Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Favorite Dinosaur Reconstructions | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 09:05 PM (305,719 Views) | |
| Jules | Aug 8 2014, 10:17 AM Post #586 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Yeah, but we know what a Zebra looks like, and you can't say "I prefer this zebra reconstruction". There's only one way to reconstruct a zebra, while there are several ways to reconstruct a Laellynasaura. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Aug 8 2014, 10:19 AM Post #587 |
![]() ![]()
|
But we know that it may be accurate. What is presented here is a piece of art, but the animals within it are not. They are plausible speculations made by real scientists representing a possible animal that is fully realistic. It does not matter that we are not 100%, if it is realistic, what is presented is still just an animal, not a design. The attempt here was to create something plausible, not something artistically pleasing, because figuring out how a non-avian dinosaur really would have looked is not a matter of art, it is a matter of science. In that picture, the quality of the image is art, the way it is compositied is art, the lighting and such is art, but the animals themselves, just on face value, are not art, not their designs anyway, they are just animals, and reviewing them is just as silly as criticizing a pigeon for not having a cool enough beak. |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Aug 8 2014, 10:22 AM Post #588 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Again, there are several ways to reconstruct a Laellynasaura, and other ways may be just as plausible. There's only one plausible way to draw a pigeon. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Aug 8 2014, 10:24 AM Post #589 |
![]() ![]()
|
Yes, but as long as the reconstruction is plausible, what is presented is still an animal, not art. The act of reconstructing an animal is not art, and as such, the end product is also not art. The way it is portrayed, meaning the quality of the image itself, is art, but not the animal. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Aug 8 2014, 10:24 AM Post #590 |
![]() ![]()
|
Even then, everyone is free not to like them. De gustibus non disputandum est, even modern animals have people who do not like them because of their look. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Aug 8 2014, 10:28 AM Post #591 |
![]() ![]()
|
Yes, but there is a difference between saying "I do not like this spider, I think it is gross" and "I do not like this spider, I think its legs are too long, its head too small, and it really would just be more pleasing if it was orange". Reviewing an animal is silly, no matter what, as it is just that, an animal. It does not matter if you do not like the animal, the animal does not care, nature does not care, evolution does not care, and the scientist who used valid evidence to reconstruct the animal, does not care. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Aug 8 2014, 10:32 AM Post #592 |
![]() ![]()
|
Everyone is free to say "I don't like the spider because of long legs and it's colour is ugly". Of course the spider won't care and your opinion won't change it, so you can just drop it and choose another animal as your favourite. With dinos, you can simply like the same animal, but another depiction of it. |
![]() |
|
| Bigwhale | Aug 8 2014, 10:32 AM Post #593 |
![]() ![]()
|
Sure, the animal is not art, yet the animal portrayed in the picture, is art. Plausible or not, it's artistic license. And ZC is not reviewing the animal, he's reviewing the reconstruction of the animal. |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Aug 8 2014, 10:37 AM Post #594 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Well, let's say these dinosaurs are not part of the art. Let's treat them as a palaeontological theory. You can argue about a paleontological theory. So you can argue against the appearance of the dinosaurs in this piece of art, saying that you favor another theory. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Aug 8 2014, 10:37 AM Post #595 |
![]() ![]()
|
Yes, you can, but again, the act of criticizing it is redundant and silly. If it turns out that it does look like that, it looks like that, if it turns out it does not look like that, it does not look like that, your opinion will not change it. Criticizing an accurate reconstruction of a fossil animal is like shouting at cow until it changes colours, because that is the point of criticism, change. You point out a flaw in a movie, so that it does not happen again, you chastise a person for bad behavior, so that he does not do it again, you point out the perceived flaws in a book, so that they are not present later, but saying that you do not like the look of an animal, is, once again, like shouting at a cow until it changes colour, it does not matter how many statistics and analytics you bring to the table, even if you objectively prove that it would look better like this, a cow would still look like a cow. Now, I know that this is a subjective opinion being shared, of course, but again, it is just redundant, and in the context of criticism, that makes it silly, because it defies the main purpose of it. Edit: Posts coming out too quickly for me to respond. A reconstruction of an animal is still an animal, not art. The act of reconstructing an animal is not art, the fossils and other forms of evidence used are not art, and anything concerning the actual appearance of the animal, is not art. The illustration it is in is art, but if it was removed from the illustration, and placed in a different piece of art, the animal would still not be art. Edit edit: Oh stop putting "I do not understand" markers on my posts, you full well understand, you just disagree. The reconstruction of an animal is not art, it is either science or simply an animal, take your pick, in either case, opinions based on visuals are irrelevant and thus redundant. Edited by trisdino, Aug 8 2014, 10:42 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Bigwhale | Aug 8 2014, 10:41 AM Post #596 |
![]() ![]()
|
Really, not to like and not to accept is different. The most important part is to accept, not like, it's like forcing someone which is full to eat. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Aug 8 2014, 10:43 AM Post #597 |
![]() ![]()
|
I will be honest, I did not get that at all /: |
![]() |
|
| Ignacio | Aug 8 2014, 10:52 AM Post #598 |
![]()
Ex Corrupt Staff
![]()
|
I did get it. He means that the fact that someone does not like how an animal looks like (or anything for that matter) is not the same as denying or accepting that the animal is in fact that way. I don't like blobfishes, i think they are ugly and disgusting, but still i accept that the animal is like that. You all created a debate over my PERSONAL opinion about a piece of art. I never said anything about accuracie. I just expressed my dislike of that reconstruction in particular and show one that is more to my likings. Since we don't really know how this animal really look like both opinions are equally valid and it has nothing to do with science (except in the case someone is saying that he won't accept X dinosaur had feathers despite the evidence showing that it did). This is not the same thing and honestly you all overreacted oversomthing that it was a mere opinion over a drawing. |
![]() |
|
| Mathius Tyra | Aug 8 2014, 10:53 AM Post #599 |
![]()
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life
![]()
|
![]() A bit cartoony, but I think I like this reconstruction. Still, the head could be more fluffy. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Aug 8 2014, 10:56 AM Post #600 |
![]() ![]()
|
I do not think you quite get it. I do not care about your opinion as presented previously, hell, I agree, I just do not think there is any reason at any point for any purpose to mention it. The goal of criticism is to point out things that are poor, even if it is subjective, and thus, hope to improve it. One cannot improve neither a modern animal nor a purely scientifically based reconstruction based on criticism of the design itself, unless in the context of its accuracy. Yes, it is speculative, but it was not created to look good, it was created to be a plausible, accurate, yet still highly speculative reconstruction of the animal, and since none of those meet the criteria for art, the result of it is not, per definition, art. It is represented by art, but just as a tree being represented by art does not make the tree itself art, this particular reconstruction being presented by art does not make the animal itself art. Edit: The above image is mostly good, but the naked head is quite frankly odd. Aside from that, it is pretty decent. Edited by trisdino, Aug 8 2014, 10:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups














