Coherent Lighthouse

Dinosaurs and Robots: Trikeratos

2011-10-01T05:00:00.000-07:00

Trikeratos is the title of this piece. Medium: digital paint, Scott Elyard, made with Cintiq and Photoshop. Canvas prints (32" x 24") are available directly from the artist for $350 + shipping (leave a comment below or send me e-mail).

Tiki Cosmonaut

2011-09-29T20:14:00.000-07:00

Tiki Cosmonaut. Digital paint print on 12x16 canvas. $200 directly from the artist.

Reflection tests which should have taken me a lot less time than it did. Ah well.

2011-09-27T21:28:00.000-07:00

Video Advertising for the Art Show

2011-09-20T17:52:00.000-07:00

I'm still insanely busy right now. But here's something new I can show off to the world: a quick video I made to alert the world about the art show!

About That Resume...

2011-08-25T09:30:00.000-07:00

I haven't, until very recently, been getting many interviews. I started to think I wasn't standing out from the background. So:

I made this:

Look like this:

I put it up into a few places (Google Plus, &c.), got some good feedback (mostly positive), and then was told that some resume recipients (art directors and the like) might not like to see resumes like the above. This is true. Some don't. And they do write blog posts saying exactly this. So I backed off, and ignored the good comments to rethink everything.

But meanwhile, the resume I had wasn't working. I was not rising above the slush pile. How do you stand out from hundreds to thousands of other candidates? I'd wanted an infographic-style resume, but one that made very specific sense, in the only way I could imagine: my career history compartmentalized as a secreted shell, the oldest job in the center, building skills around and outward.

During this mental anguish, indecision, and second-guessing, some jobs opened up. I didn't want to let these pass by without actually doing something, so I compromised and added a page to my old resume with some very minor modifications.

As of this writing, I've had two interviews. Clearly, something changed.

I think I should have done this years ago. Maybe art directors generally don't want to see the sort of resume like the above, but, there's no harm in at least trying to get someone's attention first.

UPDATE: I got the job: 1 December 2011, I rejoined the work force. If the old stuff isn't working, try something new; you might be surprised!

Dinosaurs & Robots

2011-08-06T01:45:00.000-07:00

2011-07-28T14:15:00.000-07:00

This:

~~crisis~~
~~crisis~~
~~crisis~~
~~crisis~~
~~crisis~~
~~crisis~~
~~crisis precipitated by the resolution of previous crises~~
~~new crisis~~
~~further crisis~~
~~additional crisis~~

~~The hiatus is now on, until further notice.~~

Where Eagles Fish

2011-07-24T01:37:00.000-07:00

Got back from Seward 20 July. Working on stuff like this (in addition to a new resume):

So, a bit busy. Enjoy.

Pachyrhinosaurus: An Experiment

2011-07-12T14:22:00.000-07:00

I did this in two days, and it is now available as a photo print directly from the artist (me) for $75 and shipping:

And I did this as an experiment. I've been trying to get faster at some of the turnaround on my work. Now, the subject is pretty familiar (one of my favorite subjects, in fact), I had a few models on hand already (I didn't really have to design from utter scratch), aimed for a less rendered style, preferring something more graphic, and I've even lots of experience with even the most painful aspect of the picture (the horsetails, of which I've painted godzillions at this stage).

But the idea that I can compose, choose a color palette, design, block and fill a drawing/painting in less than two days is now feasible to me. I still need to get faster, I feel, as well as better, but this is a solid start.

(Note: this isn't a promise that every project I undertake can be completed this quickly, merely a step in my education as I look towards altering my workflow and develop a production environment.)

An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

2011-07-06T17:32:00.000-07:00

Dr. Dawkins,

So this happened, and as of this writing, you haven't offered any apology. I don't know what will happen, but Rebecca Watson has been nothing but perfectly reasonable throughout this.

You are, at times, an effective speaker, an eloquent writer, and this is why many people are, I think, so surprised by your reaction to Watson's original issue.

So I hope you'll apologize and mean it, and not do this again, and perhaps think about what you write a little more before writing it. But if you're thinking you're not actually deeply in the wrong here, and do not intend to apologize, or actually intend to entrench into the posture you've assumed for yourself, you should know something.

You've often defended feminism against religion's more odious transgressions, but you are now well on your way to not only diminishing what you've done, but undoing it completely. People don't like being told their problems are tiny compared to the problems of the world. Relatively speaking, every problem, big and small, is tiny when compared to something larger.

When you deflect the concerns of someone who has had their tea poisoned by ironically suggesting that this is as large or larger an issue than a thousand people dying of drought, it raises legitimate doubts about your previous work.

And you need to understand this, in order to be effective and trustworthy on this matter in the future.

I'm actually going to close with a piece of Biblical advice, one which I often endorse to creationists who dismiss the knowledge and expertise of scientists, because it now applies to you:

Luke 16:10-12, KJV: "10He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

11If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

12And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?"

(And here's the New Living Translation:
¹⁰ “If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities. ¹¹ And if you are untrustworthy about worldly wealth, who will trust you with the true riches of heaven? ¹² And if you are not faithful with other people’s things, why should you be trusted with things of your own?")

Yours in all sincerity, S.E.

Comment moderation

2011-07-05T19:07:00.000-07:00

Now in place.

My #10oclockart for Twitter

2011-06-29T10:45:00.000-07:00

Screenshot off the tablet:

How's that TikiCosmonaut coming along?

Cars 2

2011-06-27T20:37:00.000-07:00

We went to it. We saw it. We enjoyed it.

Of course, it won't be a hit with everyone, but artists and animators who understand and enjoy the art of caricature should get a kick out of it. Is it better than Cars? Eh, not really. Is it better than Toy Story, I think so. And how was the short? Pretty kickass, honestly.

For some reason, every time I see a PIXAR film, I'm awfully tempted to fire up Sarcosuchus_imperator and do a CG project. If only it weren't so expensive in terms of electricity to run Maya and the RAID it runs on... (I really kind of need to be paid to run the big iron these days, but, that might not be enough to stop me.) I think it's worth pointing out that few other CG films really give me this sort of thrill. Dreamworks, for all of its efforts (even the good ones), never really makes the level of energy it takes to actually inspire me to create something. Non-PIXAR Disney often has a similar problem, as does Warner's animation. Exceptions are pretty notable, however, even if the CG is comparatively minimal.

It's also worth seeing on the big screen. The grandeur and effort in terms of shaders and lighting PIXAR invested into Tokyo, Italy, and London for these virtual locations are nothing short of amazing, and are packed with humor (subtle and otherwise). (Of course, not owning a large flat panel liquid plasma LCD display teevee, perhaps this is a distinction that's sort of lost on folk nowadays.)

All in all: worth it, and I'll see it again.

Cars. Is an argument for Intelligent Design Creationism. Cars. Really.

2011-06-24T16:37:00.000-07:00

And then this happened. If this is satire, it ought to be on the Onion, it's that brilliant. If not, well, wow that's just ... I honestly know of no way to end this sentence.

(I just put "Cars" and "creationism" tags onto the same post. Is this even possible? I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night. Maybe I've drifted off to sleep at my workstation and merely dreamed all this.)

I'll check back tomorrow.

Cars is a work of fiction. Cars 2 will be, too. You should probably know this.

2011-06-23T20:50:00.000-07:00

So. This happened. You should go read it.

You should probably know I enjoyed Cars. I will also be seeing the sequel in theaters, because I have seen all of their films in theaters, and don't intend to miss it. Even so, I sort of wish Trish had inverted the order of topics in her article--the Jurassic Part IV why commentary is funny and insightful.

But, with regard to Cars, here are the issues:

"It's explicitly been made as a moneymaker, even though PIXAR doesn't really need one."

Every studio needs moneymakers. This is how the artists involved with the project get paid. PIXAR makes money, and they make moneymakers. This allows them to continue to hire artists and animators. This is a good thing.

"Why the hell are we not getting an 'Incredibles' sequel instead of this?"

Because "The Incredibles" is Brad Bird's property, and he's open to a sequel if he can come up with an equivalent or better story. That's why.

"It's fairly common knowledge that "Cars" is widely considered the "least best" PIXAR film."

I don't. I regard PIXAR's first feature length film, Toy Story, as its weakest entry. It's still a pretty good film, but it was also their first film, and one might expect that. I'm also perfectly comfortable with breaking ranks with other PIXAR fans over this issue; they don't see Cars the way I do, and after reading what Trish has written, I now understand why.

I don't think their reasons have much validity beyond "it wasn't my bag," which is perfectly fair. But many of the objections concern things which are either silly or irrelevant to want in a film like Cars.

"First off, [Cars is] very definitely a film for little kids."

Yes, animation companies occasionally do this. Doing so doesn't always necessarily distract from the experience of watching it (cf. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, &c.). My experience watching Cars differed from Trish's, however, in that I actually really enjoyed the film. I'm nearly 40, and so hardly in the targeted demographic Trish suggests the film is for. (I do, however, collect toys, so, you know, there's that, though not any of the Cars toys.) Oddly enough, even my Dad seemed to enjoy it. And my Dad actually hates animation. Cars might be for the little kids in all of us. That sometimes happens, too.

"As in, it makes no damn sense, and the more you're forced to think about it, the further you're sucked out of the story."

This is a criticism which I always found silly, frankly. The world of Cars is obviously one of cars, of automobiles; where we would see faces (as pareidolia, no less), in the world of Cars the cars see cars; hence the referential aspects of it. But I see we are prepared to overthink this, so:

"It's too bad, then, that almost no thought went into issues like, if they're cars, how -and why- did they build the houses?"

The houses &c. are set dressing, not crucial plot points. The environment is intended to evoke the feeling of civilization by way of caricature and allusion, not be a precisely analogous and literal interpretation of human civilization. The characters don't need to have a completely logical and thoroughly thought-out mechanistic reason for being there to tell the story. This is necessary only when it matters to the plot (cf. the functional design of Monsters, Inc.'s power plant, for example).

The photorealism of the world arises from PIXAR's raison d'être; that objects will be rendered without causing the viewer to question their substance:

The objects will be seen to exist in three dimensions (even if they are only projected in two, and only exist as intangible geometry and math accessible via high-end workstation hardware and completely proprietary software).
They will have weight (even though the weight is merely a principle of animation, an illusion of motion, which is itself, an illusion of static images being played back faster than our eyes can register them individually).
They will even appear to be alive (if a brave toaster is a character, it will at least sometimes seem to breathe, because in animation, lifeless things do not breathe).

I don't see why anyone should feel "forced" to think about the world of Cars, or any movie which features talking inanimate objects (or, for that matter, talking animate objects which are not also humans). But if they are, why are they thinking about these things, instead of the characters or the story? No aspect of the plot really hinges on the world crafted for Cars, their origins, or why they are the way they are.

If we ask these questions though, we should also ask:

What's the deal with the monsters in Monsters, Inc.? How can screams be equivalent to electrical power?
Why are there talking fish in Finding Nemo? How can a shark survive without eating fish? What do the sharks eat? Why are all the younger fish schooling in the same school, instead of with members of their own species?
Nobody really has superpowers. And dude, there's no such island as Nomanisan. I checked.
Toys don't come to life when you're not around.

And we can do this for non Disney films and stories:

Why are some Transformers common household objects and others vehicles? [Go on, ask me.]
Why is Mrs. Frisby in the Rats of NIMH able to talk at all, even though she was never at NIMH? Or the Owl? Or any of the other non-NIMH characters?
A mouse named "Ralph" riding a toy motorcycle? Give me a break, he should be pooping in bread and eating food left out in the pantry. Mice don't ride motorcycles, even toy ones.
How can an ant and a grasshopper even talk, much less to each other?
Why would any fox want grapes up on a vine instead of a mouse, rabbit or some nice carrion? That's like me hungrily eyeing a bunch of pinecones. Aesop's. Worst. Story. Ever.
Talking crickets are impossible and absurd, even in Times Square.
I'm so sure One Ring could do all that just by being chucked into some lava.

As you can see, this sort of criticism is kind of pointless. Sometimes stories are allegoric, sometimes not, some create devices to ease the presentation of ideas which might be harder to deliver when spoken by human characters (this likely goes back further than Aesop), and some stories are purely for entertainment (Cars).

So who made the cars in Cars? Who made the toys in Toy Story and why did they infuse them with magical life? Does anyone really care about this by the end of Toy Story 3? It's as relevant to the experience of watching these films as knowing who the first grade teachers are of characters in any Hitchcock film. (In Rope, it might technically matter. In Rear Window, it doesn't.)

(I am not saying plot holes do not exist in film. A scene in The Matrix where everyone in the Matrix is described as batteries always jumps out at me, because we, as the audience, must accept that an otherwise indifferent AI would spend more energy than it could ever receive out of keeping a bunch of humans all happy and warm as power sources when it could simply go nuclear without regard to external environmental consequence. Humans are a pesky and expensive power ~~drain~~source. Nuclear could be completely human-free and the only people willing to object (like Greenpeace) would be safely and impotently trapped in the Matrix, which then could be farmed for solutions to external problems the AI minds find intractable. But I digress.)

Why does a firetruck in Cars grow flowers? Because the notion of a firetruck being a watering can is amusing. Knowing why they are growing the plants isn't important. I think it's a good film if the filmmakers can take subjects I'm utterly indifferent or even hostile to (cars, auto racing, Route 66), and make me interested in the world they make for it. That's the mark of a good film, in my book.

But, your mileage may vary.

The Revised Tyrant

2011-06-20T22:30:00.000-07:00

My last paleo painting (for a while).

2011-05-03T16:56:00.000-07:00

"Downhill": watercolor (made for this [check out the Art Evolved Galleries, there's some brilliant images over there]). Hey, it's also available as a 8x10 photo print. Only $65 plus shipping.

I need a break from doing paleoart in general.

I just need to draw something different for a while, like Ancient Astronauts and Tiki Cosmonauts with some retrofuture sensibilities. I want to draw some monorails and cyborgs from yesterday’s future. I'll be posting the product of this change both here and at Cyrillic Typewriter.

A Survey: Which Museums Disallow Photographs and Why?

2011-04-04T19:59:00.000-07:00

Since I'm still waiting to hear back from the Field Museum regarding some confusion over the no-photography policy with the Mammoths and Mastodons exhibit being run at the Anchorage Museum, I thought I'd get some input from folk who frequently visit museums and who were told, and for what reason, not to take photographs, or if the institution attempted to claim copyright ownership of photographs taken of museum exhibits.

I'd like to know for the sake of a future posting on this matter.

Why Do Some Natural History Museums Prohibit Photography?

2011-03-26T14:47:00.000-07:00

On Thursday I went the Anchorage Museum to visit the Mammoths and Mastodons exhibit currently on display there, and was told no photography was permitted. I was told the Field Museum of Natural History was responsible for the policy, but some twitter communication with the Field Museum's media department has confused this point, so I need to get to the bottom of the issue of who set the policy first before I post more on this.

In general, I dislike no-photography policies. There seems to be no legitimate need for them, when one of the purposes of a museum is public education. More as events develop.

Blogger's Bizzareness with Comments

2011-03-22T12:53:00.000-07:00

So I just approved comments that were made 12 days ago, Blogger only having just yesterday informed me of their existence. Um. Sorry about that.

Blogger, I expected better of you, but I won't fire you because you work for free and it would cost too much to replace you. Dismissed.

Quick Digital Painting Warm-Up

2011-03-21T17:19:00.000-07:00

Lambeosaurus Skull

2011-03-09T18:57:00.000-08:00

Lambeosaurus watercolor now available as a photo print from the artist for $60 (6x9) plus shipping.

Nigerian Pterosaur Watercolor

2011-03-01T01:24:00.000-08:00

Formerly just another bit of filler of a placatory nature, this is now available as a photo print from the artist for $60 (6x9) plus shipping.

February's Daily Drawing Is Done

2011-02-28T15:17:00.001-08:00

And with that, a personal challenge to myself is done (note: I didn't employ any consistency in uploading. Some stuff was uploaded to other accounts; I'll post a quick retrospective later on).

STS-133: Discovery's Final Flight

2011-02-25T14:05:00.000-08:00

I drew this yesterday. Roughly 0.5 hours.

Watercolor study of Psaronius

2011-02-23T22:49:00.000-08:00

Original upload and neat details.

Corvus corax

2011-02-22T01:10:00.000-08:00

Details and original upload.

Black-capped Chickadee

2011-02-20T00:05:00.000-08:00

Forty minutes.

Hardest Skull on Earth to Draw

2011-02-17T21:49:00.000-08:00

Right here:

If microecos hadn't posted this image, I wouldn't be dead. True story.

Mystery Skull is Mysterious

2011-02-16T18:24:00.000-08:00

Original upload. (I do know what the skull is from. I'm just being ... mysterious.)

UPDATE: It is indeed a flying fox skull, of the genus Pteropus.

Lovebirds from Yesterday

2011-02-15T23:52:00.000-08:00

Painting done in CMYK, in 1.75 hours.

Hrm. I should maybe do a nonhuman mammal of some sort next.

Just a quick note: about housekeeping here.

2011-02-12T12:53:00.000-08:00

No, not done yet with that synapsid scale post. Commissions take priority. But I did want to mention I'm planning on revamping the links list off to the side a bit. There's new blogs that need to be added, new categories that need to be expressed (to cover the older blogs which are no longer updated but are still pretty important), and maybe mess with the widgeting a little.

David Hone at Archosaur Musings

2011-02-11T12:46:00.000-08:00

Original uplording.

Belted Kingfisher

2011-02-10T15:41:00.000-08:00

Jabba the Gut

2011-02-09T21:49:00.000-08:00

Julia supplied the photoreference for this:

(There is a--legitimate, I think--fear that some of the things that get sent to me wind up in some sort of black hole. This sometimes does happen, but not this time. I've been planning this image for a while, and might tackle it again in a different medium.)

Synapsida post still waiting to be finished, but here's some art that I can't figure out how to push from Tumblr.

2011-02-09T19:27:00.000-08:00

Originally uplorded here.

A moment's reflection in anger.

2011-01-11T17:11:00.000-08:00

"1 down, 534 to go."*

No one should be considered an American, who honestly believes this. Or this.

If anyone thinks they should undo the votes of hundreds of thousands or millions of people with a single bullet, they don't deserve to live here. They don't belong here. They are not conservatives, they are not liberals, they are not libertarians, they are neither right nor left, but tyrant wanna-bes.

A bullet is not a vote. It's a not a legitimate political argument. Disagreement will not be resolved in their favor if they exercise their belief that they have the right (or responsibility) to murder elected officials. If they must lash out, there are nonviolent means at their disposal. If those means don't generate results, maybe it's time for them to re-evaluate their ideas, not advocate the slaughter those who dare to disagree with them.

That is what tyrants do.

So when tea partiers show up to the next town hall or the next meeting carrying firearms, they should consider this:

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."--Mao Tse-Tung, "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II.

I consider this a repudiation.

* I believe this fellow is simply a stupid man, who said the wrong thing at the wrong time, and has no idea how to say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong. That was an inappropriate and stupid thing to say." That doesn't engender in me any sympathy, however, just pity. Sympathy in this case only exists for the misunderstood.

Teaser: Scales on Synapsids: Why?

2010-12-23T14:42:00.000-08:00

Coming up, an inconclusively researched essay on why I think restored synapsids should not have scales. I'm not doing this to be cranky, but there are some very specific reasons as to why it bothers me whenever I see such animals reconstructed with scaly integument. Biggest offenders: CG critters. I love me some CG, but Maya guys, there is a better way.

Actually, ought I do teasers? They actually seem somewhat redundant.

I haven't figured out an easy way to ligature Tumblr to Blogger

2010-12-22T00:45:00.000-08:00

So here's some work, referenced from here and here on St. Cyril's Contraption.

About this sudden return to blogging...

2010-12-20T18:59:00.000-08:00

It's hard. Mustering even competent-levels of productivity on the blogging front has been challenging, especially since I have other work I ought to be doing (proper CG rocket exhaust, Xenopermian drawings/paintings, other stuff I won't allow myself to mention...).

So I have to admire people like Glendon Mellow, Trish, and, really, anyone in the Art Evolved crew (linky below right) who not only writes, but manages to post sketches/completed work, too. Apart from being awesome, how do they do it?

In my previous post, I failed to mention (unacceptable!) I have a pretty kickass crew of friends (acceptable!); so things are looking up. Nevertheless, I've allowed my ability to become depressed to push down my output in general, and if there's anything that I hate more about this aspect of my psychology, I'd like to be introduced to it (not actually an offer).

But thanks to some great people and technology (like an awesome girlfriend, full-spectrum illumination, and possibly some old toy trains dug out for the Xmas tree), I've managed to shake the funk enough to get back to drawing. And now, possibly, blogging, too.

So here's what's on the agenda: I need to get organized, but I think my range needs to be broadened. I do a lot of dinosaurs and extinct animals. I need to do other things as well.

I also need to do less work digitally. I'm not abandoning the Cintiq, nor Photoshop, but I really do love watercolor, and as intense as it is actually painting with watercolor, there's a release from it that I don't get from open-ended media which have no definite sense of completion; a watercolor is done once the page is full. With digital, or even oils to an extent, I don't get the same sense of finality, of being finished with something.

Recently, I've been fantasizing about the ideal studio. As of this moment, it's a dark room filled with banks of computer equipment in a corner (quite loud when powered up, but a necessary component of my work), and surrounded by books (which isn't so bad), or it's a noisy cafe.

But if I had unlimited access to resources, I'd like a small, octagonal building, maybe 25 feet in diameter, surrounded by windows, flooded with natural light. Room for cabinets for laying artwork out flat, a modest art library, an easel or two, light table, scanner and a laptop. And room for watercolors.

Maybe someday.

An Unforgotten Anniversary

2010-12-14T23:39:00.000-08:00

A year ago today I was discharged from work. It's been a rough year, filled with a lot of stress from not knowing what's going to happen. But we have survived. And the struggle for work and a new job goes on.

Elasmosaur Watercolor

2010-12-05T21:36:00.000-08:00

So this:

Is now available as a photo print from the artist for $60 (6x9) plus shipping.

Impressions of a Visit to the Origins Museum

2010-12-02T12:29:00.000-08:00

I went to the Origins Museum last week, on Friday, 26 November 2010.

From the first, the exhibit is striking: the biggest things immediately noticeable are the fossil skeletons, and these made me want to pay admission as fast as possible. The exhibits of the texts are more subtle, but also easily worth the price of admission on their own. In this, I'm biased: I do like looking at books. The collection is nothing short of impressive: the books are phenomenal, both in their condition and significance, but I'm only going to talk about the fossils and other relevant material (though I might take this up again later and go into additional detail on the other exhibits).

The large skeletons were lumped together into a central pen near the right as we walked in. There's no mammal material, and what material there is was limited to a partial Edmontosaurus (only the pelvis and legs were on display; apparently, there was a mishap with the mount earlier in the month), a small (adult? Seems like an adult would be bigger) Einiosaurus, billed as a "mother" (though there's probably no way of knowing this), a juvenile Einiosaurus, a Mosasaur, an elasmosaurid, and a medium-sized Triceratops skull.

In a case off to the side was the best specimen of Rhamphorhynchus I've ever seen, and a large mounted display of Carcharocles megalodon teeth. An unidentified gavial (?) was set in another case near that, and the only invertebrate fossils I saw was a single horseshoe crab and two cases of trilobites.

All of these animals were presented without any context whatsoever. Little effort was made to indentify them, and even less effort was expended in telling us where they came from (in the sense of where they were originally collected).

The short-tailed elasmosaur might be Muraenosaurus (though if it is, it isn't an elasmosaur, but a cryptocleidid). Zach and I both counted 43 cervical vertebrae, and some sources suggest it should have 44 ("usually"), though the specimen on display might have had material missing on that point; the caudals are certainly fabricated, and the museum does make it clear that at least up to 55% of any given specimen is made of genuine material.

The mosasaur: Platycarpus?

Sometimes minor details were wrong on the placards. The elasmosaur was indicated to have over 70 cervical vertebrae. No big deal, really.

The most painfully wrong info sheet was for the Rhamphorhynchus: "A genus of fish- and insect-eating pterosaurs [sic] of the Jurassic Period, from about 200 to 145 million years ago. The presence of teeth positions this fossil as a "missing link" between flying dinosaurs and modern birds." This is mostly relevant and true of Archaeopteryx, perhaps, but not of any Pterosaur!

The biggest "So what?" response invovled one of the notes on the Charles Darwin placard: "While Natural Selection is considered one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the 19th century, it has not been universally accepted as it is not consistent with Creationism."

Of course they don't. People unqualified to judge science seldom seem to feel obligated to accept anything that falls outside their experience. What the display should have posed was why the unqualified should fuel any rejection or controversy of Darwin at all.

To the Museum's credit, it should be noted that they do essentially say this, in much smaller print: "[The Descent of Man and The Origin of Species] have had fervent supporters and fervent detractors--from Victorian newspaper columnists to modern American schoolboards--though, to this day, most of the loudest debaters are ignorant of the content of these books and the subsequent qualified advancements in the field." Since scientists actually know their stuff, it's hard to argue with that.

If there's anything a secular museum like the Alaskan Museum of Natural History (or any museum) can learn from the Origins museum, it's the fact that the Origins museum does not present itself as a children's playground. No children's tar pits take up unnecessary room, there are no toys available for sale, and, apart from a single-sheet scavenger hunt that I was able to use to induce my nephew into looking at every part of the museum (including the text-only panels above displays), there was nothing particularly appealing directly to kid-interest. This strongly suggests that the playground aspects of at least some museums are probably unnecessary.

That's not to say there aren't flaws with the presentation.

The biggest issue is the lack of context represented in the displays, especially on the exinct animals side. Another flaw is the lack of any displays about biology more recent or modern than Watson, Crick, et al.'s work, even when it would show how science changes how we understand the natural world. For instance, the Systema Naturae works on display should have been accompanied by a discussion of modern cladistics, and how the two systems have shaped how we understand and organize taxa, and how cladistics reflects evolutionary thinking, and Carl von Linné, in preceeding Darwin, really couldn't. One of the biggest reasons science adopted Linnaeus's work is not even mentioned: how scientists can discuss the living world in a consistent manner by agreeing on names that don't vary in usage as common names do (in other words, the binomial nomenclature).

It was nice to see first editions of The Origins of Species on display, but though Darwin is credited (correctly) with a lot of credit in coming up with the theory of Natural Selection to explain evolution, he wasn't alone. Context is crucial in understanding any historical event, including scientific ones, and some time and space needed to be dedicated to showing this.

Displays showing how the animals are related to one another were almost completely absent; this would also have been useful. Behind the skeletons were printed murals of the continents at specific points in time (from 500 million years ago through recent, though oddly labeled as "BC" instead of MYA), but the continents are unlabeled, and it's unclear why these stages of the continents are depicted, unless it's merely to show the changes on the Earth through deep time.

It's been suggested that the Museum offers tools for understanding both science and theology, but without some serious modernizing of the science as presented, I don't see this at all. Science doesn't stand still, and a history museum should not present it as though it did.

A notable thing is that, though principally (and deliberately) religious, this exhibit didn't shy away from using the term evolution. It didn't suggest "intelligent design" as an alternative, nor did it try to overtly suggest that science was directly competing with any particular religious view, and that leads me to believe that, biased though the museum may be, it is genuinely trying to be honest, a refreshing rarity in a time when garish theme parks masquerading as museums (like the Creation Museum in Kentucky) dominate discussion. Such places make pretenses towards being scientific, but they fail to represent science in any sense but the dishonest.

That's significant, and worth the price of admission.

And it was unequivocally a good place to get some drawing done. I'd go back.

Updates: minor spelling, grammar fixes, added note about elasmosaur phylogeny.

Small Updates of Multiple Events

2010-10-15T15:24:00.000-07:00

Hey. Still alive, still looking for work, and still working on work that will help me to find work. I just wanted to reassure the world: I'm not going anywhere, but posting remains lean for now.

I'm moving very rapidly, and time dilates accordingly. But I'm still here.

April's Podcast on Dinorama.net: now, with crunchy HTML...

2010-05-06T22:09:00.000-07:00

And it can all be seen here: http://www.dinorama.net/

The Dinorama Podcast!

2010-03-28T15:13:00.000-07:00

I've completely neglected my duty to promote this, but Zach, Raven, and myself have made a podcast covering matters paleo in nature, though we will certainly be reaching across into the other sciences for their rich veins of material as well.

Our first episode is now up, and can be heard here: www.dinorama.net

Falling behind on more than a few things...

2010-01-12T17:00:00.000-08:00

On Monday, 14 December 2009, through no fault of my own, I was laid off without two weeks notice nor any pay in lieu of notice, and I've been scrambling to make ends meet and find new work. Additionally, I've been a bit sick of late, first with some sort of sinus infection and now with some sort of flu virus which has all of me aching and has exhausted me. I'm working on a few new things, like an animation demo reel based on past work (primarily AE work), which might help.

Meantime, I've been too busy to blog. I remain hopeful and intend to pursue every available avenue of work I can find, but not much has cone through yet. Still. Being unemployed means punching pessimism in the face repeatedly. Even ill, I can do that a long time.

England, Day 1

2009-11-11T15:49:00.000-08:00

Local time: 11:00 am, London, Thursday, 17 September 2009.

Day 1.

(1:40 am 17 Sept. 2009 after waking at 6:00 am on the 15th, working a full day, and then getting picked up by the folks, we have arrived at our hostel in London, a short walk from Paddington Station. I am somewhat tired here. I've been up since the 15th, ADT, with no sleep on any of the planes.

The trip was highly tolerable once we got about the Boeing 777 at Houston. The 757 in Economy class is an exercise in sardining and spamming together passengers until nobody can move or breathe. Economy on a 777 was eminently survivable. I speculate upgrading to first class on the 757 trips is desirable if it proves cost-feasible. We'll see. Raven found upgrading to first class on the 777 was a $4,000 proposition.

Our first item of business on arrival was to buy train tickets (£16.50 each for the express as opposed to first class) and tide to Paddington Station, a lovely if baroque structure of wrought iron and lots of space.

So the pub is called the Green Man (the hostel is called Best Place, located directly upstairs above it), and I believe Raven did us both proud in finding this place. We arrived at 10:10 am, but since check in isn't until 2 pm, we have yet to see our room (#3, two twin beds in a single bunk bed configuration, and no private bathroom as I assume is typical with these things.) The site includes laundry and magnetic keycards were issued for room access for £1 deposit each.

We checked out bags in the cellar below the pub and went on a walk, exploring our surroundings until check in time.

We found close access to grocery stores, an Indian restaurant (which we attended a few days later), and some other pubs we snagged photos of because of the appealing architecture (though there was greater still yet to come in the days ahead).

Raven slept at not much after 2:30 pm, and I spent time needlessly worrying about obtaining more cash for the trip via ATM (I'd brought rather little), Carrying my broken laptop up and down the way between McDonald's (free wifi access there) and the hostel trying to find a means of working through the money issue, I did manage to snag an appropriate cord for the laptop here, the device I brought having had no applicability to English electrical outlets. Frustrated, I returned and crashed.

Nothing much else is notable, save in spite of over 24 hours of travel, not once did I actually get motion sick. This is an achievement.

I set the alarm for 6:00 am, and we kept to that every morning while we were in England.

Whale: 1, Squid: 0

2009-10-29T12:50:00.000-07:00

Proper nommed:

It's these squid-eating whales, captain!

(Tentacle-tip to Neil Kelly of Microecos)

England and SVP: Soon.

2009-10-19T15:37:00.000-07:00

Middle-Way Cafe, Solo Art Piece Bit Thing

2009-10-08T17:52:00.000-07:00

I have a solo piece in a multi-artist show at Middleway Cafe in Anchorage. I'll be there at the opening tomorrow from 6-8pm. Runs through November.

SVP, England, side 2.

2009-09-30T12:01:00.000-07:00

I'm back. Details to follow after the notes are tidied and in place (and my jetlag is slightly less). The short of it is this: England was amazing, and SVP was awesome.

SVP, England...

2009-09-15T15:30:00.000-07:00

I cross the Atlantic for the first time in about 10 hours.

See you all on the flipside.

Stolen Bicycle

2009-09-11T15:35:00.001-07:00

Like the picture says: my bicycle was stolen either Wednesday evening or Thursday. I'll be putting up these flyers in the vain hope that someone may have seen it. (Since I'm going out of town next week, I'll be leaving behind the cell--there's simply no point in keeping it with me when I won't even be able to use it in England.)

Why I Am Going to England

2009-09-11T10:08:00.001-07:00

Because it is, in a word, essential to my development as an artist to see things and to travel to places filled with art and history in their own right.

That's why.

Other artists can stay at home all day and do great work. But I'm not they. I need to improve. SVP and this trip to England is just another part of this (admittedly long-going) process. If you're artist or not and/or a paleogeek, I hope to see you in England.

$575 for a copy. This is not a typo.

2009-09-03T10:44:00.000-07:00

Over at SVPoW, there's a revolution a-brewin'. It's about pricing appropriately for your target market, and asking absurd sums for what is at most a 288-page volume, no matter how compelling the material, is not the way to do it.

Stupidity in management is alive and well everywhere (see: newspaper publishers), but this is the most amazing example I've heard of in a while.

No Goals in Evolution

2009-09-02T15:47:00.000-07:00

Jim Manzi likes to type a lot (and now so do I), so when he wrote this, he makes some curious statements and mistakes.

"No matter how far science advances, an explanation of ultimate origins seems always to remain a non-scientific question."

Does it? I notice science keeps pushing it back, further and further into the realm of the unknowable. This leaves those who would invoke god as an explanation less and less to do. Might it be conceivable they then eventually be left with nothing to do after all? (At least as far as explaining the natural world is concerned.)

"Evolution in nature is more complicated — but the complications don’t mean that the process is goalless, just that determining this goal would be so incomprehensibly hard that in practice it falls into the realm of philosophy rather than science."

Or this is wrong, and evolution in nature is, in fact, goalless.

"The combination of a constantly changing fitness landscape and an extraordinarily large number of possible genomes means that scientists appropriately proceed as if evolution were goalless, but from a philosophical perspective a goal may remain present in principle."

Possibly. But why burden an explanation with unnecessary multiplicity?

"Science can not tell us whether or not evolution through natural selection has some final cause or not; if we believe, for some non-scientific reason, that evolution has a goal, then science can not, as of now, tell what that goal might be."

If you posit the existence of goals--of the existence of something which science can't disprove exists--then why submit that they exist at all, especially if they are completely superfluous?

We can imagine goals because we see primarily the successes of evolution (even extinct organisms are, for their time, outrageously successful), we don't see the failures, and yet there were always far far far more failures than successes. If we saw both in volume and proportion, would designists still suggest evolution had goals after all? Possibly they might, but would it still seem reasonable to do so?

"The theory of evolution, then, has not eliminated the problems of ultimate origins and ultimate purpose with respect to the development of organisms; it has ignored them."

Inasmuch as there is nothing to ignore (Evolution does not, for instance, strictly address abiogenesis. That's still a different department, and it makes no sense to fault evolution for not addressing it), but this, too, is wrong. Goals were often suggested as evidence for the reproductive success for some lineages over others by plenty of early workers and naturalists. It took time to dispense with this imaginary baggage, because it gradually became apparent that success was not a target of natural selection, but a result; one where indifference rules. Goals can still be imagined, but this is only possible by ignoring all of the failures, something science is certainly not doing.

"These problems are defined as non-scientific questions, not because we don’t care about the answers, but because attempting to solve them would impede practical progress."

Practicality doesn't prevent physical cosmologists from working on problems. And can Manzi really say no progress has been made? Practicality also poses no obstacle to mathematics (even before when practical uses for crypto were found last century).

"Accepting evolution, therefore, requires neither the denial of a Creator nor the loss of the idea of ultimate purpose. It resolves neither issue for us one way or the other. The field of philosophical speculation that does not contradict any valid scientific findings is much wider open to Wright than Coyne is willing to accept."

I think it's interesting that Manzi is constrained by his argument within the limits of the physical world and the information it generates, things which we only know about and benefit from by way of science, rather than any other kind of philosophy.

But he's not wrong. I do think his conclusion is correct (even if the reasoning behind it is plain wrong); science cannot address the existence or nonexistence of God; both views are therefore compatible (so long as religious philosophy chooses to not contradict reality).

Team Phoenicia Needs You

2009-09-01T15:25:00.000-07:00

Team Phoenicia needs to raise at least $7,000 by the 14th of September, and I can't offer much, so I'm prepared to make an offer to the first three people who donate $200 or more before then.

I will provide, for these three donors, color pen-and-ink originals of my art of a subject of the recipient's choosing. Work will be on high-gloss paper 8.5"x11", done with RapidoGraph® pen and watercolor or non-cloogging inks, and I will assume the shipping costs. These commissions will be done by no later than the end of this November, 2009.

Will Baird/Team Phoenicia must be paid directly the $200 or more by the 14th of September for this offer to be valid. We'll arrange the details after the payment is cleared.

Good luck, Team Phoenicia!

The Face of Unreasoning Rage

2009-08-12T17:26:00.000-07:00

Hrm. I've been trying to understand why this man looks like he's about to explode over this issue, why he rages against even the most basic reforms being proposed here.

Has he even read the bill being discussed? Somehow, I doubt it. He looks to be beside reason.

I've been without any health insurance for a long time. I certainly would not seek his advice on starting a new business and attempting to secure health insurance for myself in this market which favors only the insurer. This man has no answers for me, no solutions.

Only rage, unreasoning and irrational rage.

I have to say, I don't find that to be of much use to me in my circumstances. Thank goodness I've my health. That I know of, so far. For now.

Emperor Nautilus Inked

2009-08-12T16:59:00.001-07:00

Over light table with Rapidograph pen:

Click to encommodiate.

Frog

2009-08-10T15:40:00.001-07:00

Pencil, with Pen-Opake on top:

Click to enlargify.

Okay, I'll be at the Art Remains Art Show...

2009-08-07T14:13:00.001-07:00

...from about 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm today. And then I will collapse at home afterwards.

Say, did I mention that this show is being advertised on television in the Valley? Well, it is. On MTA's DTV, LMTV Channel 303. From Eagle River to Big Lake.

Hey, I've never advertised on television before. This is a thing!

Also, did I mention there will be free red postcards at the art show tonight? No? While supplies last, you can get a free red postcard at the art show tonight! (I doubt I'll run out. I made 176 of them.)

Art Remains: new art show.

2009-07-31T10:18:00.000-07:00

(Raven by Raven Amos. Dinosaur skull and layout by S. Elyard)

The show runs from 7 August through 30 August 2009 at Cafe Europa on 601 West 36th Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska. I'll be there after 5pm on the 7th for First Friday, possibly sketching my cares away.

(There will be prints, postcards, and originals for sale as well. All proceeds go to the "send the artist to SVP in England this year fund" for orphans with parents.)

Photo-coverage is here!

Emperor Nautilus

2009-07-23T14:08:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I know. I've been swamped with work and prep-work and getting ready for travel and jobhunting and other stuff. So here's an errant doodle I made in glorious ball-point pen:

Click to make it mclargehuge!

Dear Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute of Seattle...

2009-06-12T10:46:00.001-07:00

Casey Luskin, you are a liar. And to anyone who is even moderately educated in the science, you are an ignorant and dishonest buffoon.

The video breakdown presented here of Luskin's mouthing of creationist tripe is effective, I must say. I may have to take note of this "new" medium of video for the future...

At some point, I do plan on posting non-Pachyrhinosaurus artwork, really.

2009-06-02T20:37:00.001-07:00

Click to brobdinagificate. ( Just some noodling with textures. Sort of a sketchbook raid, really. Still really busy.)

The more rigid the belief, the more inevitable the snap.

2009-05-22T16:12:00.000-07:00

Huh.

Interesting, compelling, and a side of the story I hadn't seen yet.

Belief may be a right, but God forbid beliefs should ever be tested, disparaged, challenged, or contradicted in a publicly-funded space. Where, I wonder, did the Farnans learn that the most appropriate response to such challenges is litigation, instead of discussion and confrontation? (And what, I wonder, have the creationists who plainted about "activist" judges in 2005 have to say about this decision?)

So then I see this.

So a few brief, open comments to creationists:

The Earth is not 6,000 years old. The Bible does not claim it is. Those who are familiar with the writings of James Ussher understand how the number was derived (relying on numerous sources separate from scripture), and must also recognize the inherent fallibility of such methods. He worked with the best information he had at the time, and had to fill the gaps in scripture from sources external to the Bible. Now we've moved on. More sources of information have come to light since then. So unless you accept the age of the universe being around 14 billion years, you really do believe in nonsense.

Believe whatever you want. But no amount of pretentious posturing, declarations of faith, litigation or lying will ever make such beliefs acceptable or true.

There is also no doubt that people who believe such things are arrogantly ignorant, like Don McLeroy here. Anyone less afflicted with hubris would be ashamed to say such things. Anyone less afflicted with hubris would probably also know better than to embarrass himself in front of God and an entire planet.

Going to England in September...

2009-05-07T11:11:00.000-07:00

Because we're going. Haven't done anything but purchase plane tickets at this point, but that's a major start.

Since this is my first trip to that splendid isle, any advice from savvy travelers or natives would be most welcome.

Now that I'm broke, I need to get funds together for the registration proper, place to stay, and something to live on while there.

Anyone need some work done?

Of the Folly of Fools

2009-05-01T17:32:00.000-07:00

An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.
--Proverbs 17:11

Recently I was involved in yet another discussion with a creationist (this time online). Unfortunately the entirety of the conversation was deleted. So I can't point it out. I don't think I need to speculate why creationsts excise threads on their own blogs where their opinions have gone awry.

However, before that, I had planned and written a final response to a link he provided to the Institute of Creation Research, which I've adapted and expanded here:

There is a passage in the Bible when light is created (Genesis 1:3). Not the Sun, but light (the Sun is created on the fourth day). The ancient Hebrews apparently regarded the light of the sky as something separate from the light of the sun, hence the apparent redundancy.

But the failing of light in the evening does not define a day--the rotation of the Earth does (and this defines the days in the calendar year, which must be occasionally corrected to accommodate the actual length of a solar year, otherwise planting seasons will fall out of sync). But since such was unknown at the time the original Hebrew was set down, it might make sense back then to regard the light of the sky as the definition of day--but carrying this notion forward as a literal interpretation means all science about the roundness of the Earth and where our light comes from--the basis of the calendar year and its subsequent and necessary modifications--must be rejected.

In order to regard the Bible as literal and inerrant, it is now therefore better than all of observed reality, without any regard to how Creation itself is observed--if God made the universe, and the Bible contradicts what God has made, then what we can see of Creation must be discarded in favor of the human-made text. All of geology, astronomy, cosmology, biology--boom. Overturned. Done with. It doesn't matter how useful they are or how correct they are--it is now "wrong." The consequences could be staggering and devastating to civilization, but who cares?--We're putting the human interpretation of the text above reality. The hermeneutic Literal and Inerrant makes a liar of Creation.

But all of this awkwardness goes away once Literal and Inerrant is rejected in favor of parable, story, and metaphor. Make no mistake: the choice of interpretation of these writings is ultimately a purely human decision (and is not rooted in the word of God).

Since theology is about (in part) the relationship humanity has with its creator, I have to ask what sort of theology it is that permits Jesus to use parables, but such things aren't tolerated elsewhere in the same text? If Scripture is inspired by God, if not outright literally represented as the word of God, then could any theology be more awkward than one which actually disallows God from communicating in a method that would be remembered, recorded, and passed on, rather than a literal scientifically-accurate description of how the universe came to be?

Theology shouldn't be troubled by the material, but some religious believers have willfully and rigidly set their philosophies so that it is just that. Why does a minority of Christianity allow itself to be troubled by evolution? Because their chosen philosophy demands that any perceived conflict with the material universe (i.e., Creation) be dealt with by rejecting evidence, rebelling against science, and idolizing the authority that obliges them to do both.

So when any religious group goes up against science, it has absolutely nothing to do with God (and everything to do with rebellion).

Not when so many fail to quote accurately from the science itself, which is nothing short of deceit. (A distortion is deceit. A quote mine transfigures and edits text from the source in order to make it reflect a very different agenda--and it is nothing less than deception.) And how many refuse to stop parroting the "evolution is impossible because it is statistically improbable" argument, when, to anyone who actually knows anything about mathematics or statistics, it is wrong (and trivially easy to refute (see item No. 10))? Could it be that this argument is not aimed at those who are familiar with these subjects, but, in fact, those who are ignorant of them--who have neither education nor knowledge otherwise? (Do Christians who do this sort thing think there's a clause or loophole in the ten commandments that permits this dishonest behavior? What on earth makes them believe they do?)

Not when so many make use of the most poisonous rhetoric to describe evolutionary biology and those who use it in their work (cf. comparison to Nazism etc.).

Not when they fail to uphold their own standards (or what should be their own standards) when it comes to representing science. Arrogance combined with ignorance is so typical of virtually every creationist I've talked with--in person or online--that it has actually become a legitimate stereotype. (Behold the behavior of those who supplant science with their own religious viewpoints. They plaint that science rejects their ideas, but since they rejected science first, why should anyone sympathize with them?)

When every "creation research" organization I've ever seen without fail commits these acts of deception, disrespect, and hubris, what basis is there for their existence? The fact that they advance outright garbage as science is almost completely beside the point. Any organization or individual who behaves in this manner will simply not be seen as trustworthy. And why should they be? If they sacrifice the smaller morals, how can the larger ones have any meaning?

What research program do any of these "research" organizations really offer? What have they published--not self-published, but really, actually published in the scientific literature? If the answer to that is "nothing," (and it is) then these organizations--some of which subsist largely on enough donations that would embarrass in their riches many legitimate scientific labs worldwide--are nothing but parasites.

And for what? So they can keep up the pretense of belief in God merely because they crave an unassailable authority that allows them to do so?

Is that what faith is supposed to be about? Can it truly be faith if it is crucially dependent upon something as hollow as human authority?

Decadent is a word which often goes with decay, and on that note, does any word better fit the moral landscape presented by the political movement of fundamentalist creationism? Most professional creationism is already perfectly synonymous with dishonesty--and scientists and informed laypersons alike both know it.

Fact is, many Christians find their faith isn't challenged by science. Millions of them worldwide simply take science in stride--and it affects their religious beliefs not a bit. If you're a Christian who believes the Earth is young and that evolution is a lie, maybe you should ask yourself what they are doing right, and figure out what you are doing wrong.

It is up to you to adopt a theology which, as the very keystone of its existence, doesn't oblige the most egregious illiteracy (historic, scientific, and theologic) and therefore doesn't fly in the face of reality.

I want to close this with a bit of a confession: I don't really like the role of the cruel messenger. I find I am ill-suited for it and would much rather spend time with those who do know what they are talking about, who actually practice science--a process of knowing and understanding which is unequivocally unrivaled in its results. From them, I can and have learned much about science and the universe.

In contrast, what creationists have taught me is that they are often untrustworthy, arrogant, and difficult to deal with. I sometimes resent the time it takes responding to them because honestly, cruelty is not all it's cracked up to be, and my patience for dealing with arrogance and dishonesty is becoming shorter the longer I do it.

But I suppose so long as the cult of rebellion against science exists, I'd best get used to it.

Pop Art Show Entry at MTS Gallery

2009-04-20T11:57:00.000-07:00

The show runs through 17 April through 4 May 2009 in Mountain View. Here's my piece (marvelously colored by Raven Amos; the original is in black and white only):

Click to Enlargificate

I did my best to simulate 1980s halftones found in comics of the period. Basically, I did something I would have loved to read when I was 13.

Original is for sale for $200, but I also made little prints for $0.75, and four dinosaur art postcards for the same price, as an experiment to see if they'd sell. If they did (a little), there may be more. If not, I'll abandon the post card idea for good.

Next: get some of the character designs posted for Alien Insurance...

Perfecting _Pachyrhinosaurus_

2009-03-04T09:45:00.000-08:00

A year and a half ago, I painted this.

Normally, I don't revisit or do remixes of anything this big or complicated, but there was always something unfinished and rushed about this piece in my mind, and I actually jumped at the chance to rework it.

Since I always save my file history, this is easy (at least at first). Oh, and if you're an artist working digitally, and you aren't doing this, you should. Saving often is great, but saving a new version every time a new change is made is even greater! For example: my current proportions don't favor a standard US Mail Postcard (which should be no bigger than 4.25" x 6.00"), but with layers, I can scale and arrange everything I want included until they do (with an eighth-inch bleed all the way 'round).

First, the difference between a restoration and a reconstruction (in the sense of William Elgin Swinton):

A reconstruction is an impression, model, or re-enactment of a past event formed from the available evidence (Oxford American Dictionary).

For restoration, the definition specifically mentions extinct animals ("a model or drawing representing the supposed form of the extinct animal, ruined building, etc."; ibid.).

I think it's a mistake to assume that because specializations are not present in a given skeleton, general actions like digging or (say) swimming are therefore ruled out. But it's actually fallacious to say that they are: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Traits that would positively identify many many animals as diggers or swimmers are often absent (since behavior seldom fossilizes)--yet these are both things many animals can do (and some do rather well--without the need for evident specialization).

For the sake of a good artistic restoration, more than mere knowledge of anatomy is required here; the animal in a successful life reconstruction will be doing something or otherwise have some discernable motivation--this lends verisimilitude and detail and life to the restoration.

A restoration does not have to be a scientific hypothesis; it can posit behavior that is perfectly feasible, but might be specifically untestable. For example, maybe Psittacosaurus didn't dig at all, but how can anyone tell if it didn't? In the case of Pachyrhinosaurus, charging down a hill might not be something it did--but if it was not overtly incapable, then why not add a little dynamism to the image?

This is not, incidentally, a constraint of scientific conservativism; it's a constraint of having a limited understanding of animals in general--or not understanding the point of a life restoration, possibly. It might work for reconstructions that are technically valid but otherwise lifeless, but a good work of art will often go beyond what is overtly displayed in the skeleton of a given critter--and often must, if it is to be memorable at all.

Most of my sources come from skeletal material as well as close examination of other artists' restorations (as well as a liberal amount of reading from the technical literature).

But I also originally wanted to pay homage to the reason why I hold Pachyrhinosaurus in such high regard in the first place. This I did okay with originally, but here's where it all started for me: in 1996, I lived in Washington State, and was experiencing a resurge in interest in paleontology after a lengthy hiatus. When I was younger I had a series of Golden Guide books that I carried everywhere with me. (One was Rocks and Minerals).

And when I came across a 1990 edition of Dinosaurs in the same vein of design and style, I snagged it immediately.

I've lived in numerous places, thanks to my Dad being in the Navy. But Alaska and now Washington didn't yield much when it came to dinosaurs. So this page, in particular, made me do Pachyrhinosaurus:

The new remix finally satisfies me in that respect. In spite of this post's title, I don't think necessarily I've perfected the piece; far from it. But deadlines are deadlines, and eventually the artist absolutely must let it go.

Until, at least, the next time, should another second chance presents itself.

But now to it.

Step one was to erase the body and adjust the pose slightly. This was easy since I try to preserve everything in separate groups of layers in Photoshop.

Step two involved reworking the background extensively. Very little was retained, since I knew this would be printed out large-scale, I wanted the most texture and detail I could get away with.

Monkey-puzzle trees were a must this time around, and I redid every single horsetail, layering thousands of them in as efficiently as possible.

I used personal photo-reference for the trees, from photographs taken when I lived in Washington state; with the main painting on the Cintiq display and a preview file open on Harryhausen (my 5-year-old G4 laptop's display), I was able to paint freehand from the reference without having a printout of it. (Since I don't have a printer, this saves time.)

Quick tip for artists not necessarily new to tablets regarding the Cintiq pen-based display: look at the cursor, much as you might with a regular tablet, rather than where the point of your pen is, and painting and other operations will go much more smoothly. Some artists get frustrated by the change, and I think this must be the reason why. Once you adapt to that, you'll never want to go back.

The trees were also built in several layers: trunks, branches, and leaf-clusters (background clusters and highlighting clusters). For highlights, I made extensive use of the "lock transparency" toggle for the background leaf cluster layer. That way, my highlights would never appear anywhere other than where leaves were painted already.

The new trees now frame the left-hand side of the composition more, giving something for the silhouette of the animal to interact with.

Ground vegetation in the fore- and background were built up in a series of layers, with a shadow for the animal multiplied on top of the background layers (also on its own layer).

For the vegetation, transparency in brushes was used a lot as well. Ninety-percent works for most things that were green. Then I just layered in as many brush strokes as it took to convey greenery.

The new sky is a gradient (as a real sky is).

I don't use filters much, but the green wall in the distance needed some texture, so I faded in some faint layers of monochromatic uniform noise and rebrushed much of it.

The body and head of the animal took on a new color scheme. This time, I favored a model presented by an existing animal: the Okapi. I also redesigned the iris somewhat, making it look more natural. On the rough nose I acheived a more natural texturing in highlights to better emphasise the "pachy" in Pachyrhinosaurus.

The original purpose of the remix was to enable a traveling exhibit that would show in museums in Alaska. My hope is it will be met with much success. But I also finished it in time for a virtual exhibit, located here.

General Web-Development Type Question...

2009-02-18T10:48:00.000-08:00

This is related to that minor announcement I've yet to be fully prepared for, but I have a question about an effect I'd like to have implemented on the site for it (also yet to be designed at this stage).

I have some 3D geometry I'd like displayed in a window within the home page, looking something like this to start:

I'd like visitors to be able to rotate and spin that sucker. While being rendered in that fashion, against a white background, with no other shading. With no more to it than that, and visible/accessible in virtually every browser on the planet, on virtually every platform on the planet--extant or extinct (within reason, obviously), without duplicating any effort on my part.

(SGI users are familiar with the inventor viewer; that's similar to what I'm going for).

Question is, what's the best way to accomplish this? Anyone have any recommendations/suggestions for me?

Wow! An Alaskan Ichthyosaur!

2009-02-10T16:52:00.000-08:00

Details!

BUMP.

2009-02-04T16:51:00.000-08:00

I'm going to encourage everyone who means well, reads this, and has a blog to give this one a bump. As it stands as of this writing, someone with an Xbox360 is in front of Amanda's entry, and I think that this--at least this--needs to be rectified.

What's Your Favorite Toy?
Brickfish

So please, vote not just once, but an inhuman number of times! Today, tomorrow, every day you have internet access with as many browsers as you can afford to install, and multiple times a day--let's vote for a stuffed brontosaur over some guy with an Xbox.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. But an Xbox isn't. Let's waste it.

Heavens to Hornetroid!

2009-01-30T10:06:00.000-08:00

The Triceratopter really needs to be a Microman/Micronaut vehicle.

Looks like the Prisoner finally broke out.

2009-01-14T11:16:00.000-08:00

Patrick McGoohan: 1928-2009.

Godspeed.

Let's Get Out the Machine...

2009-01-12T12:15:00.000-08:00

And see if we can't get Amanda a scholarship out of it.

C'mon, Honored Meagre Readership! All it costs is one click from as many machines as you can manage as often as you can manage!

In the World Where I've Been...

2009-01-08T11:58:00.000-08:00

Though Antigua isn't visible, I've been there, too:

visited 5 states (2.22%)
Create your own visited map of The World or try another Douwe Osinga project

In the US, Where I've Been...

2009-01-08T11:53:00.000-08:00

visited 26 states (52%)
Create your own visited map of The United States or try another Douwe Osinga project

Very Interesting!

2008-12-31T13:56:00.001-08:00

Just a little article I found. Go and read.

Oh, this is too funny...

2008-12-26T18:02:00.000-08:00

Go and be amused.

I'll be here.

New Artblog and Another Deferment of an Announcement

2008-12-19T10:16:00.001-08:00

Basically, I've been insanely busy this month, so I'm still not ready to post about my little announcement. So that will have to wait.

Also, Alien Insurance Animation has become a new repository for my (and eventually others') art in the nature of conceptual sketches, character design, and storyboards.

Supreme Court Decides It Has Better Things to Do

2008-12-08T17:03:00.000-08:00

Specifically, people born in the US are, in fact, citizens of the US.

Yeah. Imagine that.

Why this wasn't obvious eludes me. Is there really an attractive argument that suggests otherwise?

I realize that there is a small lot of people who think that Obama is not a US citizen, on the grounds that it would be somehow convenient politically, but I don't think they think anything through. If Obama's not a citizen, then I'm not. And if you were born here in the US, neither are you.

Stupid, stupid people. You go away now.

Cintiq: Tablet of Action!

2008-11-25T17:55:00.000-08:00

Connected to a 5-year old G4 Powerbook:

I have been busy...

2008-11-14T10:30:00.000-08:00

...But I intend to have a small announcement sometime soon.

Update: It is slightly related to the fact that I've just ordered one of these:

Paleoblogs Represent!

2008-11-09T12:47:00.000-08:00

Specifically, it's time to vote for Brian Switek, whom I am wholeheartedly endorsing as winner of the 2008 Blogging Scholarship.

Honestly, how can anyone not vote for someone who names his blog Laelaps?

Vote here.

(I do realise this is a bit of a popularity contest, but I can't really do anything about that. Since this is how this particular scholarship is awarded, this is how it's got to be promoted.)

As of Now, My Dad Has Been In Surgery for Four Hours...

2008-11-04T10:16:00.000-08:00

...With another 2-4 to go. A bypass has been mentioned as a possibility, in addition to the valve replacement. If that turns out to be the case, there will be an extra two hours in surgery for that.

[UPDATE: He's out and doing fine now. It's all recovery from here.]

...

I did vote today. I voted against Stevens and the corruption which seems to have embraced our representatives. Perhaps their replacements, if elected, will heed these words: you work for us, and nobody else. You forget that at your peril. I do have a question for anyone who voted for Stevens, in spite of his guilt: do you really think that he was going to last forever anyway? It takes someone awfully committed to a culture of decadence to willingly vote for a convict in the vain hope of preserving the pork Alaska has typically gotten. Perhaps its time Alaska learned to do without him. As in sooner, rather than later.

McCain-Palin: I voted against the both of you, because neither of you are suitable to run one of the greatest nations on earth. Both of your anti-science attitudes were a large part of my decision, and Palin's appalling ignorance and stupidity has made the rest of us Alaskans look bad to the rest of the nation. I've read too many conservative commentators that appear to have swallowed the hook that Palin would be useful to McCain, and found only an incredible capacity for self-delusion. And to the both of you: your comments regarding the opposition towards the end were out of line. McCain, I respected you once. You lost it. (Palin I never really liked or voted for, so she can't really lose what she never had.)

Some lessons here for everbody:

Conservatives in general: if you don't start returning to your roots (and get off the creationism kick already; it just looks sad using a bunch of rubes just for personal political gain), you will become increasingly irrelevant.

Liberals: please, stop whining already. (And stop opposing nuclear power and handguns. If you're serious about handguns, prove it and pass a constitutional amendment dealing with it; otherwise, stop wasting your time, let it go, and pick your battles.)

And Libertarians: you're already irrelevant. Keep up the good work.

Post 100: Allhallow's Eve, the best holiday ever...

2008-10-31T11:16:00.001-07:00

Even if I'm absolutely unprepared for it. Again. Still. Did you know I used to write horrible rhyming poetry on Hallowe'en themes?

Yeah. And I'm not sharing a scrap of it, even if I could find it.

Instead, look at these from Golden Age Comic Book Stories: Weird Tales covers! And film posters including posters for some of my favorite films of all time, ever*!

(*Those would be the Val Lewton films.)

The Archosauria: _Desmatosuchus_!

2008-10-29T16:34:00.000-07:00

Armadillodile Shingle-Pig ... Thing

Only a portmanteau of crocodile and armadillo comes close to describing the Aetosaurs, the ancient tanks of the Triassic.

Desmatosuchus in particular reached lengths of over 5 meters (18 feet), and, in addition to having armor similar to other Aetosaurs, had spikes emerging from either side of the animal’s neck and shoulders. In a sense, armor-bearing dinosaurs which came later like Ankylosaurus are Aetosaur-mimics.

Aetosaurs possessed leaf-shaped teeth and large hindguts, indicating herbivorous diets. Food in the form of leaves was pulled whole from plants and then swallowed, where it would be digested with the help of bacterial fermentation.

Additionally, they possessed chisel-like, upturned snouts, granting them a sort of porcine appearance.

Aetosaurs had worldwide distribution, but Desmatosuchus comes from late Triassic formations in Arizona.

Media & Commentary:

I'm not often quite this dissatisfied with my work, but this qualifies (rather handily) as one of the worst paintings I've ever done.

Time to paint a bowl of fruit, or something, preferably before it rots, and get my chops up. Anyway, it's not all bad. I learned I cannot make paintings on this tight a deadline, at least, not oil paintings anyway.

See also:
Raven's Triceratops, Tupandactylus, and Raven!
Effigia!
Stomatosuchus!
Simosuchus!
The Pterosauria!
The Dinosauria!
Gavials!
Euparkeria!

I hope this is the last time I have to use the words "Sarah Palin" in a sentence...

2008-10-25T14:39:00.000-07:00

PZ Myers is making Sarah Palin look bad.

Actually, it's Sarah Palin that's making Sarah Palin look bad, PZ is simply pointing out why she has made herself look bad, and how she has chosen to make herself look to people who actually do the research she paradoxically despises and insists we need more of.

I very much doubt, from her comments, that she knows what she's talking about. People who are unfamiliar with both how research and how science works often are. Ideally, this should recuse them from talking. It's a pity Palin didn't do that.

Now, I wouldn't expect a politician to necessarily know how science and research works. I do expect them to surround themselves with people who, ostensibly, do, or at least know enough to not make nakedly obvious gaffes like this.

But if this is how her campaign is being conducted, I have every reason to expect this will probably carry over into a presidency.

I might have expected better from McCain, but he picked her as his running mate. I worry four more years of darkness will be SOP.

I generally stay out of politics on this blaugh. But this is just pathetic.

(Update: comments here as well.)

Lauren's Unicorn

2008-10-24T15:42:00.000-07:00

Private commission, sketch done yesterday evening:

She seemed to like it so I'm taking it to the next level: enlarging it and inking it. The final version will have some color in it.

(I tried to combine pictures I've seen of cheetah turning nearly on a dime, something not-quite-approaching horses, and a full gallop. Not certain it works 100%, though... Oh, and I made the "horn" part of a samurai sword, complete with a tsuba on the beast's forehead. I just had to do something different with it.)

UPDATE: Here's a revised version, based on some much-needed feedback:

Who Is Responsible for this Garbage?

2008-10-24T10:45:00.000-07:00

Windows Vista, I mean. The byzantine interface (designed by spider monkeys on Red Bull) makes the political and bureaucratic infrastructure of the Ottoman Empire appear transparent, it helps by being helpy, instead of helpful.

I've just now gotten it to recognize or be recognized by the systems on the rest of the network. This took an hour and a half.

The experience leaves me with the conviction that Microsoft should go back to making program loaders (i.e. DOS). It was the only thing they were ever any good at. The rest of their products are worthless.

SVP Squared

2008-10-23T15:53:00.000-07:00

It was lunch! (I'm in there somewhere. Unfortunately, not one of the handsome ones.)

There's only one person I didn't get to meet in this picture. That guy. Right there. I'm pointing at him. I almost didn't meet Thomas Holtz, but was lucky at the literal last minute (I was on my way out the door to the airport).

Well, it seems that talking about what we've seen at SVP is probably a bad idea--or at least, that's the position I'm taking on everything I saw there, in posters and the technical presentations. If I have questions, I'll be making them wait. I can live with that.

But there are other things to talk about, surely? Yes. Behold:

I do wonder if it might have been better if non-English speakers were able to deliver talks in their native languages, maybe with some sort of live translator present like they used to have in old movies at the UN. Some of the talks were difficult to understand, and I can't imagine it was any easier for Chinese or Japanese speakers to deliver a presentation in a second or third language.

Does that make sense?

Is there a mathematics primer for the stuff that gets used in paleo? Some of us would appreciate it if we knew some of what the heck was going on. Think "See Jane Run. Run Jane Run. See Jane Solve a Bunch of Calculus Problems That Suspiciously Resembles Greek without Grammar..." level. I'm serious, I've lost virtually all the math literacy I used to have, and that wasn't much. (Something about not having had to use it much.)

I picked up a copy of the 2nd edition of The Dinosauria for what I thought was cheap ($45, hardcover) until Nick Gardner pointed out an irritating reality (or maybe not--I can't find it anywhere online for $15 or so bucks). But now that I have it, I'm still compelled to keep the first edition. Is there a good reason to not do so?

I went to the dealer room a lot. There were a number of books I really wanted, but simply couldn't afford (like the great cats painting book--whoever wound up with that $130, gorgeous tome has my undying envy). But I also got a book filled with Zdenek Burian paintings of marine reptiles, a children's book on the sculptures of Waterhouse Hawkins, two Richard Ellis books on sharks (The Great White-hardcover, and just Sharks, filled with lots of his paintings in color).

I also purchased a nearly or exactly 1/18th-scale resin statue of Triceratops by Michael Trcic, and his Parasaurolophus in 1/35th. Those last will be mailed up to me, along with my leftover laundry and swag that wouldn't fit into my carryons (I checked no luggage this trip--it saved an indecent amount of time to not do so).

With one exception, I didn't go to any of the after-hours events. Just tired, I guess. I wish I could have stayed all day Saturday, though. Wednesday was awesome at the museum.

I learned it takes Michael Skrepnick about 60 days to complete a painting (dependent upon complexity). That still amazes me, especially after what I went through to get the Archosauria show finished. There simply is no parity in the level of detail I accomplished and what he can accomplish.

This suggests I need more practice. The man also claims he can get the same effects out of acrylics that he can get out of oils--looking at his work, I believe him.

I did feel some small vindication talking to William Stout; he uses oils. Acrylics and I--well, I'm just not competent with acrylics.

Still, it was really awesome talking with him. I almost felt I could be the Virgil Finlay of paleo-reconstruction afterwards (providing I worked a ~~little~~lot harder). (Or maybe the Hannes Bok of paleo-reconstruction.)

Speaking of awesome, I wonder if it makes sense to suggest an artist-meet-type event at SVP. Beyond just merely meeting some of the amazing artists running around at SVP, I'd love to hear what more experienced/less-tentative artists (including those much younger than myself) might have to say to the rest of us. Maybe just a lunch?

(David Krentz does have that Gnomon Workshops video. Hm. Soon as I have money, I'll get me that.)

SVP was good to me. Before going, I was burning out, a little, in part due to the show and all the haste necessary to scrape it together, but also in part due to the fact that I haven't been doing so well as the days get darker. I've always been sort of a solitary individual, largely of my own choosing, but sometimes not. The resultant isolation can be a downer as well as a major stressor. Last year (about September) I went through a particularly bad bout of depression which lasted for about six months. In that case, a spectacularly hateful job (a badly managed valley newspaper) combined with ... ah, well, let's just say other emotional issues made coping difficult, to say the least.

I think SVP gave me enough fuel to make it through the winter.

I'm glad I went. I'm hoping I can go again. I'd put off a visit to Japan to do it.

[UPDATE!] Oooh, and Jim Kondrat of Paleo-Tech Concepts allowed me to play with a $20,000 piece of laser-scanning hardware.

I'd like one of them for my living room (pretty badly, it turns out). If I can get the resultant geometry into Maya (4.0, Unlimited, Irix), it would be pretty darn sweet.

So. Will draw anything for $20,000.

Back from the Land of Cleve!

2008-10-21T17:47:00.000-07:00

And it was the greatest vacation ever!

I'm back from my first SVP, and I have to say, without equivocation, that I would so totally do that again.

Who did I meet? I met many many people, including Julia and Amanda and Matt Celeskey (who, impossibly, managed to recognise me--or is just very good at spotting names on nametags) and Andrew Farke and Niel Kelly and Patty Ralrick and Matt Wedel and Nick Gardner and Alton Dooley and Tom Holtz (whom I only just barely managed to meet on my way out--and I had to interrupt mid-conversation in order to do so, the only time I did so during the entire course of the meeting) and Jerry Harris (who dresses in a very dapper manner--I also liked his invisible wall).

Um, I'll get my own image of the lunch up at some point, but until I get those files e-mailed to me, here's a look.

Artists I met included:

William oh-my-god-I'm-having-an-actual-conversation-with-freakin'-William Stout. Whom I had no idea was even here, in spite of the foreknowledge of the fact that he designed the SVP logo. (Yes, bought a shirt. And a pin. And I will buy his new book when it comes out in January.)

[UPDATE: Ack! Forgot to include...]Michael Skrepnick, one of the nicest guys in the world. I guarantee, if you hang around me at all, then at one time or another, you have seen numerous paintings of his.

David Krentz, who I finally managed to meet on the way out of a particularly crowded room (that is, I was escaping the room--crowds and heat plus deep personal supidity on my part for wearing a wool coat meant I had to leave the Poster Session a little earlier than I would have liked).

Art-poster Judy Peterson doesn't have a website, but she probably ought to own one. I wish I could have talked to her at greater length (well, I guess that really applies to everybody).

Painter Takashi Oda, had a great poster--elegant, fabulous, and very informative in terms of process.

With him was an outstanding sculptor I can neither recall the website for nor remember the name of. When my swag gets mailed to me, I'll update this page, I promise!

I also met science illustrator Utako Kikutani, who combined pencil with Photoshop (or digital at any rate) to much more effective manner than my gavial for the show. Her work is outstanding.

The aforementioned Matt Celeskey (who will be hereafter referred to as ... The Aforementioned Matt Celeskey) also had a poster up--you can actually see a photo of it here.

In all honesty, I'm glad I didn't participate in the artist exhibition. Better to drink in (per the advice given to me by Mr. Stout) my first SVP meeting. Also, it would have broken me to finish up the art show and get in a poster in time for SVP. (Besides, now that I see firsthand how it's done, I know now what to do!)

Dennis Roth sent me a paper he'd written about sharks.

Nick Gardner also allowed me to leaf through his sketchbook. In spite of his blog title, he did have a few finely rendered (and accurate) theropods. I don't think the man hates theropods, so much as he is a teensy bit sick of them--a position I readily identify with.

Spotted, but didn't talk to: Kevin Padian, Peter Dodson, Christopher Brochu, Gregory S. Paul, Michael Ryan, David Marjanovic and a few others I didn't really have the stones to either interrupt or just go up and introduce myself.

Things I've learned: how to finally pronounce acetabulum (assehTABooloom). I've been doing it wrong. William Stout is the nicest man on earth. Nick Gardner made the most compelling reason to use Flickr I've ever heard, and will work to implement it soon. Having business cards made was a good thing (Matt Celeskey's was the absolute best I collected; it made me ashamed of mine--to be honest, most of the artists at the show who gave me cards shamed mine).

Not spotted (but was hoping to meet): paleoartist Dan Varner, Ray Troll (does he go to SVP meets?), Mike Keesey, Carl Buell, John Sibbick... others.

Goin' to the Land of Cleve...

2008-10-11T14:51:00.000-07:00

I'm off for SVP and to visit friends I haven't seen in a millyon years. In spite of my intentionally awful spelling here, I intend to have a good time, or as good a time as is possible traveling to Texas before getting to Ohio on three planes can be.

See you next week! (Or earlier, if anyone reading this happens to be going to SVP!)

The Archosauria: _Euparkeria_!

2008-10-10T10:05:00.000-07:00

Parker’s Good Animal: Euparkeria capensis

It may seem strange to admit an animal into an art show called The Archosauria that isn’t an archosaur, but under the definition chosen for the show (the Archosauria being comprised of the most recent common ancestor of birds and crocodiles and all of their descendants), Euparkeria is not actually a member of this group.

It is, however, very closely related to archosaurs -- belonging to a sister group to the Archosauria. Because it is so basal, Euparkeria can be regarded as a transitional form linking archosaurs to broader, more inclusive diapsid groups. In that sense, Euparkeria is so close to the genesis of a nearly quarter billion year long dynasty of reptiles that encompasses crocodiles and birds and everything else that evolved between them that it would seem foolish not to include it.

Those beginnings were certainly humble enough: Euparkeria is a small, lightly armored animal, no bigger than a housecat, which lived in Gondwanaland in the Early Triassic (about 248-245 million years ago, in what would become southern Africa). Euparkeria may have eaten insects or dined on smaller vertebrates while evading larger predators.

Media & Commentary:

Many, many pencil sketches went into this, and I think it's safe to say almost none of them are ever coming back out. Many ideas were thought of and then discarded, due to time constraints/difficulty. As such, I'm still sort of wistful whenever I think of it. Still, in spite of the disappointments, this is the strongest piece I produced for our little show.

Oils on canvas. Sorry some of the paint is still a bit shiny (possibly I could have photographed it a bit better as well). At one point I think I was working on three pieces (oils) at once, and things are still somewhat not-dry on any of them.

See also:
Raven's Triceratops, Tupandactylus, and Raven!
Effigia!
Stomatosuchus!
Simosuchus!
The Pterosauria!
The Dinosauria!
Gavials!
Desmatosuchus!

The Archosauria: Gavials!

2008-10-09T11:07:00.000-07:00

Gavials: Fast Fish-Eaters of India

Male gavials (Gavialis gangeticus) possess a bulbous shape at the end of their snouts, a feature females lack. This difference from females is called dimorphism. Gavials are restricted to India’s rivers, with mature adults feeding only on fish. Their slender mouths, filled with dozens of sharp, needle-like teeth, allows their heads to glide quickly through the water, snagging slippery prey.

Crocs have possibly the most sophisticated circulatory system of any vertebrate. The heart is complex (compared to birds and mammals), possessing a feature unique to crocs: the foramen of Panizza, a shunt connecting the left and right aortas. While on land, there is little blood flow across the foramen, but while under the water, the pulmonary side (left) shuts down, raising pressure on the right side and increasing flow across this shunt, connecting both ventricles, allowing waste more efficiently cleared in the absence of oxygen and retaining body heat.

Media & Commentary:

Pencil scan, digitally colored. An example of the effects that can be used to enhance an otherwise ordinary pencil image: highlights on the eye, using multiply compositing effects to make the best use of the pencil shading on the iris, and complementary counter-coloring complete the effect.

See also:
Raven's Triceratops, Tupandactylus, and Raven!
Effigia!
Stomatosuchus!
Simosuchus!
The Pterosauria!
The Dinosauria!
Euparkeria!
Desmatosuchus!

The Archosauria: _Stomatosuchus_!

2008-10-08T12:12:00.001-07:00

Stomatosuchus inermis: Unarmed Filter-Feeding Crocodile

What a pity Ernst Stromer’s poorly-known Eusuchian’s remains did not survive WWII, as it is one of the only known filter-feeding crocs. What material was known was a long skull, with a blunted snout (in a similar manner to alligator snouts), filled with hundreds of tiny teeth in the upper jaw and no teeth in the mandible. Assuming what is known about ratios between head length and body length for crocs is true for Stomatosuchus inermis, then Stomatosuchus grew to 12 meters (over 40 feet) in length.

The lower jaw suggests Stomatosuchus may have had a large throat pouch (perhaps like a pelican), useful for capturing, then filtering its prey from the water.

Stomatosuchus filters like an Egyptian: known from upper Cretaceous deposits in Egypt, this material was destroyed in an Allied bombing raid in 1944.

Media & Commentary:

What a pain oils on canvas board turned out to be. The background consisted of layers and layers of pigment washed with linseed oil, and this caused the whole of it to curl aggressively. The deflection caused by the oils made working on it not only annoying, but it was exacerbated by the fact that I was trying to accelerate drying time by placing it into the oven for short periods of time.

This was a mistake. I had to take it to a framing shop to flatten it, and then frame it to prevent it from curling even more.

Two and a half weeks were spent in total on this. And this was one of the last essays written, so I was a mite punchy at that point.

See also:
Raven's Triceratops, Tupandactylus, and Raven!
Effigia!
Simosuchus!
The Pterosauria!
The Dinosauria!
Gavials!
Euparkeria!
Desmatosuchus!

The Archosauria: _Simosuchus_!

2008-10-07T16:17:00.001-07:00

Zach Miller's essay, commentary, and reconstruction on Simosuchus is now up. Check it out!

New Show Up

2008-09-28T13:50:00.000-07:00

Delivered yesterday. Runs through October. Bring the kids, however old.