Dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures

[Shinawi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94HloQOH9wY

[Gilfryd]

I'll throw this out there (mainly to Vertigo) - who are some of the best paleoartists working today?

[MrSpaceJockey]

I'm no expert but I love John Conway's work.

[Vertigo]

Yup, John Conway's great. A definitive modern palaeoartist - scientifically well-versed, multi-format, imaginative and prolific.

Spoiler

[close]

Doug Henderson. Not prolific (in terms of palaeoart at least), but a veteran who makes amazing use of lighting and atmosphere.

Spoiler

[close]

John Sibbick. Veteran palaeoartist with a vast body of work. You'll almost certainly have come across him at some point, his paintings are all over the Natural History Museum in London for example. Does skin textures better than anybody, peerless eye for fine detail.

Spoiler

[close]

John Gurche. Hasn't worked on dinosaurs for a long time as far as I know, sadly, but can illustrate life-like images with stunning use of shadow.

Spoiler

[close]

Brian Franczak. If you bought Jurassic Park toys in the early '90s, you might recognise his work from the cards that came with them. I don't know much about him, the most I can find is that he "dropped out of the business" by the millenium.

Spoiler

[close]

Wayne Barlowe. Brilliant fantasy artist who's made the occasional dabble into vibrant palaeoart. He worked as a concept designer on Avatar.

Spoiler

[close]

James Gurney. Might be the best. Jaw-droppingly talented classical painter who's been active for a long time, and combines skill with a depth of knowledge, so his illustrations are as accurate (for the time at least) as they are beautiful. He's best known as the writer/artist of the Dinotopia fantasy books (which anyone with the vaguest interest in the subject should have a copy of), and is still working in the field today.

Spoiler

[close]

Emily Willoughby. One of the most influential artists for maniraptoran illustrations, she has an academic mindset and a preference for emphasising their birdiness. About as accurate as you'll find anywhere, and another definitive modern palaeoartist.

Spoiler

[close]

Michael Skrepnick. One of the few who's in Sibbick's league for skin textures, but more vibrant and dynamic. A prolific and more-than-a-little-bit-awesome veteran.

Spoiler

[close]

Mauricio Anton. Best known for painting Cenozoic mammals, but he's been working for a while and has a varied body of work. His recent book Sabretooth comes highly recommended.

Spoiler

[close]

Mark Witton. Leading pterosaur palaeontologist, with a sideline in general Mesozoic palaeoart (I think he illustrates more dinosaurs than pterosaurs now). Very accurate (with a little reasonable speculation) and with great use of atmosphere. Hugely prolific, I recommend following him on Facebook.

Spoiler

[close]

Larry Felder. I don't know much about him to be honest, but his work speaks for itself.

Spoiler

[close]

Julio Lacerda. Realistic and gorgeous, very modern. Much of his available work is watermarked, sadly.

Spoiler

[close]

Andrey Atuchin. Another skilled modern palaeoartist.

Spoiler

[close]

Mark Hallett. One of those great '80s-90s artists you'll inevitably have come across. Doesn't have a website anymore.

Spoiler

[close]

Luis V. Rey. Specialises in lurid and bizarre reconstructions posed right-in-your-face. Kind of a love-him-or-hate-him artist, he illustrated Thomas Holtz's book. Personally, I really like his more toned-down stuff.

Spoiler

[close]

Julius Csotonyi. Astonishingly life-like digital paintings. Very prolific, but most of his online work is watermarked - best to get the book.

Spoiler

[close]

Gregory S. Paul. The most influential palaeoartist of the last 40 years. A key figure in the dinosaur revolution, and the main advisor on Jurassic Park. The field has arguably moved on from his style, which tends to present animals that are relatively shrink-wrapped to their skeletons, but his lithe, active dinosaurs are still spectacular. His book's worth reading, but he has some weird views on classification.

Spoiler

[close]

...But as you can probably tell from the size of the list, it's a VERY popular field! There are loads of great modern artists I haven't mentioned, like Matt Martyniuk (whose book on Mesozoic stem birds is essential reading), Niroot Puttapipat, Sydney Mohr, Davide Bonadonna, Todd Marshall, Kazuhiko Sano, Sergey Krasovskiy. Plus the classic artists that science has left a long way behind but artistry hasn't, like Charles R. Knight and Z. Burian.

[MrSpaceJockey]

Amazing post.

[Shinawi]

John Gurche. Hasn't worked on dinosaurs for a long time as far as I know, sadly, but can illustrate life-like images with stunning use of shadow.

Spoiler

[close]

I remember the colored version in a National Geographic magazine.

Plus the classic artists that science has left a long way behind but artistry hasn't, like Charles R. Knight and Z. Burian.

When I was a kid, the bookstores still had children's books that had their illustrations. Although the looks of their dinosaurs are a bit outdated, it still gives me warm old nostalgic feelings.

[Gilfryd]

*Sees art post*

Amazing post.

Absolutely! Thanks, Vertigo!

[OmegaZilla]

Very interesting article shedding some proper light on Deinosuchus.

Great read for Crocodile/Alligator enthusiasts like yours truly.

[DoomRulz]

Yup, John Conway's great. A definitive modern palaeoartist - scientifically well-versed, multi-format, imaginative and prolific.

Spoiler

[close]

Doug Henderson. Not prolific (in terms of palaeoart at least), but a veteran who makes amazing use of lighting and atmosphere.

Spoiler

[close]

John Sibbick. Veteran palaeoartist with a vast body of work. You'll almost certainly have come across him at some point, his paintings are all over the Natural History Museum in London for example. Does skin textures better than anybody, peerless eye for fine detail.

Spoiler

[close]

John Gurche. Hasn't worked on dinosaurs for a long time as far as I know, sadly, but can illustrate life-like images with stunning use of shadow.

Spoiler

[close]

Brian Franczak. If you bought Jurassic Park toys in the early '90s, you might recognise his work from the cards that came with them. I don't know much about him, the most I can find is that he "dropped out of the business" by the millenium.

Spoiler

[close]

Wayne Barlowe. Brilliant fantasy artist who's made the occasional dabble into vibrant palaeoart. He worked as a concept designer on Avatar.

Spoiler

[close]

James Gurney. Might be the best. Jaw-droppingly talented classical painter who's been active for a long time, and combines skill with a depth of knowledge, so his illustrations are as accurate (for the time at least) as they are beautiful. He's best known as the writer/artist of the Dinotopia fantasy books (which anyone with the vaguest interest in the subject should have a copy of), and is still working in the field today.

Spoiler

[close]

Emily Willoughby. One of the most influential artists for maniraptoran illustrations, she has an academic mindset and a preference for emphasising their birdiness. About as accurate as you'll find anywhere, and another definitive modern palaeoartist.

Spoiler

[close]

Michael Skrepnick. One of the few who's in Sibbick's league for skin textures, but more vibrant and dynamic. A prolific and more-than-a-little-bit-awesome veteran.

Spoiler

[close]

Mauricio Anton. Best known for painting Cenozoic mammals, but he's been working for a while and has a varied body of work. His recent book Sabretooth comes highly recommended.

Spoiler

[close]

Mark Witton. Leading pterosaur palaeontologist, with a sideline in general Mesozoic palaeoart (I think he illustrates more dinosaurs than pterosaurs now). Very accurate (with a little reasonable speculation) and with great use of atmosphere. Hugely prolific, I recommend following him on Facebook.

Spoiler

[close]

Larry Felder. I don't know much about him to be honest, but his work speaks for itself.

Spoiler

[close]

Julio Lacerda. Realistic and gorgeous, very modern. Much of his available work is watermarked, sadly.

Spoiler

[close]

Andrey Atuchin. Another skilled modern palaeoartist.

Spoiler

[close]

Mark Hallett. One of those great '80s-90s artists you'll inevitably have come across. Doesn't have a website anymore.

Spoiler

[close]

Luis V. Rey. Specialises in lurid and bizarre reconstructions posed right-in-your-face. Kind of a love-him-or-hate-him artist, he illustrated Thomas Holtz's book. Personally, I really like his more toned-down stuff.

Spoiler

[close]

Julius Csotonyi. Astonishingly life-like digital paintings. Very prolific, but most of his online work is watermarked - best to get the book.

Spoiler

[close]

Gregory S. Paul. The most influential palaeoartist of the last 40 years. A key figure in the dinosaur revolution, and the main advisor on Jurassic Park. The field has arguably moved on from his style, which tends to present animals that are relatively shrink-wrapped to their skeletons, but his lithe, active dinosaurs are still spectacular. His book's worth reading, but he has some weird views on classification.

Spoiler

[close]

...But as you can probably tell from the size of the list, it's a VERY popular field! There are loads of great modern artists I haven't mentioned, like Matt Martyniuk (whose book on Mesozoic stem birds is essential reading), Niroot Puttapipat, Sydney Mohr, Davide Bonadonna, Todd Marshall, Kazuhiko Sano, Sergey Krasovskiy. Plus the classic artists that science has left a long way behind but artistry hasn't, like Charles R. Knight and Z. Burian.

You bastard, how dare you leave out Danielle Dufault! She's an amazing Canadian talent (super nice too, I've met her). Look her up!

And where the heck are Raul Martin and Vlad Kostantinov? Or Scott freaking Hartman!!!! Dammit Vertigo, you're killing me here.

[Vertigo]

I know, I'm a terrible person. I'd fall on my sword out of shame, but the best equivalent I have is a megalodon tooth, which doesn't exactly scythe through giant hypercommunicative placentalians like it did a few million years ago.

The post would have spilled onto the next page if I'd listed every single decent palaeoartist though, so just listed some of the most prominent. I did think of Raul Martin at one point, but forgot again by the time I'd finished what I was doing. Scott Hartman's skeletal diagrams are absolutely essential, but he doesn't really do conventional palaeoart.



Just occurred to me the other day that every single dinosaur shown in Jurassic Park is now inaccurate, even allowing for size discrepancy (extreme variations of which do naturally occur), artistic licence (such as Tyrannosaurus' tweaked face, which is close enough to acceptably represent the genus) and speculative evolution (such as Dilophosaurus' venom and frill, which wouldn't preserve in most fossil deposits). Probably occurred to everyone else a lot sooner, but whatever...

