A history of painting (with dinosaurs) | Mark Witton

Ultimately, this is a book review, but it's a very good one that helps dissect the topic of where palaeoart fits in with the wider canon of art itself. It certainly gave me pause for thought on how even I (with a growing palaeoart collection) think about displaying and enjoying the medium.

On the snobbery and cultural conditioning of dinosaurs as "childish" and therefore not worthy of artistic expression (itself a quote from Lescaze 2017):

β€œThrow an engraving of an egret above the mantelpiece and no one balks. Hang a painting of a *T. rex* in the same spot, and the decision screams nerd stuck in second childhood.”

On the core question of the book and, arguably, of palaeoart itself:

And, more broadly, it asks why must art of dinosaurs be useful? Can it not be art for the sake of being art, or created purely for aesthetic value?

Explore Other Notes

Older ➑

What is utility-first CSS?

As acerbic and cutting a critique of utility-first CSS (andΒ that particular framework) as you would expect from Heydon, but hidden amongst the humour are some (also equally expected) jewels […]
  • Ultimately, this is a book review, but it's a very good one that helps dissect the topic of where palaeoart fits in with the wider canon of art itself. It certainly gave me pause for thought on how […]
  • Murray Adcock.
Journal permalink