State of the Palaeoart

Palaeontologia Electronica http://palaeo-electronica.org

State of the Palaeoart

Mark P. Witton, Darren Naish, and John Conway

The discipline of palaeoart, a branch of natural history art dedicated to the recon-struction of extinct life, is an established and important component of palaeontologicalscience and outreach. For more than 200 years, palaeoartistry has worked closely withpalaeontological science and has always been integral to the enduring popularity ofprehistoric animals with the public. Indeed, the perceived value or success of suchproducts as popular books, movies, documentaries, and museum installations canoften be linked to the quality and panache of its palaeoart more than anything else.

For all its significance, the palaeoart industryis often poorly treated by the academic, media andeducational industries associated with it. Manystandard practises associated with palaeoart pro-duction are ethically and legally problematic, stifleits scientific and cultural growth, and have a nega-tive impact on the financial viability of its creators.These issues create a climate that obscures themany positive contributions made by palaeoartiststo science and education, while promoting andfunding derivative, inaccurate, and sometimes exe-crable artwork. The result is the publication ofobjectively inaccurate and subjectively terriblepalaeoart that fails to conform with fossil evidence,is incongruous with the anatomy and life appear-ance of organisms, perpetuates recognisedpalaeoart clichés and tropes (Conway et al. 2012;Witton 2013), and has limited popular appeal.

To date, discussion of these areas has essen-tially been limited to personal communicationamong interested parties and on internet discus-sion groups; one aim of our article here is to docu-

ment part of this dialogue in the publishedliterature, in turn bringing the issues concerned towider attention. We argue that palaeoartistry isboth scientifically and culturally significant, and thatimproved working practises are required by thoseinvolved in its production. We hope that our viewsinspire discussion and changes sorely needed toimprove the economy, quality and reputation of thepalaeoart industry and its contributors.

The historic, scientific and economic significance of palaeoart

Far from being an anonymous enterprise ofindividuals who fancifully recreate extinct crea-tures, palaeoartistry has a long history, its own tra-ditions, has helped advance the science ofvertebrate palaeontology, and is a cornerstone forpalaeontological outreach. Moreover, palaeoartundeniably serves as the source for products andmerchandise which are globally worth millions ofdollars.

Mark P. Witton. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Burnaby Building, Burnaby Road, Portsmouth, PO1 3QL, UK. markwitton.com; markwitton-com.blogspot.com Twitter. @markwitton [email protected] Naish. National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, University of Southampton, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK. [email protected] blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology Twitter. @TetZooJohn Conway. [email protected] johnconway.co Twitter. @nyctopterus

Witton, Mark P., Naish, Darren, and Conway, John. 2014. State of the Palaeoart. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 17, Issue 3; 5E: 10p;palaeo-electronica.org/content/2014/768-contributions-by-amateur-paleontologists

WITTON, NAISH, & CONWAY: STATE OF PALAEOART

The origins of palaeoart lie within the originsof palaeontology in general. The first life recon-structions of fossil organisms date back to at least1780 when scholars began to privately producerestorations of flying reptiles (Taquet and Padian2004). Images depicting the life appearance ofextinct creatures soon found their way into pub-lished works, such as those by Baron GeorgesCuvier printed in the 1820s: the now familiar vis-ages of reconstructed skeletons and body outlinesdate back to at least this date (Figure 1B, Rudwick1992). Palaeoart became commercialised whenHenry de la Beche produced Duria Antiquior (Fig-ure. 1A, a watercolour scene featuring life in Juras-sic Dorset, dating to 1830) to sell to academics foruse in lectures. By 1854, palaeoart had made thetransition from academia to public education: thelife-size sculptures of fossil vertebrates, producedby Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins and displayedin south London, had an enormous impact on thepublic’s perception of fossil animals and theirappearance. These models of fossil marine rep-

tiles, dinosaurs, mammals and other animals werecreated solely with public outreach in mind andwere installed in the bustling, extravagant groundsof the Crystal Palace in Sydenham, London (Figure1C). Their design famously involved collaborationwith Sir Richard Owen, this being a notable earlyworking relationship between a palaeoartist and apalaeontologist. Small replicas of these modelswere on sale in 1859 and pioneered the now-bur-geoning tradition in which merchandise is derivedfrom palaeontological science (Liston 2010). Theacademic, commercial and educational corner-stones of the palaeoart industry were thus in placeby the mid-1800s. The demand for palaeoart hasgrown exponentially since that time, such thatpalaeoart of various kinds is now a familiar compo-nent of our daily lives, being featured in innumera-ble museum exhibitions, books, toys, logos,advertisements, and films.

Reconstructing an extinct organism and itsworld is skilled work. Rather than an “anythinggoes” approach to the appearance of fossil ani-

FIGURE 1. Select major works in palaeoart history. A, Henry de la Beche’s 1830 Duria Antiquior, the first commerciallyavailable piece of palaeoart, as well as the oldest known composition of extinct animals within a reconstructed palaeo-environment; B, Baron George Cuvier’s 1808 musculoskeletal reconstruction of Anoplotherium commune, including

outline of restored soft-tissues; C, Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins’ 1854 Iguanodon model, part of the famous Victo-rian prehistoric menagerie of Crystal Palace, Sydenham; D, Robert Bakker’s 1969 influential restoration of Deinony-chus antirrhopus, an illustration which symbolises the beginning of the scientific and artistic ‘dinosaur renaissance’. A– B, in public domain; C, photograph by M. Witton; D, from Ostrom (1969).

2

PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG

mals, accurate palaeoart is constrained by awealth of data (see Conway et al. 2012 and Witton2014a for overviews). This does not mean thatpalaeoartworks are necessarily ‘right’ or ‘wrong’,but that the most credible efforts which portrayextinct creatures in accordance with scientific evi-dence. Credible palaeoartwork requires up-to-dateknowledge of the taxon being illustrated and thegeological context in which it occurs; an ability toreconstruct missing anatomical details (e.g. miss-ing skeletal components and soft tissues) usinginference from extinct and modern species; knowl-edge of those poses and actions which are biome-chanically tenable; an understanding of animalcolouration and behaviour and, of course, the abil-ity to produce an artistically compelling piece ofwork in the first place. In contrast, objectively inac-curate works distort proportions measurable fromfossils, omit integumentary structures documentedfor the taxon concerned, include blatant anatomicalerrors (regarding, for example, digit number or limb

form), or mix geographically and stratigraphicallydisparate species.

Given that significant background work isrequired for the production of any piece of accuratepalaeoart (Figure 2), it is unsurprising that palaeo-artists both bring scientific concepts ‘to life’ andalso advance ideas and hypotheses about the por-trayal and even anatomy, behaviour and biology ofextinct organisms. The production of rigorousreconstructions has shed light on the proportions,postures, gaits, and body masses of extinct crea-tures (e.g. Bakker 1986; Paul 1988, 1991; Antón etal. 1998, Antón 2003a, b; Witton 2008). Somepalaeoartists have transferred these observationsinto the technical literature, using the researchbehind their reconstructions to significantlyadvance our understanding of fossil animals. Per-haps the most famous example of this concernsthe so-called ‘dinosaur renaissance’ of the late20th century, where artists joined scientists in argu-ing for ‘active’ dinosaurs while also illustrating them

FIGURE 2. The production of a skeletal reconstruction (and hence a life restoration) involves the compilation of col-lected measurements and a rigorous effort to properly determine the proportions of the animal involved. This compila-

tion - depicting the Lower Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Eotyrannus lengi - shows how measurements andproportions were compiled in order to create the conservative reconstruction shown at bottom. A more technicallycompetent illustrator might use the same technique to reconstruct an animal via digital means only. Image by DarrenNaish.

3


(Figure 1D, e.g. Bakker 1986; Paul 1988, 1991).Many of our most iconic palaeoart images camefrom this time and indisputably played a role inmoulding views about dinosaur palaeobiology(Naish 2009; Liston 2010). At its best, therefore,the relationship between palaeoart and palaeonto-logical science is mutualistic, a genuine fusion ofartistry and science where both sets of practi-tioners are inspired by, and learn from, the other.

Outside of strict academia, palaeoart plays anessential role in popularising and communicatingpalaeontological and evolutionary sciences.Indeed, palaeontology is a privileged science inthat its subject lends itself well to being rendered inart, and palaeoart provides a key reason for theenduring popularity of palaeontology outside ofacademia. Its appeal to children feeds into theimportant role of vertebrate palaeontology as a‘gateway science’ for young people. Palaeontologyis widely acknowledged for its role in introducingchildren to scientific processes and the fundamen-tal components of Earth and life sciences – evolu-tion, biodiversity, geological time, extinction and soon – and palaeoart vividly and memorably portraysthese concepts.

The multi-million dollar industry of palaeonto-logical merchandise – toys, books, films and soforth – is also almost entirely derived from palaeo-art, predominantly featuring reconstructed extinctorganisms rather than fossils themselves. Whilemostly directly benefiting industries outside of aca-demia, sale of this merchandise offers a source ofrevenue for museums and indirectly fuels interestin palaeontology, which feeds back to museums inthe form of visitors. The perceived economicpotential of palaeoart has even led to suggestionsthat the commercialisation of palaeoart may be aviable alternative to the sales of fossils themselves(Shimada et al. 2014). While we have doubts aboutthe latter point (fossil skeletons and art of fossilorganisms are not interchangeable commodities:Witton 2014b), it is clear that palaeoart has signifi-cant monetary value.

Integral but unimportant: palaeoart in the eyes of many

For all its economic, scientific, and culturalsignificance, palaeoartists regularly find them-selves being exploited by academic institutions,publishers, exhibition developers, filmmakers andother media agents. The environment in whichpalaeoart operates rewards work of dubious artisticand scientific value, aimed at a relatively narrowaudience. Originality and accuracy are given no

incentive, and explorations of new styles andapproaches are largely ignored. Even renowned,widely-respected palaeoartists struggle financiallywhen reliant on palaeoart for employment,whereas others profit (sometimes substantially)from their work. A ‘culture of copying’ means thatoriginal, progressive artists are frequently passedover for commissions or consultancy and unable tobuild sufficient professional reputations to sell theirart at respectable market value. The paradoxicalresult is that despite the enormous demand forpalaeoart, a generally stifled and impoverishedinternational industry can financially support only ahandful of individuals.

A lack of consideration for the history ofpalaeoart and the contributions of its practitionersis the key problem here. Palaeoartists and theirworks are often considered interchangeable withone another to such an extent that artists aresometimes employed to reproduce the work of oth-ers. We are not referring to the production of art-works which are similar to other pieces, but whichare anatomically, tonally and compositionally near-identical to older works, to the extent that theirsources are easily identified by anyone familiarwith palaeoartworks. The message behind suchplagiarism is that the ideas and concepts ofpalaeoartists are important, but their origins - theindividuals behind them - are not. We stress thatthese practises are not just perpetrated by small,underfunded museums or publishers: some of thelargest and most respected scientific institutionsand publishers engage in these unethical, copy-right-infringing acts. Furthermore, not all individu-als employed to reproduce art have the excuse ofinexperience: several well-known professionalpalaeoartists practise this behaviour. Even amongthose who refuse requests to outright copy work,anecdotes persist of commissions where this hasbeen broached. Copying palaeoartworks signifi-cantly affects the viability of professional palaeoart-istry; diluting the importance and impact of originalwork to the detriment of the reputations, employ-ability and finances of the original artists. Ulti-mately, it prohibits the development of a culture inthe palaeoart industry that might earn individualsthe work and recognition they deserve.

How has copying become so rife within thepalaeoart industry? We consider one cause to bethat many (though not all) individuals associatedwith palaeoart production are not sufficiently con-cerned about their product: its accuracy, historicalcontext, and the individuals behind it are unimport-ant considerations. Note that this applies to some

4


palaeontologists who advise, choose and consulton artwork as much as non-academics. We findthis attitude inexcusable given that both the artisticand scientific community generally revere their his-tory and influences – a practise ranging from citingprevious works to dedicating whole projects to his-torical and cultural events. It may be that somepalaeontologists treat palaeoart as they do theirown work, seeing the generation of derivative art-works as little different to developing hypothesesacross successive papers. If so, they shouldremember that palaeoartists are not cited or men-tioned when this occurs; nor do they gain commis-sions or remuneration based on how manyindividuals have copied their work. Compoundingthis problem is the fact that some palaeontologistsemployed as consultants consider artistic depic-tions of extinct animals unimportant or unworthy ofchecking, correcting or replacing over time; anapproach decidedly at odds with the aims of thecompanies employing these consultants in the firstplace.

Another principle issue, of special relevanceto book and magazine publishing, concerns theemployment of ‘generalist’ (frequently in-house)illustrators for the production of derivative worksbased on original palaeoart. This is partly executedto meet ‘in house’ styling but, perhaps predomi-nantly, to save money: putting salaried illustratorsto work saves the expense of purchasing reproduc-tion rights or commissioning new work from spe-cialist artists. This practise has two effects, the firstbeing the loss of scientific accuracy. Uncertaintyover methods of fossil animal reconstruction andunfamiliarity with the subject matter forces ‘gener-alist’ artists to base their work closely on that ofdedicated palaeoartists, and changes made to theoriginal work – even minor ones – typically intro-duce errors. Conversely, outright copying meansthat mistakes or superseded components of theoriginal artwork are perpetuated rather than cor-rected. Such errors would clearly be unacceptablein illustrations of modern animals: the correct pro-portions, digit counts, limb postures, integumenttypes and so forth are clearly essential to the suc-cess of such portrayals, yet these same elementsare frequently rendered inaccurately in copiedpalaeoart. A scaly Velociraptor with posteriorly-fac-ing palms is not a Velociraptor, just as imagery of acat with scales, or a bird without feathers, fails torepresent these animals (Figure 3). Numerousrecent projects, have equivalent issues runningthroughout their artwork, suggesting that the indi-viduals behind these products did not perceive

them as problematic. However, given that a sub-stantial amount of palaeoart is intended to be edu-cational, this problem of inaccuracy raiseslegitimate questions about palaeoart production: 1)why are under-qualified individuals employed inproducing art of fossil species?, 2) why are quali-fied palaeontologists apparently betraying a lais-sez-faire approach to artwork in their literature,museum installations and so on?, and 3) if soundadvice is being given by consultants, why is it beingignored?

Creating derivative works has a second effect:reduction of original compositions and ideas. Giventhe near infinite artistic possibilities that are avail-able in compositions and scenes, it is striking how‘samey’ many palaeoartworks are. Renditions ofanimals attacking each other in heroic poses, roar-ing with wide-open mouths, and leaping at theviewer from within the picture with bared teeth andclaws, are just some of the tropes identifiablewithin palaeoart (Conway et al. 2012, Witton 2013).Some extinct species wind up being depicted in thesame composition so regularly that they haveattained a comical status among palaeoartists andpalaeontologists; indeed, the identification of‘palaeoart memes’ or tropes has become a regularpursuit among interested parties. Examplesinclude the ‘giraffoid’ version of the sauropod Baro-saurus (Figure 4), the ‘mega-louse’ renditions ofankylosaurid ankylosaurs, reconstructions thatshow the iguanodontian dinosaur Tenontosaurusbeing attacked by packs of the dromaeosaurid Dei-nonychus, and images of the coelurosaur Ornitho-lestes acting as palaeoart’s version of Wile E.Coyote, perpetually locked in hapless pursuit of aJurassic protobird. The genealogy of such imagesis often easily traced to single pieces of artworkand replication can involve more than compositionand subject matter: artistic styles and media arealso borrowed wholesale. There is very little inter-est in exploring more creative, stylistic avenues inthe depiction of fossil life.

Seen within the context of education and thepresentation of scientific hypotheses, composition-ally homogenous scenes are a serious problem.For one, many palaeoart tropes are scientificallyproblematic. The significance of evidence for Dei-nonychus specifically predating Tenontosaurus, forinstance, is overstated (Conway et al. 2012), anddepictions of fossil reptiles roaring with widemouths are inconsistent with vocalisation strate-gies in their extant relatives (Witton 2013). Again,copying of artwork spreads misconceptions aboutpalaeontological science. Perhaps more press-

5


ingly, palaeoart tropes stifle the growth of the fieldas both an art form and an attempt to realisticallyportray past animal life. In particular, the near-con-stant depiction of extinct forms in aggressive,‘threatening’ poses reinforces the idea that palaeo-art only caters to young, excitable audiences or‘fanboys’, and is not as sophisticated as otherforms of natural history art (Witton 2014b). Thisimpacts the value and respectability of the palaeo-art industry, and ultimately the tenability of palaeo-artistic careers.

A significant contributor to the ‘culture of copy-ing’ is a lack of sufficient funding for palaeoart pro-duction. Institutions that commission original workoften lack adequate finance to pay for it, oftenbecause funding for the generation of artwork hasnot been budgeted for. Obviously, the production ofhigh-quality palaeoart is time-consuming andrequires payment that accords with the skill of theindividual as an artist as well as their comprehen-sion of palaeontology. However, many potentialpatrons approach palaeoartists without realistic, orindeed any offers of payment. When palaeoartistsrightly ask for adequate salaries for their services,

the cheaper alternative of producing derivative art-work is wrongly regarded as the more attractiveoption.

What can be done about these issues?

Possible solutions to the problems outlinedabove have been discussed by palaeoartists forseveral years, primarily online. Tess Kissinger’s(1996) book Copyrights, Contracts, Pricing & Ethi-cal Guidelines for Dinosaur Artists and Paleontolo-gists attempted to advise and, to a certain extent,standardise legal and financial procedures withinpalaeoart. Gregory S. Paul more recently used theDinosaur Mailing List to argue that his product, andpalaeoart in general, should be protected via therestricting of standardised poses to certain artists,legally protecting works used for reference or inspi-ration, and the implementation of standardisedfees for palaeoartworks, unionisation and so forth(e.g. Paul 2011). Many of Paul’s proposals areunrealistic, untenable and unenforceable, and con-fuse the problems outlined here with another factorin recent palaeoartistry – the ever-increasing pool

FIGURE 3. If artists made major mistakes in depicting the anatomies or proportions of modern animals - such as restor-ing a cat with scales, as shown here - their work would be considered an abject failure and future commissions unlikely.Fossil animals are frequently depicted with equivalent gross inaccuracies however, because many artists employed forpalaeoart projects do not research or familiarise themselves with fossil data, or receive minimal guidance by consultingscientists. Painting by John Conway.

6


of talent. While we acknowledge the effect ofincreased numbers of palaeoartists on the industry,we cannot see it as a problem: no-one has the rightto decide how many practising palaeoartists thereare, increasing competition is a factor in any indus-try, and the surging numbers of palaeoartists isreflective of both the vast surge of growth that hasoccurred in palaeontological science and scope ingeneral, and the growth and ubiquity of the inter-net. Our call for fairer treatment applies to all, irre-spective of prestige, contribution to palaeoartistry,and career stage.

We are optimistic that changes are happen-ing, and can continue, without radical and unrealis-tic alterations to palaeoart practises. Indeed, thereare indications that palaeoart is becoming morewidely recognised and respected. The Society of

Vertebrate Palaeontology, in association withNational Geographic, annually awards the Lanzen-dorf Paleoart Prize to artists working within palae-ontological illustration, for example. Titan Books, aBritish publisher best known for its film and televi-sion tie-ins and graphic novels, has recently dedi-cated two volumes to the work of exceptionalmodern palaeoartists (White 2012; Csotonyi andWhite 2014) and additional such works areplanned. The so-called ‘All Yesterdays Movement’has been widely credited online (e.g. Taylor 2012;Hutchinson 2013), and several recent publicationson the history of palaeontological science havegiven appropriate credit to the role and significanceof palaeoart in shaping views on palaeontologicalprogress (Taquet and Padian 2004; Naish 2009;Liston 2010; Moody et al. 2010; White 2012; Con-

FIGURE 4. Palaeoart memes and the culture of copying, evidenced by different iterations of Robert Bakker’s 1971

‘giraffoid’ Barosaurus, a distinctive reconstruction characterised by a mast-like neck, ventral midline ridge on theneck, and (via foreshortening in the original composition) a short tail. Derivative works misinterpreted the latter, think-

ing the tail of Barosaurus is actually short and introduced other questionable elements which became replicated, suchas a horse-like face. This meme, one of many within palaeoart, demonstrates the problems of decreasing accuracyintroduced into palaeoart through copying work, as well as a deficit of originality. We thank Marc Vincent for providingtwo of the images shown here. Images from Bakker (1968); Lambert (1978, 1987); Bartram (1983); Benton (1987);Halstead et al. (1988) and Špinar and Burian (1995).

7


way et al. 2012). Small palaeoart events – galleriesand competitions – occur around the world and inonline venues. Perhaps most importantly, someindividuals associated with palaeoart production dotreat artists, both contemporary and historical, veryfairly. We ascribe much of this change to the inter-net, which has given palaeoartists more of a com-munity and voice than ever before, and has helpedraise awareness of the issues discussed here.Indeed, it is largely thanks to the internet that the‘culture of copying’ has been identified as the prob-lem it is, and pressure from online communitieshas proved effective at calling out plagiarised work.We take these points as positive signs of changingattitudes towards palaeoartists.

There is more we can do to further this cause,however. Firstly, we encourage palaeoartists to bemore assertive when negotiating prices for com-missions and artwork use. The prestige associatedwith producing or using existing palaeoartworks issometimes considered payment in itself, particu-larly among amateur, part-time or early-career art-ists, but this attitude is largely unhelpful to theindustry as a whole. Personal devaluation of art-works for the sake of obtaining a commission feedsnotions that palaeoart is a cheap, disposable com-modity and confuses the basic system of supplyand demand which should underpin a financiallybuoyant industry. Working for fairer wages not onlybenefits the artist, but also encourages palaeoartpatrons to make wiser choices as goes artist andcommission demands, as well as incentivisesstricter legal protection of palaeoart products andcopyrights. As in any creative industry, beyondtheir earliest career stage (where high wages areoften sacrificed for exposure and development of areputation), artists should negotiate fair payment inline with their skill, requisite research and creativetime commitments of a given artwork, and thedemands of their clients. Our call for greaterrespect of palaeoartistry applies to those producingit as much as those who buy it.

The palaeoart community can only push itsown importance so far, however: we need informedindividuals using their influence to promote andchange working practises at the ‘grassroots’ level.Proactive support from those involved with palae-ontological education, outreach and merchandisingis key here (Figure 5). The importance and rele-vance of palaeoartistry – specific individuals andartworks – should be paramount when decision-makers initiate or develop projects that revolvearound the portrayal of extinct organisms. Thoseunfamiliar with palaeoart should educate them-

selves about its history and practitioners beforemaking decisions on which artists or work to use.With technical literature and online presence onpalaeoart growing, being ignorant or indifferent isinexcusable for anyone leading a palaeoart-reliantproject. This extends to consultants on palaeoartprojects, who should consider whether their exper-tise is really adequate for advisory roles. Historyshows that being an expert on a group of fossilorganisms does not necessarily demonstrateexpertise in the portrayal of their life appearance,and making poorly-informed decisions on artworkhas knock-on effects on education, the potential re-use of the image concerned (and hence the budgetand economics of the relevant project or com-pany), the perpetuation of scientific inaccuracy,and the way in which the project is perceived bycritics, colleagues, and the public.