- Brachiosaurus very likely had its nostrils near the end of the snout, with the head crest supporting a fleshy 'nose' that ran the length of its head.

- Triceratops had broad scales with central spiky nodules, but is probably the most accurate animal in the film.

All the theropods shouldn't have pronated wrists, but more specifically...

- Tyrannosaurus should have excellent vision: the "accuity based on movement" wasn't intended as speculative evolution, but was based on early (and flawed) studies of tyrannosaurid braincases. It may have had some degree of dinofuzz, but that's still a tricky subject. Hammond also states a slightly optimistic speed stat for rexy, but what we actually see in the film is verging on reasonable (given that the Jeep's stuck in first gear on a wet road carrying a lot of weight, and goes through a tree trunk...).

- Even ignoring the speculative venom and frill, and assuming it's a young animal, Dilophosaurus was wrong from the get-go due to its head shape. This is because it was based on initial restorations of the animal which used a generic megalosaurid skull, rather than the tapering coelophysoid skull it was known to have by the '70s.

- Gallimimus would have been fuzzy, probably with unscaled bare skin on the lower half.

- Velociraptor is notoriously wrong in a great many ways. Even if we assume the film portrays an Achillobator-sized Deinonychus species (as was the intention), the real thing would have a full coat, long feathers forming wings and a tail fan, probably used its claws for grip and/or stabbing rather than slicing (though this is only described rather than shown in the film), and was not fast at all (though again, this is only described, and even then as a hypothetical - actual speed in the film looks reasonable).


Oh! I just remembered, Parasaurolophus. It may have been doughier, but it's close enough, and is even shown as quadrupedal which was unusual at the time. Jurassic Park is saved, hooray.

[DoomRulz]

I know, I'm a terrible person. I'd fall on my sword out of shame, but the best equivalent I have is a megalodon tooth, which doesn't exactly scythe through giant hypercommunicative placentalians like it did a few million years ago.

The post would have spilled onto the next page if I'd listed every single decent palaeoartist though, so just listed some of the most prominent. I did think of Raul Martin at one point, but forgot again by the time I'd finished what I was doing. Scott Hartman's skeletal diagrams are absolutely essential, but he doesn't really do conventional palaeoart.

I am quite thrilled you mentioned John Sibbick. He's often overlooked, IMO.

Just occurred to me the other day that every single dinosaur shown in Jurassic Park is now inaccurate, even allowing for size discrepancy (extreme variations of which do naturally occur), artistic licence (such as Tyrannosaurus' tweaked face, which is close enough to acceptably represent the genus) and speculative evolution (such as Dilophosaurus' venom and frill, which wouldn't preserve in most fossil deposits). Probably occurred to everyone else a lot sooner, but whatever...

- Brachiosaurus very likely had its nostrils near the end of the snout, with the head crest supporting a fleshy 'nose' that ran the length of its head.

- Triceratops had broad scales with central spiky nodules, but is probably the most accurate animal in the film.

All the theropods shouldn't have pronated wrists, but more specifically...

- Tyrannosaurus should have excellent vision: the "accuity based on movement" wasn't intended as speculative evolution, but was based on early (and flawed) studies of tyrannosaurid braincases. It may have had some degree of dinofuzz, but that's still a tricky subject. Hammond also states a slightly optimistic speed stat for rexy, but what we actually see in the film is verging on reasonable (given that the Jeep's stuck in first gear on a wet road carrying a lot of weight, and goes through a tree trunk...).

- Even ignoring the speculative venom and frill, and assuming it's a young animal, Dilophosaurus was wrong from the get-go due to its head shape. This is because it was based on initial restorations of the animal which used a generic megalosaurid skull, rather than the tapering coelophysoid skull it was known to have by the '70s.

- Gallimimus would have been fuzzy, probably with unscaled bare skin on the lower half.

- Velociraptor is notoriously wrong in a great many ways. Even if we assume the film portrays an Achillobator-sized Deinonychus species (as was the intention), the real thing would have a full coat, long feathers forming wings and a tail fan, probably used its claws for grip and/or stabbing rather than slicing (though this is only described rather than shown in the film), and was not fast at all (though again, this is only described, and even then as a hypothetical - actual speed in the film looks reasonable).


Oh! I just remembered, Parasaurolophus. It may have been doughier, but it's close enough, and is even shown as quadrupedal which was unusual at the time. Jurassic Park is saved, hooray.

Are you seriously just noticing these?!

[Vertigo]

Individually no, but all together... Well, I don't watch it very often nowadays, having memorised pretty much every frame in the cinema as a 7-year-old.

[Ratchetcomand]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTIJc4j5F9c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94HloQOH9wY

Very cool. As a kid, I was surprise that there was a dinosaur named "Titanosaurs" because I remember a monster from the Godzilla series had that name.

[Born Of Cold Light]

Who here read these books as a little kid?

[Ratchetcomand]

They look familiar. I remember a 3D Dinosaur book that came with red & blue 3D glasses.