Update:
4 Likes
I do kind of think accuracy is important… the real world is engaging enough without embellishments! I gave a talk at a grade school once about insects, and to engage the students I brought examples (from the Rutgers collection) of the largest insects in the collection. One of the kids remarked “They’re so SMALL!”. His expectations of reality were already skewed. He was expecting giant monsters, I guess, from what he’d seen in fantasy art/books/movies. 
4 Likes
I remember seeing various species of antelopes in a zoo and wondering why they were so small. I had assumed they were all the size of a white-tailed deer.
1 Like
To me, I prefer when they are stylized, but still keep the appropriate features that make them that species, much like bonesigh’s Finding Nemo example. Not everything has to be hyper realistic.
2 Likes
Let art be art and nature be nature.
I think the problem comes when you prioritize art and then pretend it’s naturally realistic.
If you’re going to paint a nurture mural that looks realistic then it should BE realistic. If you’re painting art inspired by nature but want to add some creativity to it, have fun! Just don’t pretend it’s realistic. Yes, nature has intrinsic beauty that is more than sufficient to stand on its own merit, but does that make it desecration to deviate from it? Maybe sometimes, but I’d say generally not.
Anyone remember these? I love these. I’d count every fish in the school and every barnacle on the rock. Actually you can see where I wrote some of them down!
This seems to blur the lines between being artistic and naturalistic. Maybe that’s cause the artist had a B.S. in scientific illustration!
3 Likes
The toes on the frog from the first image look suspiciously like human fingers.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.