Griffin Art- 3/8/12 Microraptor

[Griffin]

Horridus: Thanks man I'm glad you like it. That color idea I kind of just did as I went along and when it was all done I realized that it I just made probably my favorite out of my whole collection. As for the prey item, I did a little research on Cryo before I did this and apparently they also discovered a similarly sized prosauropod dinosaur, which as far as I could tell has no name, in the same vicinity as Cryo so I included it as its meal. (Like your avatar by the way haha)

Sid: Thanks a lot. Griffins are my favorite mythical creature of all time. I really don't know why to be honest with you. Interesting tid bit, the first protoceratops bones discovered by ancient nomads were thought to belong to griffins. So in a way, it fits with the dinosaur theme.

[crazycrowman]

I like your watercolor work griffin.

"When you look at an animal from a relative distance, you dont see every little scale and hair. Some people do this even when the thing is viewed from a far in their drawings and it DESTROYS the picture (in a bad way)."

I am going to completely disagree with you there, and would say you are just not observant enough if you do not see the scales or hairs on animals. Same goes for feather. On that I will just have to agree that we disagree with what we think makes a nice final work. That is why people have different styles.

[Griffin]

Sept 17, 2009 18:53:57 GMT crazycrowman said:

I like your watercolor work griffin.

"When you look at an animal from a relative distance, you dont see every little scale and hair. Some people do this even when the thing is viewed from a far in their drawings and it DESTROYS the picture (in a bad way)."

I am going to completely disagree with you there, and would say you are just not observant enough if you do not see the scales or hairs on animals. Same goes for feather. On that I will just have to agree that we disagree with what we think makes a nice final work. That is why people have different styles.

I guess so. I'm a pretty observant person I think and I have good vision, no glasses or anything. There are lots of animals where you don't see every featherhairscale when not viewed up close. I said it before and I will say it once again; The way these dinosaur illustrations look, is exactly the way I want them to look, art wise. If there is an issue with accuracy with regards to the dinosaurs anatomy whatever, i will entertain comments there. I've gone to art school a good chunk of my life and one thing I learn is just because a piece doesn't look like it was taken with a camera, doesn't mean its not good. There is such thing as style. Its my style. I like it. Apparently a lot of other people like it as well. They are being used on lecture slides at a State University so I'm pretty sure the people there aren't just humoring me by using them. CCM I'm not calling you out I really do appreciate your input. I'm just explaining where I come from here when I post these pictures up here. Thanks.

Over the winter break I will be painting a watercolor of a Carnotaurus for a wall in one of the Staff member's offices. He specializes in Bovine sciences and asked me to make him a dino piece so Carnotaurus seemed appropriate. It will be done in watercolor, I'll put it up here first when its done for people who prefer the paintings to the drawings.

[crazycrowman]

"There are lots of animals where you don't see every featherhairscale when not viewed up close"

I will say it again, only if you aren't looking close enough. I totally understand if your work being the way it is is a choice of style. But I can back the previous comment with plenty of photos of animals from a distance showing plenty of texture/detail, especially birds/reptiles, and my comment before was not about every feather/hair/scale, but that, especially if these are being shown in the context of a lecture, that you may want to work more on that. I still think they look a tad sloppy. Maybe when you look at my work below, and the way I like it to look, you can see why I say that.

I personally would be a bit disappointed if I saw these images you have been posting displayed in a museum alongside a specimen, (no offence, I am not trying to insult you here) as there are so many other paleoartists out there who do take the time to detail their work, and make the images look more...filling ? might be the word I am looking for here.

"The way these dinosaur illustrations look, is exactly the way I want them to look, art wise."

I am glad you are happy with your work, and I think you have a great deal of potential. I gave my honest opinion on how I would like it more, and my personal critique of what I feel your work could be bettered. It was not meant to be personal, and you can obviously feel free to ignore it. I never took professional art courses myself, so I can't say anything about how art is "supposed" to look. Twas' a personal opinion and my views regarding your work, nothing more.

As you can see, we have very different styles - to give you an idea, I feel my work, (though I believe personally that there is always room for improvement, unless one has too big a head) looks pretty much like I would like it too -
(I edited this so not to offend, as that was never my goal here, and have removed the images from the post)

I look forward to seeing your watercolor dinosaur.

[Griffin]

Ok well let me first bring up the fact that your medium is different.

Lets start with the dino. I don't know exactly what your aim was with it but to me it looks like it was def done with the intention of looking cool, not realistic. I don't mean this with regards to anatomy, I mean it with regards to looking natural. Personally I am not a fan of this kind of stuff. There's lots of intricate detail but it doesn't look like it flows naturally. I also would have put more shading in on the animal's body and under it on the ground (which is very hard to do with this medium so I understand) I don't know its just my opinion. I'm not saying that what I do is better, I'm just saying that it is different and I prefer what I do over it.

Panther- looks like a closeup. Again even if its not its done with pen and ink- a medium that is specialized for little intricate lines. Its a good image for pen and ink because its dark and there's lots of little hairs. Not something that can be pulled off as nicely with colored pencils or watercolors. I worked with pen and ink years ago at art school.

The bird is good. Looks like there was lots of time and effort put into it.

Also let me say that I do not consider myself a paleo-artist. I draw dinosaurs and I got credit for them but I don't make money off of it. Would I like to be? Yes. If a big time museum or book company wanted me to do it I think I would opt for acrilics or something that gives me more freedom with color and detail.

Let me explain my specific lead and color pencil dinosaurs again one more time. Their job was to be scientifically accurate. That's it. They show specific parts of dinosaur behavior and anatomy. That's it. If you were a student and came up to me after and said you weren't impressed with the images during the lectures because you felt they looked sloppy, I would recommend that you go and take an art class instead because you were missing the point. You have seen what I'm capable with a more professional medium.

Shifting gears. Here are some more dino illustrations.

Spinosaurus


Majungatholus and Masiakasaurus. Are the majunga's legs too long? I think they might be. This one specifically I didn't hand in to be used yet so I don't know.


Struthiomimus and chicks


Enjoy.

[crazycrowman]

The trike was drawn for a friend who wanted it to look "gnarly", the Lioness, is pen an ink, then the whole thing was washed with watercolors. ^ I like the Struthiomimus and chicks.

"If you were a student and came up to me after and said you weren't impressed with the images during the lectures because you felt they looked sloppy, I would recommend that you go and take an art class instead because you were missing the point. You have seen what I'm capable with a more professional medium."

OK...and as that student, I'd probably loose some respect for you right then and there depending on the tone that was directed to me in. I am(at least was not) trying to argue with you, just was giving an honest critique of your work from the perspective of another person who draws animals. Sheesh - artists If I was having my work shown to people, and it was to represent the animals in that way, I would want it to be work that I put hours into, not 15mins. Just a difference of personal opinion about how we like what we make to look.

Colored pencil can be a "professional" medium. Some people can really do some outstanding work with colored pencils. Though not my personal medium of choice, and one I do not consider myself as "mastering" - here is one of the works I have done in colored pencil - (not a scan - all of these these, unfortunately, just photos with the digi camera)

(I edited this so not to offend, and have removed the images)

[Griffin]

You know I almost left out the "more professional" part. I shouldnt have said that colored pencil can be professional in the right context.

Your work is very nice. The birds are great. I think it could have something to do with the fact that birds are your specialty and profession. Maybe not. The westie and the frog I'm not a huge fan of but its personal taste.

You have different opinions. Got it. I appreciate it. But I really don't like it too much when you start putting up several batches of your art on my art thread for the purpose of comparing it to mine. First few were ok but now its a little much I feel. I know you mean well but it is starting to offend me a little bit. I would feel much more comfortable if you started your own thread where everyone could focus and enjoy your stuff for what it is and not compare it to mine.

I know I'm no Todd Marshall. But for where I am right now I am content with my work. I can only get better from here.

[crazycrowman]

^ I posted the images specifically as a reaction to the comments about "detail destroying artwork" that you had made, as being a detail freak, that kind of ruffled my feathers, I will admit. If you notice, because I did not want to hog your thread before you even replied back to me above, and as the images were unfortunately, large, grainy, and one made the point as well as the others, and this is your thread, I only left the roller.

The entire goal of posting those was never to offend you, but to show you rather then try to explain what I was saying about "detail", and why I would say the things I said about your images to begin with. I can be a downright social clutz with such things, and I know (as does everyone else on this and any list I am present on) that I have a habit of drilling my point into the ground, so I am just going to opt out, and this will be my last reply on that topic, hopefully with no hard feelings won - I know I don't have any towards you.

"I know I'm no Todd Marshall. But for where I am right now I am content with my work. I can only get better from here."

Like I, among many others have said, your work is excellent, and though no authority of such things, I feel especially where it "counts" - the form and structure of animals seems to be where most people seem to have a hard time. No amount of painting, detailing, or anything else can "fix" "lumpy" animals IMHO - its a pet peeve.

I know I can't wait to see your watercolor carno.

[Griffin]

Its okI was just letting you know you drilled too close to my comfort zone so social clutz, maybe. No hard feelings I know you meant well.

[Horridus]

Your spinosaurs look somewhat like Todd Marshall's. I like a lot of his work but am not particularly fond of his spinosaurs, which look to me a little too much like they've escaped from a metal album cover. Still, yours look decent! One thing though, [anal] doesn't Spinosaurus have a slightly bigger upward 'bulge' at the end of its mandible? [/anal]

[Griffin]

Haha funny cuz these spinos were inspired by Todd Marshall. If you haven't figured out, I happen to love his spinos hahaha. Its ok different tastes. About the mandible. I really don't know too much I mostly copied off of an Irritator skull since spino's is really incomplete for the most part. I took a few liberations as well. Could you pull up a photo of a the fossil itself?

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Spinosaurus_marocannus.jpg

[Griffin]

I don't need the drawing i just need the bones. According to that upper jaw it looks ok.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Just to show you what spinosaurus's head probably looks like

[Griffin]

I've seen that drawing before. Thanks though.

[sid]

Sept 17, 2009 16:01:09 GMT Griffin said:

Sid: Thanks a lot. Griffins are my favorite mythical creature of all time. I really don't know why to be honest with you. Interesting tid bit, the first protoceratops bones discovered by ancient nomads were thought to belong to griffins. So in a way, it fits with the dinosaur theme.

I know that... Very cool, uh?


I just saw your new drawings... The Struthio is superb, very elegant

[Horridus]

Not the upper jaw, the lower jaw! Check out the reconstruction above (which has the bulge), and Stromer's original restoration also had it (shaded areas represent actual bones (Wiki alert)):

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

^^ I have seen that picture in an old dinosaur book of mine from like the 70's, I think it's genuine...


(And when you look at stromer's stuff in the museum, you can also see a bit of a lower jaw in one of the corners)

[Griffin]

Hm look at that. Yeah I'm sorry cordy the images you posted are not what we were looking for but that old drawing put up by horridus is. A small mistake on my part. I'll include that if I ever do another of the Spinos or ever get around to refining this one.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

In the link I think that is a lower jaw. I just posted the top jaw picture and the head picture for completeness.