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:
> 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.
>> 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
>> 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