Re: REHEATING THE "PALEOARTIST" DEBATE

[Larry Dunn <majestic_cheese@yahoo.com>]

---"D.I.G." <dinosaur@dinosaur.org> wrote:
>
> It strikes me that what is going on here is a form of "semantic
reducio
> ad absurdum" which misses what I have always understood to be the real
> point which is: what scientific background does a given artist bring
to
> his/her paintings?

Not necessarily, as I think you've expanded the pool of artists we
were discussing in the first place.  We need not make this
distinction, as artists sitting down with a sculpture of a dinosaur
and painting it for a cereal box are hacks.  We were only discussing
artists who prepare life restorations of dinosaurs from their remains.  

I think it's fruitful to be precise in language; if we all understand
what what we mean by "paleoartist," that's fine, but there's no
particular reason to avoid precision in our terminology. 
 
> By, forgive me, bickering about what to call that, the emotional issue
> is obscured.

This may be true if you see an emotional issue here in the first
place, but I personally don't.
 
> We don't get quite so bent about drawings of Superman, do we? I
mean...
> they don't all have to look like Christopher Reeve do they? Would
there
> be a conversation about calling someone a "superartist?"

I suspect that comic book fans may disagree with 
this . . .


==
Larry
http://members.tripod.com/~megalania/index.html

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com