M Witton, D Naish and J Conway express their unhappiness with current paleoart trends in an abstract published in the upcoming SVPCA talk titles and abstracts.
From the Witton, Naish Conway abstract:
“Palaeoartists fight a losing battle for credibility and even moderate commercial success…and we ascribe its ongoing nature to low awareness of three major issues.
Firstly, palaeoart is rife with copying and plagiarism.
Secondly, the scientific rigour associated with many palaeoartworks, even those produced in close association with consulting academics, is often low.
Thirdly, many palaeoart patrons have unrealistic concepts of financing artwork.”
All three authors are good artists.
Unfortunately there have been times when all three have freehanded things that should have been strictly traced. Unfortunately there have been times when these guys embraced bad hypotheses (archosaur origin for pterosaurs, deep chord wing attached to the ankle, single uropatagium presence, allometry during ontogeny for pterosaurs, forelimb wing launch, etc.) which adversely affected their art. And did I mention these data deniers have blackwashed the work of other workers without providing competing candidate solutions? So they’re not the little angels they think they are. Nevertheless, they raise some interesting issues that should be discussed and perhaps adopted.
Witton MP, Naish D and Conway J 2015. Trends and patterns in modern palaeoartistry: a call for change. SVPCA abstracts 2015.