Jump to content

Talk:Paleoart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split

[edit]

whoever suggested thsi, i'm all for it. i think this article could do with a list of a few artists, but it seems the whole genre is here. peace! Ryan shell (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Matternes?

[edit]

I miss on the list Jay Matternes, to my opinion one of the three most influential paleoartists of last hundred years... (with Knight and Burian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.78.5 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added his name to the list as per your suggestion, However Matternes doesnt seem to have an article yet Ryan shell (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
created a stub. i dont know if he is influential, but the 2 artists i grew up with were burian and him, during the baby boom era of publishing, so his images were very widely dispersed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His Smithsonian murals were prominently featured in some Time-Life books, which I think were quite influential. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I see that's basically what you've written in the article! FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

[edit]

"Paleoart" is also used for "Paleolithic art," that is, prehistoric art. Not sure which usage is more common? Kileytoo (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? By what sources? FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind, it seems to be rather informal and not as common as I thought. Kileytoo (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, here is a reference: "Palaeoart of the Lower Palaeolithic," Robert G. Bednarik, 2010. Kileytoo (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guthrie (2005) also uses "Paleo-art" as a shorthand for Paleolithic art, for example on p. 52. Kileytoo (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our page about the journal Rock Art Research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Art_Research) also uses "paleoart" for Paleolithic art. Kileytoo (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be relatively uncommon compared to its usage about palaeontological art. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paleoart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books about Paleo-art

[edit]

With several new paleo-art books on the market now, and several other older ones, should these be mentioned in this article. I think these are important for showing paleo-art as a cultural phenomenon, and some have been covered by high profile magazines too. Could these go in "Recognition" or their own section? Ex. Dinosaur Art II and Paleoart: Visions of the Prehistoric Past Teleocrater (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about giving these books their own section, but I definitely think it would be good to incorporate information from some of these secondary sources that are actually "about" paleoart, rather than just about specific paleoartists or about dinosaurs more generally that feature and perhaps mention paleoart. A few other suggestions for secondary sources: Steve White's original "Dinosaur Art" (2012), Jane Davidson's "A History of Paleontology Illustration" (2008), and "All Yesterdays" by Conway, Koseman & Naish (2012). Mark Witton's upcoming paleoart book will also be an extraordinary reference for this article. Reading it through again, I think this article currently has a lot of room for improvement, not just in detail but structure as well. Perhaps a good place to start would be in creating a "History" section after the lede, to help establish a more coherent narrative that traces the field up through its modern iteration. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring article

[edit]

Alright, I'm making some bold changes on overhauling this article's organization, starting with restructuring the unwieldy artists list. I have not (intentionally) removed any names, but among other things, I have:

  • Put everyone in alphabetical order and fit the lists into two columns.
  • Put everyone into one main heading, "Notable, Influential Paleoartists", and removed the old section that had just a handful of names here. Reasoning: everyone on this page should be "notable", and the names chosen for this short section before seemed arbitrary. Especially notable pioneers of the field (Charles Knight et al.) should be mentioned in the body of the article as per their being mentioned in reliable secondary sources. They don't need their own section and including one is original research.
  • Condensed the four remaining sections (Past 2D, modern 2D, past 3D, modern 3D) into two main subsections (past and modern) with sub-subsections below them for 2D and 3D.
  • Schlepped the long list of paleoart thumbnails into a "gallery" section, perhaps temporarily. It might be good to eventually order some of these more carefully alongside their relevant sections or artists in the body of the article, but before this change, they seemed kind of randomly arranged. For example, I'm not sure the Haeckel illustration belongs here at all (I am not sure he is ever referred to as a paleoartist in reliable secondary sources, but his name was not listed on the page).

I will probably be making further bold edits in due time. For now, some immediately necessary tasks include choosing a truly iconic piece of "paleoart" to include in the lede (my vote is Leaping Laelaps), decide on consistent scheme for artist list (not sure "deceased" is necessary; some names have a line about why they're influential but many don't, etc), perhaps shaving down some of the redlinks in the "Notable artists" section (what's the policy on how notable a name has to be to include it in this kind of list, as opposed to how notable one has to be to have an article?), and start work on a "History" section with reliable secondary sources. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can do whatever you want with the article, it has been in a sorry state for years, so anything is an improvement... Now there is of course much more literature on the field than when the article was started. FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source list to aid in restructuring

[edit]

In attempting to overhaul this article, the biggest problem I'm running into is finding published, reliable, and secondary sources that actually are (or at least contain sections) ABOUT paleaort, rather than about paleontology (accompanied by perhaps a tiny discussion or reference to paleoart) or about specific paleoartists. Some about specific paleoartists are fine, but in order to be useful they need to contain information about the artist's place in the grand narrative of paleoart, its evolution and development, etc, rather than just "So-and-so has had works published in these museums and prefers working in that medium". That's fine for the individual's article, but not so useful for the paleoart article.

In any case, I've scoured my house for all of the books I can find that contain substantial discussion ABOUT paleoart, as follows:

Books by or about specific artists, but which contain useful text about paleoart as a whole (often in prefaces, forewords or afterwords):

Does anyone have any others to add? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Imagery from 2000[1], about the Lanzendorf collection, mainly covers 80s and 90s dinosaur palaeoart. As a weird sidenote, my copy of that book has a handwritten greeting from one of the artists to his brother, who he had apparently gifted the book for his birthday. No idea how that seemingly personal copy ended up on Amazon where I bought it... FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Steve White also have a volume specifically on Julius Cstonyi's work? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He does, but not sure how useful that would be for the history and identity of the field as a whole. Is there a particular part of it that you think may be useful? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Cstonyi talked about influential paleoartists at the begining, but I haven't seen the book in quite along time, so I'm not sure how detailed his interview is. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section?

[edit]

I don't conduct GA reviews personally, but one thing that seems in rather dire need of fixing if this is going for GA is the near complete lack of a lead section. At current we have a small paragraph - with an article of this length you could likely get two or perhaps even three good paragraphs, as the section should summarize the main points of every section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent point--I haven't messed with the lede much at all since fleshing out the rest of the article. I've now added what is hopefully a decently coherent narrative that summarizes the rest of the article. It likely needs some work, but is a start. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are some guidelines for adding artists and art

