Re: For the artists: RIP

[Colin McHenry <cmchenry@westserv.net.au>]

Christian Darkin wrote:

> Hi
> I'd have to say (as a digital artist) that there's a few big advantages
> to working digitally.  
>  

My comments were aimed not against digital art per se, but more at the
process that National Geographic has used, which seemed to me to hinder
rather than help the consultant providing the scientific advice from
working effectively with the artist(s).  Ken has his opinions of the
efficacy of that process based upon his experience consulting for the
article - I have my own.

> I'd bet that nobody's ever produced a piece of artwork of any note
> without thinking they'd like to have done something a little differently
> if they'd had the chance, and digital work is infinitely editable.  
>
> It's absolutely perfect for science illustration because however well
> you've done your research, you can't discount doing a correction.  This
> doesn't mean you're a prisoner of the committee approach (it can
> certainly ruin your work if you make every adjustment that anybody ever
> suggests).  However, it does mean that if you need to stretch the jaw by
> a couple of inches, or change the position of the knee, or the thickness
> of the fur then you can do it - and the improvement will show up in
> every image you produce from any angle and in any future work.

All true - but I think, with respect, that you're missing the original
point. There was no 'comittee approach' on that project that I'm aware
of as far as the provision of scientific advice went - for each species
represented there was one (or perhaps two) scientific consultants
providing palaeontological information.  If there was a 'committee'
problem, it was at the other end - for the part of the project that I
was involved with, for example, there was a procession of different
artistic researchers that I was communicating with, which didn't help 
continuity, and of all of the
different artists involved with creating the image, I only talked
directly to one of them.  Compared with other projects I've worked on
where you get to work directly with one artist over the course of the
entire project, it was a frustrating experience at times.

> This saves time, and saved time can be spent on better backgrounds, more
> research and stronger images.  
>
> Of course, time is always the problem and you frequently have to submit
> work that you'd ideally spend a lot more effort on.  The criticism of 3d
> art has a lot to do with the fact that it's allowed publications with
> very limited time and budget to get decent results which they wouldn't
> get with traditional art.  However, these results then get compared with
> WWD simply because they're 3d - even though one took 6 months and cost 6
> million and the other had a budget of a couple of hundred dollars and
> had to be completed the day after it was commissioned.
>  

I wouldn't put the NG's work on the pliosaur on the same page as a
discussion of the WWD's effort.  At least the NG version was
recognisable as the taxon it claimed to be.... ;-)

> You wouldn't write off oils as a medium because you didn't like the
> style or working practice of one particular artist would you?
>  
Well, I suggested two artists who I thought might have done a good job
on that project.  One works in oils and acrylics, the other digitally.
It's not the medium that's at issue (well, for me it isn't). It's more
with how the whole process of getting artists and scientists to work
effectively together is managed.

Cheers
Colin

> Christian Darkin
> www.darkin.demon.co.uk/prehist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  

--
*****************
Colin McHenry
School of Environmental and Life Sciences (Geology)
University of Newcastle
Callaghan NSW 2308
Australia
Tel: +61 2 4921 5404
Fax: + 61 2 4921 6925

******************
Colin McHenry & Sarah Johnston
14 Summer Place
Merewether Heights  NSW 2291
Australia
+61 2 4963 2340

cmchenry@westserv.net.au
Colin.Mchenry@newcastle.edu.au