The ‘culture of copying’ must also come to anend. Artists should refuse to copy the work of oth-ers, serial plagiarists should fail to win commissionor employment, and art patrons should cease theusage of derivative works. If projects require a spe-cific palaeoartwork which already exists, there is noreason not to acquire the publication rights to theoriginal work, as would happen in any other mediaindustry. Cheaper imitations of songs or films arenot accepted as substitutes in their respectiveindustries: palaeoart should be no different. A typi-cal response concerning such criticism might bethat lack of financing prohibits purchasing rights tooriginal artwork. Our reply to this is that projectleaders should check with artists about pricingbefore writing off the use of their work: the majorityof artists would rather have their work used with areduced fee, rather than have their work copied forno remuneration at all.

Longer term, more realistic budgeting forpalaeoart projects is clearly required. Scientistsshould predict their palaeoart needs when writinggrant proposals, along with other outreach ele-ments, rather than seeing what they can afford topay at the end of a research project. Book publish-ers and exhibition developers should contact artiststo establish reproduction rights and fees beforeproject finances are settled. Doubtlessly, this maysee the scale of some palaeoart projects decrease,and requires pressure on financiers to recognisethe superior quality of original palaeoart rather thancheaper derivatives, for which the overall betterquality of their product is the incentive. We wouldlike to see quality palaeoartists become recognisednames in education, outreach and merchandising,perhaps even to the point where their names add

8


credence and appeal to projects they are involvedwith. This is far from a fanciful aim, since it is wellknown in palaeontology in general (and not palaeo-art alone) that several individuals are consistentlyassociated with high-quality products and bringcredence and gravitas, and not ‘just’ technicalcompetence and accuracy alone, to a project.

The palaeoart industry will persist for as longas people remain interested in extinct life. How-ever, whether it will grow into a larger and healthierenterprise is reliant on changes to detrimentalworking practises currently rife within the industry.This will not happen unless individuals involvedwith palaeoart actively push for fairer working prac-tises wherever they can. We are optimistic thatincreasing awareness and promotion for palaeo-artists could ultimately see the current, often down-trodden palaeoart industry become a much morevital, interesting and economically sustainable one.

REFERENCES

Antón, M. 2003a. Reconstructing fossil mammals:strengths and limitations of a methodology. Palaeon-tological Association Newsletter 01/2003, 53: 55-65.

Antón, M. 2003b. Appendix: notes on the reconstructionsof fossil vertebrates from Lothagam. In Leakey, M. G.& Harris, J. M. (eds) Lothagam: the Dawn of Human-ity in Eastern Africa. Columbia University Press (NewYork), pp. 661-665.

Antón, M., García-Perea, R. & Turner, A. 1998. Recon-structed facial appearance of the sabretoothed felidSmilodon. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society124, 369-386.

Bakker, R.T. 1968. The superiority of dinosaurs. Discov-ery, 3: 11-22.

Bakker, R.T. 1988. The Dinosaur Heresies. Penguin,London.

Bartram, A., Booth, B., Chinery, M., Clarkson, E.N.K.,Cox, B., Edwards, D., Maynard, C. and Rolfe, W.D.I.1983. The Prehistoric World. Galley Press, London.

Benton, M.J. 1987. Junior Illustrated Encyclopedia: Pre-historic world. Grisewood & Dempsey, London.

FIGURE 5. Fair working practises for palaeoartists can only develop if individuals involved with producing, commis-sioning and purchasing palaeoart push against the current climate of poor culture, inadequate financing and looseethics. Concerned individuals should raise awareness and encourage discussion of these issues wherever they can,and especially so in the mostly-offline venues where palaeoart is produced or procured for palaeontological media.This graphic is offered as a free, unrestricted means of clearly stating support for this cause.

9


Conway, J., Kosemen, C.M. and Naish, D. 2012. All Yes-terdays: Unique and Speculative Views of Dinosaursand Other Prehistoric Animals. Irregular Books.

