|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Mar 19, 2015 3:52:55 GMT 5
confuciusornis  |
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Mar 26, 2015 4:32:06 GMT 5
xenotarsosaurus  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 14:26:32 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Apr 4, 2015 12:31:50 GMT 5
the beginning of my tyrannosaurus sculpture.  |
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Apr 7, 2015 6:30:06 GMT 5
carnufex carolinensis  |
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Apr 10, 2015 7:25:48 GMT 5
megalodon  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 11, 2015 15:52:01 GMT 5
Nice work, but that eye is off. This is what it should look like:   Circular and dark, with a very subtly visible (or not at all, depending on the light) pupil. I realise that eyes can be a tricky thing to draw, I myself must have produced my share of terrible ones… |
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Apr 11, 2015 18:16:03 GMT 5
hmm, thanks for the heads up. thats a pretty simple fix
|
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on May 1, 2015 5:21:28 GMT 5
yi qi  and a rough sketch of a spinosaurus eating a mosasaur species  |
|
Creeper
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 39
|
Post by Creeper on May 1, 2015 9:45:15 GMT 5
hmm, thanks for the heads up. thats a pretty simple fix Perhaps it was an artistic anthropomorphic depiction of the eyes? They express anger and malecontent, they are the eyes of a tyrant, a killer, a being of chaos and personified destruction. Sometimes we have to look past what it "is" and focus on what it expresses. This is art after all? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 1, 2015 16:35:12 GMT 5
It is, it’s palaeoart, in which in any case the scientific component is vital. It is among those types of art that definitely do focus on what is (or what was). Of course that does not apply to all types of art, but being art is not a reason to do whatever one wants (of course speculation is allowed here, often in liberal amounts, as long as it conforms to science), you have to look at what field of art you are in, and at the rules in that field. Art seems too abstract a term to begin with (a term for which no objective definition seems to exist) to hold much relevance to what one can or can’t do. From a purely objective point of view, "palaeontography" would be the more useful word, but it doesn’t have the same ring to it as "palaeoart".
Megalodon isn’t "a tyrant, a killer, a being of chaos and personified destruction", it is a species of shark, and likely a very efficient and sophisticated hunter.
|
|
Creeper
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 39
|
Post by Creeper on May 2, 2015 2:35:32 GMT 5
That would be totally valid if this was a paleoart thread. I may be mistaken, but if it is a paleoart thread I would expect it to say this somewhere in the OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 2, 2015 3:30:39 GMT 5
C. megalodon is a real animal that went extinct, it is subject to palaeontology, and thus the depiction is palaeoart. When I made the thread I didn't want to preclude the posting of artwork depicting extant animals, hence the more generalized title. Since we are on a zoological forum (not deviantart), I considered it to be self-evident that the same standards apply that apply to palaeoart (being a form of scientific illustration in the wider sense), and it would appear that those people who have contributed understood it the same way it was intended to be understood, including spinosaurus1 whose artwork is perfectly naturalistic, barring this kind of minor error. PS. Of course there is the minor possibility that spino intended to write megalodon with a capital M, in order to refer to the genus of clam bearing that name. In that case this is obviously not palaeoart or scientific animal art as implied, but a very abstract and complex art form, possibly even something completely new. I that case though, it would be neither in keeping with his usual artwork, nor with what he wrote here, nor with the traditions of this forum. 
|
|
Creeper
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 39
|
Post by Creeper on May 2, 2015 5:51:44 GMT 5
I was only saying that I enjoyed his personification of the animal, it is subtle but it completely alters the entire subjects disposition. It's quite beautiful.
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on May 3, 2015 6:25:26 GMT 5
 Not done yet. |
|
