SCIART-L Archives

SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Joan Lee <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:24:55 -0400
text/plain (47 lines)
I'll try to find the article--on the other hand I don't need to get 
riled up. That is worse than I surmised from the thread!
On Aug 11, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Frank Ippolito wrote:

> joan,
> you should really read the article to get a true sense at what this 
> guy was going on about. he was criticizing science illustration for 
> being unscientific and using a pop science cover illustration to 
> support his contention. there were a few other jabs - one being a 
> claim that digital tools somehow contributed to this supposed 
> divergence. it was far less thought-out than your reply gives credit 
> and was entirely off target. I recall it gave rise to quite a lively 
> discussion on this list at the time.
> -frank
>> Try this one:
>> art is to science as religion is to science.
>> All can validly live together in the same world, but they are not the 
>> same as each other and should not be put into competition with each 
>> other nor should we attempt to interchange them.  Are we getting 
>> somewhere?
>> Joan
>> On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Janet Wilkins wrote:
>>> It's a critique that much of the science art that is published today 
>>> is "divorced from science and science plausibility."
> -- 
> Frank Ippolito
> Principal Scientific Assistant
> Div. Vertebrate Paleontology
> American Museum of Natural History
> Central Park West at 79th Street
> NY    NY    10024
> (212) 769-5812
> [log in to unmask]