Csotonyi, J. and White, S. 2014. The Paleoart of JuliusCsotonyi: Dinosaurs, Sabre Tooths and Beyond.Titan Books, London.

Halstead, J., Wardle, R., and Kirby, S. 1988. The Com-plete Book of Dinosaurs. Harper Collins, London.

Hutchinson, J. 2013. Yes - another day, another positive“All Yesterdays” book review. whatsinjohns-freezer.com/2013/03/17/all-yesterdays-review/

Kissinger, T. 1996. Copyrights, Contracts, Pricing & Ethi-cal Guidelines for Dinosaur Artists and Paleontolo-gists. The Dinosaur Society.

Lambert, D. 1978. Dinosaurs. Grisewood & Dempsey,London.

Lambert, D. 1987. The Age of Dinosaurs. KingfisherBooks, London.

Liston, J.J. 2010. 2000 AD and the new ‘Flesh’: first toreport the dinosaur renaissance in ‘moving’ pictures.Geological Society, London, Special Publications,343: 335-360.

Moody, R.T.J., Buffetaut, E., Naish, D. & Martill, D.M.2010. Dinosaurs and Other Extinct Saurians: A His-torical Perspective. Geological Society, London, Spe-cial Publications.

Naish, D. 2009. The Great Dinosaur Discoveries. A & CBlack, London.

Ostrom, J.H. 1969. Osteology of Deinonychus antirrho-pus, an unusual theropod from the Lower Cretaceousof Montana. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Nat-ural History, Yale University, 30: 1-165.

Paul, G.S. 1987. The science and art of restoring the lifeappearance of dinosaurs and their relatives: a rigor-ous how-to guide. Dinosaurs past and present, 2: 4-49.

Paul, G.S. 1991. The many myths, some old, some new,of dinosaurology. Modern Geology, 16: 69-99

Paul, G.S. 2011. GSP statement on use of my dinosaurrestorations. dml.cmnh.org/2011Mar/msg00015.html

Rudwick, M.J.S. 1992. Scenes from Deep Time: EarlyPictorial Representations of the Prehistoric World.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Špinar, Z.V. and Burian, Z. 1995. Life Before Man.Thames and Hudson, London.

Shimada, K., Currie, P.J., Scott, E., and Sumida, S.S.2014. The greatest challenge to 21st century paleon-tology: When commercialization of fossils threatensthe science. Palaeontologia Electronica, Article17.1.1E: 4 p; palaeo-electronica.org/content/2014/691-great-threat-in-21st-century.

Taylor, M. 2012. Review: All Yesterdays (Conway, Kose-men and Naish). svpow.com/2012/11/29/review-all-yesterdays-conway-koseman-and-naish/

Taquet, P., and Padian, K. 2004. The earliest known res-toration of a pterosaur and the philosophical originsof Cuvier’s Ossemens Fossiles. Comptes RendusPalevol, 3: 157-175.

White, S. 2012. Dinosaur Art: The World’s GreatestPaleoart. Titan Books, London.

Witton, M.P. 2008. A new approach to determining ptero-saur body mass and its implications for pterosaur

flight. Zitteliana, B28: 143-158.Witton, M.P. 2013. What Daleks, xenomorphs and

slasher movies tell us about palaeoart. markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/what-daleks-xenom-orphs-and-slasher.html

Witton, M.P. 2014a. Patterns in Palaeontology: Palaeoart

– fossil fantasies or recreating lost reality? Palaeon-tology Online, Volume 4, Article 9, 1-14. http://www.palaeontologyonline.com/articles/2014/pat-terns-palaeontology-palaeoart-fossil-fantasies-recre-ating-lost-reality/

Witton, M.P. 2014b. Can palaeoart prevent the over-commercialisation of fossils? markwitton-com.blog-spot.co.uk/2014/04/can-palaeoart-prevent-over.html

10

State of the Palaeoart

Documents

Transcript of State of the Palaeoart