pretensions or status). I'm  also against those companies that do not  
allow the artistic freedom necessary for developing your own kind of  
dinoart, you niche. I'm against all those companies that demand you  
follow or copy the style of other artists... and I'm obviously  
against those companies and institutions that take for granted that  
you are going to work for free just because they want you to (or just  
because it seems like an honour  to publish in one of their  
publications).

It is mandatory that paleoartists receive at least reasonable  
economic support for their efforts. At the same time, it is  
impossible and castrating that the veteran, more established artists  
demand that newcomers start charging huge amounts of money for their  
works... penalizing them for taking >their< jobs and accusing them of  
"selling themselves cheap"...

It is also important for the veteran artists that all the passionate,  
talented young paleoartists get carved their own niche. Why? Because  
uncomfortable overlapping becomes less an issue and >variety< and  
>originality< may become the norm. Copycats and  "overlapping"  
competing styles may be inevitable as has always been in all the arts  
I know, but maybe quality and survival skills can be combined and we  
all can find that elusive niche where competition is kept to a  
minimum or at least to a healthy level. There's room for everybody if  
we manage to act with some intelligence. And I'm not going to include  
any social-darwinist garbage here...

 Greg... you created a science graphic platform, a school from where  
an >informed< variety of artists could arise. And that was going to  
be always risky...


Luis Rey

Visit my website
http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk