Re: Dino clip art book from Dover

[Amado Narvaez <anarvaez@umd5.umd.edu>]

On Wed, 24 May 1995 Willa25743@aol.com wrote:

> Here's a just-published reference I haven't seen mentioned: "Ready-to-Use
> Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Mammals Illustrations" by Bob Giuliani, Dover
> Publications, Inc.: New York, 1995. 64 pp., 294 black-and-white illustrations
> of 98 different copyright-free designs printed on one side. ISBN 0-486-
> 28470-0. Paperback, $5.95.
> 
> As a graphic artist, I can vouch for the quality of the pen-and-ink drawings,
> but I'd like to hear some opinions on their paleontological accuracy. Are
> they more scientifically correct than the usual dino art we see in popular
> publications, or less flawed?
> Would you buy it, or recommend it to a teacher or others who would
> use dinosaur illustrations?
> 
> Willard Harrison

As I mentioned in a posting about this book a few weeks ago, I feel that 
the drawings are much more accurate than clip art I have seen elsewhere. 
But there's a reason. If you look at the "Allosaurus" and compare it with 
the Allosaurus on the cover of _The Ultimate Dinosaur Book_ by David 
Lambert, you will note that the _body_ is pretty much the body of the 
Allosaurus sculpture in Lambert's book. (The head has been changed, but 
the pose and much of the skin rendering is taken from the sculpture.) The 
Tyrannosaurus is based on the Tyrannosaurus sculpture in the Dorling 
Kindersley book. I'm not sure, but I think I've seen the body of the 
"Diplodocus" in a Carroll Lane Fenton book. The Stegosaurus is drawn from 
a Stephen Czerkas sculpture. With "models" like these, one would expect 
the pictures to be reasonably accurate.

Copying from established artists is nothing new. We all know how often 
Charles R. Knight's work was "copied" (see Glut's _The Dinosaur 
Scrapbook_ which has many examples of how Knight's work was "borrowed" or 
modified).

Quite a bit of John Sibbick's work seems to have been used as the basis 
for the clip art, such as "Ankylosaurus" (which is really Sibbick's 
Euoplocephalus), Brachiosaurus, etc.

If other artists on this list have seen the clip art book, I'd like to 
hear what they think. I have a graphics background myself, and I don't 
think I'm imagining the similarities at all. (I could cite other examples 
of Sibbick or Paul art appearing--somewhat modified--in other books, but 
this is the first time I've seen a commercial clip art book based on 
published artwork. I see no credit in the book to any artists. Many times 
when one artist bases a drawing on that of another artist, they qualify 
the picture by saying, "Drawing by Smith after Jones.")

I would recommend it to teachers, but if John Sibbick, Stephen Czerkas or 
any of the other artists asked that we NOT use it, I would respect 
their wishes.

All of the above is my opinion, of course, and does not necessarily 
reflect the opinion of anyone else connected with this listserv.

----- Amado Narvaez
      anarvaez@umd5.umd.edu

(As I also mentioned in that earlier posting, I would be happier if the 
Dinosaur Society published a clip art book for educational use.)