Research Report: Proposal
Paragraph 1:
I want to explore the relationship between palaeoillustration/palaeoart and palaeontology, with the title possibly being:
“What is the importance of palaeoart to the field of palaeontology?”
“To what degree is the contribution of palaeoart to the field of palaeontology either positive or negative?”
“How different is the use of palaeoart in mainstream media in comparison with palaeoart in the scientific community?”
I’ve chosen this subject because it’s always interested me and I want to improve my palaeoillustration work to the point that it’s valuable scientifically to the palaeontology community.
Introduction of palaoillustration in conjunction with the development of palaeontology as a science. Look at its scientific importance… accuracy? Why was historical palaeoillustration so inaccurate? Was it still valuable to science?
Development of palaeoillustration alongside modern palaeontology… how much has accuracy improved? The journey of feathered dinosaurs in palaeoart and the controversy surrounding it- why is it controversial to portray accurate science?
Different styles used in palaeontology… realism vs. stylised. Stylised art is good for informal publications, things like children’s books that don’t have to be overly scientific, but wouldn’t be any good in scientific publications. Depends on audience and context, must match. The value of palaeoart depends on how well it portrays the animal/s in question, can’t be inaccurate but doesn’t always have to be created in complete realism- think of art of modern animals, not all of it is completely realistic (cartoons, different styles). Why not? But we can tell immediately if something is inaccurate- like drawing a tiger with a lion’s mane, or a horse with paws instead of hooves. Why doesn’t this matter so much for palaeoart? People are willing to excuse bad palaeoart.
The use of palaeoart in the media- how often is it inaccurate, and on purpose (Jurassic World)? How is this harming palaeontology, if at all?
(Reference Hans Thewissen, The Walking Whales, excerpt on Walking With Beasts and their insistence on inaccuracy).
I think my conclusion will find that, depending on which title I choose:
- Palaeoart is very important to the scientific community.
-The contribution of palaeoart to the scientific community is positive and negative. Accurate art made FOR science (audience) is usually very positive, whilst art made outside of science for the media and entertainment (audience) tends to be negative, whether that was its intention or not.
-Palaeoart made for both of these audiences is very different- art made for the media is usually exaggerated and focuses on being as shocking as possible, with little regard to accuracy. In contrast, art made for the scientific community focuses on accuracy as its most important point.
andulkaphoto
snowghoul
janainaart
yousharknotpass