[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I didn't want to just edit the article without consulting anyone. I personally feel that the list of notable paleoartists is missing a few artists. These include Gabriel Ugueto, Matt Celesky, and particularly Brian Engh. These artists have received awards for their work, had their art displayed at SVP, and have been interviewed and utilized by paleontologists and popular scientific magazines and/or websites. At what point would they qualify as notable, influential paleoartists. I also have a follow-up question: What is the process, if there is one, for reviewing images to be posted in the page's gallery. An example would be Emily Willoughby's Serikornis, which I believe deserves to be in the gallery. But I don't want to make these edits without hearing what other people think. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed all of the redlinks (of which there were many) in the Notable Paleoartists section some time ago. I agree Engh seems notable, but is there enough reliable source material to include him? If you'd like to link here any sources you have that mention him in a prominent enough way, I'll see what I can do about cobbling together a stub for him (and any others, as well). And no, the gallery as it stands is just a repository of the many superfluous original images that were scattered across the article in previous versions of the page. Anyone is welcomed to add images to the gallery from Commons, or link them here if they're uncertain and I'll do so. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Engh won the 2018 Lazendorf PaleoArt prize in the 2D category thanks to his Tylosaurus mural. His art has also been used in many paleontological papers. Some examples include the descriptions of Mirarce, Arkansaurus, Dynamoterror, and the redescription of Sarahsaurus. He also was listed as a personal influence by 24 out of 350 (6.86%) surveyed paleoartists in David Orr's "2017 Survey of Paleoartists". This was above Robert T. Bakker, Zdenek Burian, John Gurche, Mauricio Antón, and Andrey Atuchin. Matt Celeskey has acted as a museum exhibit designer since the 90s, and his art has been used in the descriptions of taxa such as Bulbasaurus, Avicranium and Gordodon. Gabriel Ugueto was listed as an influence by 6 out of 350 (1.71%) surveyed paleoartists in the Orr survey, above Wayne Barlowe, Darren Naish, Eleanor Kish, Todd Marhsall, Jay Matternes, or Peter Trusler. I may be biased since I count myself as influenced by Ugueto, but still. All three of these artists had their art featured in SVP 2018's "picturing the past" exhibit. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be a difference in whether someone is notable enough to be listed here, and whether they are notable enough for having an article. The demands would probably be less for the former, but for the later, we have WP:notability to follow. And when it comes to this, blogs and personal websites are not enough, we need establishment in more reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Julio Lacerda has enough published notability for a page than surely Engh does. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might have gone bit overboard with the article creations, but I'm personally not very interested in writing biographies, so I'll leave that discussion to others. We should look at the notability guidelines rather than what articles have been created or not, because there is a good chance some of them will be nominated for deletion once discovered by "outsiders". What might be seen as influential and notable in a narrow circle of bloggers and Deviant artists may not be considered notable in the larger scheme of things. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the tricky things about establishing notability for artists is that it's not enough for their art to be published in high-profile places: they, as an individual, need to be discussed directly in reliable sources as well. In the case of Lacerda, Steve White's Dinosaur Art II has a chapter about him and his work in a fair amount of detail. If Engh has similar coverage, please do feel free to provide a link here.
I'm happy to add back some names that are notable for the purpose of the section, even if they aren't notable enough for their own articles, if doing so is consistent with policy. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Paleoart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Will start reviewing soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • that attempts to reconstruct or depict prehistoric life according to the current knowledge and scientific evidence at the time of the artwork's creation. – do we need all this? Would suggest "that attempts to depict prehistoric life according to the scientific evidence" for brevity. The rest does not seem to add something.
  • often limited – suggest to remove the "often". Its always limited.
  • the opening of the western frontier opening? – As not everybody reading this is American, I would add "North America" here and link to the North American Frontier.
  • "paleoimagery", which includes a variety of cultural and media depictions of prehistoric life in various manifestations. – Unclear, what would those be? The definition of the term is not clear. Is it a broader category, including both paleoart and non-scientific depictions?
    • Unfortunately, the source does not go into detail about specific examples apart from some kind of vague categories I've opted against including ("science tool, cultural symbol, etc") because I do not think they aid in understanding. The source referenced by Ansón, Fernández & Ramos (2015) for this part of the paper is not one that I own. Anyway, I expanded the sentence about paleoimagery to more distinctly differentiate it from paleoart in this context. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • although 87% of respondents recognized an increase in accuracy of paleoart over time – why the "although" here?
    • Ansón, Fernández & Ramos (2015) report the 78% who recognize accuracy as important to paleoart as seeming low, and contrast it with the 87%, but I agree my wording is unnecessarily awkward so I've just changed "although" to "and". -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The production of paleoart requires by definition a substantial amount of research – bit vague, what would "research" include? The paleoartist is surely not required to do original research before being able to draw (the sentence reads as this would be the case); he needs however take existing research into account.
  • but including any fossilized structures its soft tissue – something missing here?
  • Paleoart is unique in its compositional challenge in that its content must be imagined and inferred, as opposed to directly referenced, and, in many cases, this includes depictions of animal behavior and environmental topography. – as you are talking about "content", I would not continue with "depictions". And why "environmental topography"? All other aspects of the environment need to be inferred as well, so why not simply "environment"?
  • it is supposedly representing (lack of horns, sharp teeth) the evidence is lacking that it represents – convoluted wording, disturbs reading.
  • Grecian – link it. What is it?
  • first known fossil material skeleton – either material or skeleton
  • the naturalist artist – suggest "the artist" or "Hermann"
  • which depicted it as trunkless – trunkless? Without a trunk? I don't understand.
  • Cuvier, Jean Hermann's correspondent whose attention later brought his pterosaur sketches to light, – I don't understand this either. Do we need all this (except for "Cuvier")?
  • One notable deviation from this approach – What approach? Too imprecise.
  • Why not include this paper?
  • The role of art in disseminating paleontological knowledge took on a new salience with the introduction of the term "dinosaur" by Sir Richard Owen in 1842. – Was it really the naming of the dinosauria itself, or was it rather the Waterhouse models?
    • Yes, I rewrote this statement to more accurately reflect the source used for it (Colagrande & Felder 2000). I also added a little more detail on this concept from the same source to better segue into the next concept discussed. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first life-size sculptures depicting dinosaurs – These sculptures do not only depict dinosaurs! Should be kept in mind for the following discussion as well.
  • Knight's foray into paleoart can be traced to a commission ordered by Dr. Jacob Wortman – but when? Any date?
  • Not sure if this here is a mit too much detail and could be removed: Gould, who was a prominent fan and popularizer of Knight's works, used one of Knight's paintings for the cover of his 1991 book Bully for Brontosaurusand another in his 1996 book Dinosaur in a Haystack.
  • This painting was one of the few works of paleoart produced before 1960 to depict dinosaurs as active, fast-moving creatures, – You could mention that Owen himself reconstructed his Megalosaurus as a very mammal like animal, with erect limbs and so on, implying an active life style.
    • I haven't come across this claim before myself, and don't see it mentioned in the sources I've been using. Do you have a source in mind for this claim? Happy to include a line about it if I can find one, though I'm not sure it's strictly necessary. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rudolph Zallinger and Zdeněk Burian – both Americans?
  • Why not incorporating Hendersons "Restoring Dinosaurs as Living Animals"?
  • This classic depiction of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals remained the status quo until the 1960s, – What does the dinosaur Renaissance has to do with "other prehistoric animals"?
  • What about modern life-sized sculptures that are seen in various "dinosaur parks" around the world? What about 3D virtual realities and related stuff?
    • I think that 3D virtual reality and related things (presumably including video games) might belong better in the cultural depictions of dinosaurs article, since this one has only incorporated mentions to popular culture when I've come across them in the sources I've been using. As for sculptures in other dinosaur parks around the world, do you have a suggestion for a source to put such a mention in the proper context of an overview of paleoart on the whole? In my perusal of the sources I've been using, the Crystal Palace dinosaurs are the only ones that come up in an overview of the subject and its history. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, its simply a matter of the medium? Virtual realities were repeatedly discussed in scientific meetings and are increasingly adopted by museums, so this should be paleoart per definition. But if no source makes this connection we have to leave it out, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it might just be a bit early on for these kinds of technological developments to be covered in the secondary/tertiary sources I've been using--but I will certainly keep an eye out for new things that mention this! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • various color studies – I would always use the term pigmentation. We are not able to make inferences on color.
  • et al. – I would avoid this technical term and use "and colleagues" instead.
  • Its opening was timed to coincide with the 2018 conference of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in October, and is scheduled to run until January 2019 – maybe too much detail, suggest to remove this.
  • Sarjeants "Crystal Palace" (in the 1997 "Encyclopedia of dinosaurs") may contain additional info.
  • If you mention the SVP grants and stuff, you may want to mention the Dinosaur Society of the UK, to have it not solely centered on the US. The Encyclopedia of dinosaurs contains an useful entry.
    • For this, I'm a bit confused. The chapter on the Dinosaur Society from the Currie & Padian encyclopedia refers to a U.S. organization. I found another source that mentions that the U.S. society is now extinct and there is a current U.K. one, but I have been unable so far to find a good source that discusses this society in a broader context of paleoart in general. Am I looking in the wrong place in the Currie & Padian encyclopedia, or do you have a suggestion about where to find another source on this? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Encyclopedia of dinosaurs" has also an "Reconstruction and Restoration" entry written by Sylvia Czerkas.
  • @Ferahgo the Assassin:, that is everything for now. Article is well-written overall; needs some further polishing, but should be a fine GA soon. Should you have any difficulties locating the mentioned sources, let me know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear, we don't necessarily need everything of the above to reach GA; please understand my points merely as suggestions for improvement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly for your review, Jens! I’ll get to work on these soon. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldfuss was also the first paleoartist – this is not exactly true, as Goldfuss did not draw that illustration by himself (the paleoartist was Christian Hohe).
  • Often, paleoart has another goal not mentioned in the article that is especially widespread in paleoart published in papers: To illustrate scientific hypothesis. Not just take the available evidence into account, but to draw it in a way to show the animal with, e.g., specific behaviors that have been inferred from the fossil record (brooding behavior, gragariousness, or whatever). Not sure if a source would be available here; but if one could be found it would be a great addition.

Despite the two new points above (I also responded to one older point above), I'm promoting now. Congratulations! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now fixed the line on Goldfuss and included substantial coverage of "goals" of paleoart under the Production section, where I think it fits best, citing Witton and the Ansón, Fernández & Ramos paper. Thanks again for your very helpful suggestions and promotion of the article! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A giant chicken

[edit]

In the artwork by Luis Rey, user:Bubblesorg changed the text from chicken to Giant chicken and then to Giant Gallus Aesculapi. My questions are: 1) why was "Giant" capitalized to begin with? 2) how did user:Bubblesorg identify it as Gallus aesculapi?; 3) is there a source that it's the chicken that is giant-sized and not the T.rex (T-Rex) on the picture? The palm trees may be small due to perspective.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All we have to do is look at the original caption:[2] And yes, making such stuff up is unacceptable. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry guys I though it was in reference to Gallus Aesculapi as someone in a fourm told that it was.--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should know by now what reliable sources are. We can't just make stuff up, or write what some people told us. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay sure--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Shrink wrapping in dinosaur paleoart"

[edit]

Throughout the internet, there are countless cases of arguments and posts saying that dinosaurs in paleoart "shouldn't be depicted as shrink wrapped" because of the All Yesterdays book from 2012, the book that's mentioned here. However, I am unable to determine what in the internet is significant and relevant enough that talks about the argument of "shrink wrapped dinosaurs in paleoart" to be included here in the article. Is are there anything relevant about the topic that is a "must" for here as many places I go the internet seem to go for that direction for any dinosaur paleoart subject? And if so, what kind of sources can be used as reliable for citing? Gabeluna27 (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Joschua Knüppe and Scott Hartman

[edit]

In my opinion both of these paleo-artists have contributed significantly to paleo-art and are notable enough for their own Wikipedia article and a placement on paleo-artist list.

Does anybody disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingmeatballs (talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portmanteau?

[edit]

The article says that the word "paleoart" is a portmaneteau, but this does not seem right. It just looks to me like it's the word "art" prefixed with "paleo-". This technically isn't even a compound, and it's certainly not a portmanteau. A portmanteau would be something like "*palart". 73.133.224.40 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleoart&oldid=1203682079"