Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK
That's your argument? Then I think you simply have a misunderstanding of the term:

"In summary, artistic license is:

* Entirely at the artist's discretion

* Intended to be tolerated by the viewer (cf. "willing suspension of disbelief")[3]

* Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be factual, compositional, historical or other gaps[4]

* Used consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally or in tandem[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license (Emphasis added)

The elements I referred to from the forensic reconstructions (which are sculptures, and hence, art) meet all those criteria. They are created by forensic artists, and the elements which use license are at the artist's discretion, as we can see from the varying reconstructions they come up with. There is an assumption that we will tolerate such variations. The variations are due to the license that the artists use to fill in gaps in our knowledge of the specimens. Criteria #4 is silly, since it's impossible to fail, so they meet that as well.

18 posted on 01/20/2015 8:17:37 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman
Boogieman: "* Entirely at the artist's discretion..."

But that's exactly my point: nothing in those reconstructions is "entirely at the artist's discretion."
Instead, everything must be justified by our best scientific understandings of what those features were.

Boogieman: "* Intended to be tolerated by the viewer..."

No, exactly the opposite: the artists work is intended to be reviewed, inspected and approved by the most knowledgeable scientific minds available.
In that sense, they're like police lab forensic artists -- no deviations from known facts can be tolerated, period.

Boogieman: "* Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be factual, compositional, historical or other gaps[4]"

Sure, however the rule is not "anything goes", but rather: where precise facts are not known, use the most likely estimates available, subject to scientific review & approval.

Bottom line here: you are using that term "artistic license" to discredit their work, implying it's nothing more than wild imaginations.
I'm merely saying that by necessity, everything the artists do must conform to the best available evidence, and is subject to scientific review & approval.

So what, exactly, is your problem with that, FRiend?

19 posted on 01/21/2015 10:02:49 AM PST by BroJoeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson