tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post7149502741988475598..comments2024-03-23T12:02:36.626-07:00Comments on Mark P. Witton's Blog: Scientist-palaeoartist collaborations – what palaeontologists can, and probably should, critique when reviewing palaeoartMark Wittonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-91453115900525623732017-04-10T08:18:20.597-07:002017-04-10T08:18:20.597-07:00Great post! One thing for the scientist to conside...Great post! One thing for the scientist to consider is that an honest constructive critique wont hurt the artist's feelings. If the artist in question takes their work seriously they should expect a good critique. Our job is to create as accurate (and compelling) an image of the creature we are depicting. That is something I believe we all strive for. If I were lucky enough to have the opportunity to work directly with a scientist I would would be happy to have their expertise brought to the table.<br /><br /> Nick Fonsecahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280007564769043641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-75040655963386446542017-04-01T01:32:02.848-07:002017-04-01T01:32:02.848-07:00> dimensions as perceived within perspective. 3...> dimensions as perceived within perspective. 3D is great here because you can dodge the perspective issue with scale-specific viewpoints, but nowadays mastery of perspective is seldom enough among artists... it's understandable if that's a grey point in scientist-artist feedback<br /><br />> visual communication<br />It's great hearing you talk on this, because your POV is very 'scientist'. Some more considerations from a 'manager / artist' based on experiences, not just with scientists but all involved... <br />- visual communication. You post great examples in the images here, but to drive the point home... communicate visually. An email with descriptions ... nah. Open the image, draw on it. Can't draw? Of course you can. Get a tablet... a bamboo or something that let's you scribble. And then scribble directly on the images. <br /><br />> modular communication<br />Be aware of what it is that is being discussed at what moment. In the earlier steps of interpreting a reconstruction, use drawings specifically suited to the purpose. Later, when discussing the animal in perspective and dynamically posed, these discussions can be referred to independently of perspective, isolating questions of ie. plausible posing of joints. <br />Likewise, be aware of the key message needed for the project. Matt's post about communicating the sheer hugeness of Argentinosaurus is a great example of this.<br />All of this is concentrated in an iteration... meaning one feedback loop of "artist does a, scientist gives feedback, resulting in artist doing b > repeat process". Progress is not measured in time or effort spent. It is measured in iterations. If you are not reviewing based on a sequentially prioritized list of issues, you are not capitalizing on your most valuable unit... the efficiency of iterations. <br /><br />> trust<br />The less each participant understands their partner's POV and intentions of the other side, the more trust is an issue. Is the scientist a communicational recluse distrustful of non-objective illustration? Is the illustration his/her wish or forced upon them by the PR department? Is the illustrator interested in palaeo? Is he/she a concept artist, medical illustrator? Each has a wildly differing package of expectations on workflow and focus.<br />Generally speaking, any palaeo-interested artist is diving into the material and giving more bang for buck than could be reasonably expected. Still, opportunities for irritation abound: why can issue 'a' be changed trivially, but you tell me that issue 'b' requires a rework of the whole thing? Issues and misunderstandings that are inherently bound to technical toolsets and further complicated by opportunities... I'm fascinated by the prospect of offering interactive 3D content in the context of scientific publishing, convinced it has the potential to make complicated text accessible to a wider audience. How much of traditional imagery making can be re-used in this process? <br /><br />Here's to a bright, scientifically illustrated future and all these crazy good artists and scientists paving the way!<br /><br />davidmaashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16696298300141402317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-26526914252049724272017-03-31T12:03:01.556-07:002017-03-31T12:03:01.556-07:00Nice post Mark. Recognizing errant proportions isn...Nice post Mark. Recognizing errant proportions isn't merely a matter of paying sufficient attention, it's a visualization ability that many people aren't good at. So I'd like to second your call for using numbers - I've seen too many cases of scientific consultants supplying advice that "item X needs to be a bit bigger" based on a mistaken impression. And with that sort of qualitative feedback it's not really actionable for the artist even if the advisor is 100% correct. <br /><br />P.S. I need to edit before I hit post.Scott Hartmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00195833796668977878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-44767650667677039802017-03-31T11:42:10.695-07:002017-03-31T11:42:10.695-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scott Hartmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00195833796668977878noreply@blogger.com