[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: survey

Jim Farlow wrote:

<1)  How important is color art to you when you
consider a book? Are you more likely to buy a book
with color art than a comparable book without it, if
their costs are comparable?>

  Okay, I can go for purity's sake and say the
appropriate Vulcan thing: "Color is irrelevant to the
data. Exclude it as it lacks function to the intent."
I would think this, really. However, I like color.
Very much. Am addicted to it. Hate bland things, even
pastels (too faded), and like bright and bold.
Unfortunately, when I see color spreads in some books,
such as Complete Dino, I admire the use, but don't
really see the point unless there is an intent to use
color to make one. In _Dinos Past and Present_ this
was a data book with color because it showcased an
exhibit of art, and art's use in dino-paleo. So my
answer would be "Use it, but in context." Yeah, I'm
"devil's advocate" here too, just so's you think I'm
not color-blind.

<2)  Is color art important enough to you that you are
willing to spend $10-20 or so more for the book to get
color than you would have to pay if the book were just
black and white?>

  $10 or more? Maybe, if it was qualitive work.
Depends more on the book. Something like Lessem and
Glut comes out again splashed with color, _maybe_ I'll
look at it ... I purchased a bargain tome of it only
for Greg Paul's and Tracy Ford's and Brian Franczak's
work that was in there.

<3)  At what price does the cost of a book become a
prohibitive factor in your decision about whether to
buy it?>

  More than $30-35. But again, a book like _Dinosaurs:
the Encyclopedia_ I would save up for in spite of the
jaw-dropping price. Of course, then, I'm lucky: I got
the _Encylcopedia of Dinosaurs_ brand new and only 5
months old for a grand total of $6 bucks [there was a
short contract and a needle involved, but that's
another story].
<4)  How important is _NEW_ art in your decision to
buy a book? Are you more likely to buy a paleo book if
it includes reconstructions and restorations that you
have not seen before?>

  There are some artists (and I know art from
well-known artists) that I've not seen before that
would probably take a "Walking Billboards: Art in
Reconstructing Ancient Wildlife" with a
Attenborough-written narrative. Paleoart as an
instrument of data transfer is a topic that might
generate a _lot_ of material and topics to publish.
Art in reconstruction of bones (ink vs. pencil?),
styles (stippling, lines, pencil, outlines),
historical use of bones (those magnificent spreads
Marsh and Cope and Lull used, lithographs, etc., as
well as Heilmann's two-pager of the Berlin specimen of
Archie.... it makes my mouth _water_....) could all be
great ways of introducing artists or restorers (even
preparers of mounts, the Czerkas endeavour of
life-like models from skin-impressions, etc.) not
broadly presented. Each museum could have a part on
presentation of its materials and how this used, and
this would introduce the various topics of _in museo,
pseudo vitae_ that places like the AMNH, Penn, RTMP,
are all being praised for one way or another. Photos
from the best in the buiz (including Psihoyos et al.)
as well as amateurs could be featured. And I could go
on. New is good, for many reasons. Old is also good,
on many levels. So, joy! And let Life be Merrie!

  Well that's my imaginitive writing for today, time
to wonder why I spent two consecutive periods of 48
hours-strait awake.... Oh, yeah, articulating bones
and hypotheses, and reasons not to scream at myself....

Jaime "James" A. Headden

  Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
  fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
  they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
  spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!