who are your favorite modern book paleo artists?

[Raptoress]

Larry Felder, loved his book I got for Christmas.

For paleoart, I don't like highly exaggerated features of either too bird-like or too reptilian, depending on the species of course. For me there needs to be a balance. They were very different animals, after all.

And thank you, Takama. I strive to get better with my paleoart all the time, I've taken a long and much needed break from drawing all together and look forward to my next paleoart projects soon. I'm open to anyone's suggestions, btw.

[tyrantqueen]

Gregory S. Paul, Julius Csotonyi, Larry Felder, John Conway, John Bindon, Robert Nicholls, Angie Rodrigues, Nima Sassani, and Sergey Krasovskiy.

[HD-man]

it's unpleasant from both a 'scientific' and an aesthetic perspective, and today looks overwhelmingly outdated.

In reference to "a 'scientific'...perspective" & "overwhelmingly outdated", how so? I ask b/c, last I checked, Rey's dinos are very well-researched (E.g. "That vividness is combined with a scientific rigour that is by no means universal in dinosaur art to give a new and exciting view of how dinosaurs may well have looked in life": http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/books/index.html#hr2007&gsc.tab=0 ).

I thought the feathers were way overdone.

How so?

Same goes for Mark Hallett. Jan Sovak also had a very cool style.

Hallett still does paleoart ( http://www.natureartists.com/mark_hallett.asp ). Also, I like Sovak's work aesthetically (I.e. His watercolors are very easy on the eyes), but not scientifically (E.g. His 2003 Troodon is basically Seguin's Troodon w/a tuft of head feathers: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DKTH7JKDL.jpg ).

I can't believe nobody's mentioned James Gurney - for my money, the finest painter working in paleoart today. Too many paleoartists have little grasp of the basic principles of color, composition, and storytelling. Burian and especially Charles Knight, among the old guard, were also painters first and paleoartists second, which is why their images became so iconic.

I agree w/the "Too many paleoartists" part. However, too many of those who are "painters first and paleoartists second" have the opposite problem (E.g. See the GSPaul quote).

Willoughby's obviously the go-to for maniraptorans in particular, you still see a lot of other artists being strangely sparse with the feathers - though that should change in time.

I also like the work of Martyniuk (another protobird expert)

Don't forget about Brougham ( http://jasonbrougham.com/ ). I especially like his work in Abramson et al.'s Inside Dinosaurs ( http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Dinosaurs-Andra-Serlin-Abramson/dp/140277074X ).

Gregory S. Paul, Julius Csotonyi, Larry Felder, John Conway, John Bindon, Robert Nicholls, Angie Rodrigues, Nima Sassani, and Sergey Krasovskiy.

Your new list is a little different from your old 1. What's changed since then? Just wondering.

Quoting GSPaul ( http://gspauldino.com/SciAmCharlesKnight.pdf ):

Knight used his vast knowledge of anatomy to make extinct forms appear so real that his viewers could easily believe he had seen them. This ability no doubt explains why his pictures continue to look plausible today. But this seeming realism was in some ways superficial. Although Knight sketched detailed musculoskeletal studies of living animals, he did not produce similar studies of dinosaurs-in part because skeletons reveal limited information about an animal's musculature. Instead Knight drew skeletal mounts, made rough sculptures or composed life restorations freehand-a tradition in which many dinosaur artists have followed.
One particular anatomical convention that Knight practiced perplexed me when I was a budding dinosaur artist in the late 1960s-back in the days before the idea that dinosaurs were energetic had gained any popularity. I knew that dinosaurs were considered to be reptiles and that lizards and crocodilians have narrow thigh muscles attached to small hips. Consistent with this theory, Knight made his dinosaurs with narrow, reptilelike thighs. Yet looking at skeletons, I thought that dinosaurs seemed to be built more like birds and mammals, with large hips anchoring broad thigh muscles. What was a teenage dino-artist to do? I copied my hero Knight, even though Alfred S. Romer, the esteemed vertebrate paleontologist of Harvard, had correctly depicted big-hipped dinosaurs with broad, birdlike thigh muscles in his classic 1920s studies of the evolution of tetrapod musculature. The paradox was resolved in the 1970s, when the new hypothesis that dinosaurs were "warm-blooded" at last emerged. An animal having broad hips and large thigh muscles would need to have an aerobic system capable of sustaining high levels of activity for extended periods.

[Silvanusaurus]

it's unpleasant from both a 'scientific' and an aesthetic perspective, and today looks overwhelmingly outdated.

In reference to "a 'scientific'...perspective" & "overwhelmingly outdated", how so? I ask b/c, last I checked, Rey's dinos are very well-researched (E.g. "That vividness is combined with a scientific rigour that is by no means universal in dinosaur art to give a new and exciting view of how dinosaurs may well have looked in life": http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/books/index.html#hr2007&gsc.tab=0 ).

Well to answer your question; I'm not criticizing his depiction of general anatomy or skeletal accuracy, but the detailing and 'external' characteristics he applies to his dinosaurs make them appear wholly and startlingly un-natural, more akin to imagery generally used to depict alien life-forms from other planets (in a way that was acceptable in the 80's). They are very unpleasantly shrink-wrapped most of the time, the examples I've seen of his feathered dinosaurs exhibit very awkwardly and superficially applied feathers that often look glued on rather than a natural integuement of the animal, and alot of his dinosaur depictions also seem to emphasize the look of thoroughly plucked, and thus naked poultry, usually flailing around in what looks like some kind of rage-induced madness, rather than creatures in a natural state of existence. All of this combined with a use of almost neon colouring combine to create images that to me, appear to be some of the furthest away from "how dinosaurs may well have looked in life" that I have ever seen. It is a very distinct style, I'll give him that, and it's great if people like it, but at a time when we are gaining so much more understanding of dinosaurs as actual animals that actually existed in essentially the same world in which we do, and not as perpetually vicious, fleshless, and horrifying space dragons, his work, as I said, looks overwhelmingly outdated.

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, I find most of Rey's work garish. It would work better for dinosaur-themed comic books than anything else.

I'm fond of the work Julius Csotonyi, Emily Willoughby, Greg Paul, and David Peters (and I know the latter has his justifiable detractors, but Peters's Gallery was a phenomenal piece of work, complete with a feathered Deinonychus). One to watch out for might be Allison Johnson (http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/73756.php?from=268471), who mostly does extant birds but should be talked into doing more paleo stuff. Some of the names people have given are new to me and I look forward to checking out their work.

[JurassicGeek09]

I thought the feathers were way overdone.

How so?

I thought I was looking at an actual bird vs a dinosaur. I know birds are dinosaurs but it looked OTT to me.

[Patrx]

I thought the feathers were way overdone.

How so?

I thought I was looking at an actual bird vs a dinosaur. I know birds are dinosaurs but it looked OTT to me.

One thing I've learned by reading about dromaeosaur reconstructions is, there's really no such thing as "too  birdlike" unless one literally illustrates them without their teeth 

[Newt]

Quoting GSPaul ( http://gspauldino.com/SciAmCharlesKnight.pdf ):

Knight used his vast knowledge of anatomy to make extinct forms appear so real that his viewers could easily believe he had seen them. This ability no doubt explains why his pictures continue to look plausible today. But this seeming realism was in some ways superficial. Although Knight sketched detailed musculoskeletal studies of living animals, he did not produce similar studies of dinosaurs-in part because skeletons reveal limited information about an animal's musculature. Instead Knight drew skeletal mounts, made rough sculptures or composed life restorations freehand-a tradition in which many dinosaur artists have followed.
One particular anatomical convention that Knight practiced perplexed me when I was a budding dinosaur artist in the late 1960s-back in the days before the idea that dinosaurs were energetic had gained any popularity. I knew that dinosaurs were considered to be reptiles and that lizards and crocodilians have narrow thigh muscles attached to small hips. Consistent with this theory, Knight made his dinosaurs with narrow, reptilelike thighs. Yet looking at skeletons, I thought that dinosaurs seemed to be built more like birds and mammals, with large hips anchoring broad thigh muscles. What was a teenage dino-artist to do? I copied my hero Knight, even though Alfred S. Romer, the esteemed vertebrate paleontologist of Harvard, had correctly depicted big-hipped dinosaurs with broad, birdlike thigh muscles in his classic 1920s studies of the evolution of tetrapod musculature. The paradox was resolved in the 1970s, when the new hypothesis that dinosaurs were "warm-blooded" at last emerged. An animal having broad hips and large thigh muscles would need to have an aerobic system capable of sustaining high levels of activity for extended periods.

[/quote]

In defense of Knight - in his dinosaur reconstructions he was following the advice of paleontologists, particularly Henry Fairfield Osborne, and occasionally Edward Cope. Knight himself had a great observational knowledge of the anatomy of living animals - he spent a great deal of time drawing animals from life and helped museum taxidermists with dissections - but he was not a trained comparative anatomist (or for that matter a trained painter - he was self-taught).

It's true that Knight's reconstructions now look outdated, but he can hardly be faulted for not predicting all the advances in the field. The work by Romer that Paul refers to postdates Knight's classic reconstructions. I'm sure that, if Knight were working today, he would be on top of the latest advances in interpretation of the anatomy of extinct animals, and would also be producing works that just flat looked better than almost anyone else's.

[JurassicGeek09]

I thought the feathers were way overdone.

How so?

I thought I was looking at an actual bird vs a dinosaur. I know birds are dinosaurs but it looked OTT to me.

One thing I've learned by reading about dromaeosaur reconstructions is, there's really no such thing as "too  birdlike" unless one literally illustrates them without their teeth 

http://emilywilloughby.com/gallery/paleoart/dakotaraptor-s-ornithomimus-dinner

That's not "too birdlike"?

[Patrx]

http://emilywilloughby.com/gallery/paleoart/dakotaraptor-s-ornithomimus-dinner

That's not "too birdlike"?

Nope, certainly not! Not as far as scientific accuracy goes, anyway; it's probably as close to resembling the real deal as possible with the available data. Aesthetically speaking is another matter, of course, and entirely subjective 

Don't forget about Brougham ( http://jasonbrougham.com/ ). I especially like his work in Abramson et al.'s Inside Dinosaurs ( http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Dinosaurs-Andra-Serlin-Abramson/dp/140277074X ).

That's the first I've heard of him, thanks for the links! I'd also forgotten about two other talented artists, Chris Masnaghetti and Adrian Wimmer.

[HD-man]

Well to answer your question; I'm not criticizing his depiction of general anatomy or skeletal accuracy, but the detailing and 'external' characteristics he applies to his dinosaurs make them appear wholly and startlingly un-natural, more akin to imagery generally used to depict alien life-forms from other planets (in a way that was acceptable in the 80's).

Fair enough.

That's the first I've heard of him, thanks for the links!

Anytime!

who are your favorite modern (active during the past 20-25 years) paleo artists? also discuss the books they've illustrated in.

Kokoro, Sibbick, Skrepnick, & Csotonyi are some of my favorite paleoartists. I especially like their work in Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs ( http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ), Bakker's Raptor Pack ( http://www.amazon.com/Raptor-Pack-Step-into-Reading-Step-5/dp/0375823034 ), Sampson's Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life ( http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaur-Odyssey-Fossil-Threads-Life/dp/0520269896 ), & Stewart's Why Did T. rex Have Short Arms?: And Other Questions about Dinosaurs (which is the only reason to get this otherwise not-so-good book: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Did-Have-Short-Arms/dp/1454906782 ).

https://yooniqimages.blob.core.windows.net/yooniqimages-data-storage-resizedimagefilerepository/Detail/10227/c69d03b5-deb5-4b98-b7ba-fd74cf240b74/YooniqImages_102279074.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loyu4aRmR91qmokero1_500.jpg

https://www.q-files.com/images/pages/galleries/1064/p18hq0bm8l5qdu5fua1nnk1tsp26.jpg

https://www.q-files.com/images/pages/galleries/592/archaeopteryx-5.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/61/f4/eb/61f4eba5817fea9185eb61c98501d2ed.jpg

http://media.nhbs.com/jackets/jackets_resizer_xlarge/21/214749_1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-orNB2eFCEHc/VEVjYVtlzjI/AAAAAAAAHkc/K054zBd6io4/s1600/Why%2BDoes%2BT-Rx%2BHave%2BSuch%2BShort%2BArms_5.jpg

[Gwangi]

I thought the feathers were way overdone.

How so?

I thought I was looking at an actual bird vs a dinosaur. I know birds are dinosaurs but it looked OTT to me.

One thing I've learned by reading about dromaeosaur reconstructions is, there's really no such thing as "too  birdlike" unless one literally illustrates them without their teeth 

http://emilywilloughby.com/gallery/paleoart/dakotaraptor-s-ornithomimus-dinner

That's not "too birdlike"?

With Patrx on this one. I don't know what people expect a feathered animal should look like if not like a bird.

[JurassicGeek09]

It still looks saurian. It doesn't look like a totally different animal.

[Patrx]

Aha, that's Gabriel Lio's old reconstruction of Troodon formosus I don't care much for it, but you might be interested in checking out his blog. He maintains a distinctly '90s style.

[Takama]

Thing is Birds are Dinosaurs, and there closest relatives are Dromeosaurs and Troodonts (the latter may or may not be just birds themselves from what i read in past forum posts), so they will look very bird like, no matter if the general public likes it or not.

[Gwangi]

The way I figure it there is only one way to reconstruct an extinct animal with feathers accurately and that's by looking at feathered animals that are still around. So if birds have feathers than it stands to reason that feathered dinosaurs looked like birds. I can't imagine they would look like lizards dressed up in bird costumes. That doesn't seem realistic. Gabriel Lio's Troodon picture is quite old, I remember running across his work probably a decade ago if not longer. I like his style but mostly for the retro appeal.

Like Takama said, dromeosaurs and Troodontids were as close to being a bird as you could get without actually being classified as birds. Basically, they're birds and they're going to look a heck of a lot more like a bird than any other animal. I dare say if you saw one alive today you probably wouldn't be anymore impressed with a Velociraptor than you would any other mid-sized bird and it would no doubt be classified as a bird too. I'm not trying to argue about it because we don't know what non-bird dinosaurs actually looked like and art is subjective, just sharing my take on the issue. I think a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their head around the notion that birds are dinosaurs, and that some dinosaurs would have looked like birds. It's easy to say it, harder to visualize.

Gabriel Lio's Elasmosaurus says enough about his style.

[HD-man]

It still looks saurian. It doesn't look like a totally different animal.

Part of the reason it looks the way it does is that it's shrink-wrapped: http://albertonykus.blogspot.com/2011/06/maniraptor-feathers-part-vi-lizard.html

[Libraraptor]

Douglas Henderson, John Sibbick and Mark Hallet  to me personally are the most important ones.  They did the first pictures of prehistoric worlds I faced, my first travel guards to prehistory, if you like.

[Gwangi]

Douglas Henderson, John Sibbick and Mark Hallet  to me personally are the most important ones.  They did the first pictures of prehistoric worlds I faced, my first travel guards to prehistory, if you like.

I feel similarly, particularly about Mark Hallet and especially about Doug Henderson but I feel like I probably said as much in this thread back when it was initially started. Greg Paul is up there too and I also like Julius Csotonyi, Raul Martin, Mauricio Anton, William Stout, and John Gurche. Not a big fan of Luis Rey I must admit.

[suspsy]

I can see why some people don't like Rey's style, but I love it. It's bright, dynamic, and sometimes wonderfully weird. Rey's clearly having the time of his life with his art, and no one can fault him for that.