- I prefer facts! Keep the animal scientifically accurate!
- I’m okay with a little artistic license! Make the animal a little more engaging than real life!
0
voters
2 Likes
By making an eye-catching mural that’s a bit more engaging than real life, you’re sparking engagement with nature! But are you also creating false expectations? 
Moved this to Nature Talk. Please remember that General is only for discussions about iNaturalist.
1 Like
I’m so tired of the Disneyfication of nature. Keep it real.
13 Likes
Is your mural drawn art or is it photo montage?
Is it to be art to be appreciated as art, enjoyed as visual stimulation?
Is it to be educational?
Art is subjective.
7 Likes
I’m ok with “a little artistic license” for artistic reasons, but I object to the idea that it necessarily makes - or is necessary to make - nature “more engaging.”
3 Likes
I really like how they did it in the Nemo movies. Most characters you can identify to species even though they are humanized; it felt like a good balance. For example, in the second one they didn’t give the octopus a mouth (thank goodness) but instead used creative way of using his tentacles as a mouth to form words. I also thought this was really creative
8 Likes
Could you give a specific example?
I can easily think of good and bad examples in the entertainment industry of nature being too unrealistic. My example was a cartoon but I don’t think anyone really expects them to be realistic (I just liked the creativity) but when sci-fi mess it up it just feels wrong.
A nature mural though… How much can you really mess that up before it’s not a nature mural?
I’m a bonsai enthusiast and the most basic concept in bonsai is to make a 1ft tall tree look like a perfect image of a 100ft tall tree. However, maybe only half of the trees I see at shows actually look realistic. Most of them look like a majestic or tortured tree from the lord of the rings. It’s completely possible for a tree like that to exist, you just almost never see one and when you do it’s usually 20ft tall, not 200.
If a mural captures an improbably majestic scene, id imagine it’d still be naturally possible. Just improbable.
1 Like
Jacob,
Here is what happened!
My friend, who is an incredibly talented mural artist, shared her image for an upcoming mural. The mural featured a vibrant toad.
I jumped in, sending her several iNaturalist range maps, and pointing out that the toad in the mural wasn’t quite true-to-life for the area. She mentioned artistic license, and it got me thinking about the classic iNaturalist debate: engagement versus data accuracy!
Initially, I considered sharing this story in the post, but I decided against it, in order to keep the poll more relatable for everyone. After all, many of us have probably seen various types of media that take a little creative liberty with nature! Plus, it ties into our recent discussions about AI images.
Is her mural intended as art?
Or for information about nature?
If the picture is a real toad, then the context should be true.
1 Like
A mural is art. Let it be artistic, not illustrative. Illustrations are for textbooks, field guides, and the like.
5 Likes
It depends what “facts” you’re referring to. I’m okay with animals looking slightly unrealistic, as long as it’s close, but I’d prefer the overall scene to be possible (i.e. animals and plants that all occur in the same locale).
1 Like
Update:
I got permission from the artist to share some photos. The location is Creston BC, on the wild chance that you happen to live nearby! 
First image (the CONCEPT for the mural, that prompted this post):
Second image (the revised, toned-down frog, after I “ruined it for everyone” with iNat range maps):
The artist said, “I call her princess frog — a character from a Russian fairytale. She turned into a beautiful girl after she was kissed by a prince. I’m thinking of putting a cute golden crown on her head!”
5 Likes
I’m all for artistic expression, but I actually like the second frog here so much better!
5 Likes
When I say I prefer facts over fantasy for nature murals this is what I mean. This is a mural on our local coffee shop. The markings on the whales accurately reflect individual named whales. The lighthouse and island in the background are real. There is even an explanatory plaque that gives interested viewers a chance to learn more. Our world is amazing. We don’t need fantasy.
8 Likes
I totally agree! It’s beautiful! The first one is also great art, but doesn’t appeal to me as much.
1 Like
Disneyfication isn’t the only way to stylize nature, it can be done in a tasteful and science-friendly way too
7 Likes
I like this. It might be stylized but it isn’t fantasy.
1 Like
It depends on the context, but usually I prefer it accurate. Or at least so accurate that it would be identifiable. IMO, the animals by themselves are already way cooler than could be achieved by fantasy-fying them.
I think a good way to make it more engaging would be keeping the anatomy accurate, but exaggerating the poses. However, as someone who likes to draw and paint, I know how difficult accurate realistic depictions are.
4 Likes
The other side of the coin is that a realistic portrait of a parasitoid fungus with its host would not be appreciated as the subject of a public mural. As naturalists, we are aware of the gruesome side of nature (hence the “Naturalists ruin everything” thread), but much of the general public would be put off by that. Think of a mural of vultures soaring magnificently vs. a mural of vultures picking over a cow carcass.
4 Likes