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] 
 http://www.productionpost.com 
 http://research.amnh.org/~esg/