So I just noticed that after recently posting a bunch of skeletals (buy 'a bunch' I mean three) after a year-long hiatus it seems that people pay attention to each new skeletal less than they did to the preceeding skeletal, which means that in order for me to be more popular, I must post fewer works. PErhaps I might even get a 'daily deviation' if I don't post anything at all!

So I made the vast majority of my work here available as prints, with the exception of screenshots, IDs, and one Anurognathus skeletal reconstruction that was in a GIF format and not allowed. Some older oned are only available as 4×6 prints, but most of my newer ones, especially my skeletal reconstructions, are available on a much larger scale. So anyway, I command you to buy them. Also, I know the discoverer of Raeticodactylus has been wanting a print of my reconstruction of that particular pterosaur, so here it is at long last.

In recent days I've come up with a couple ideas for new artworks to make. This time around they are not palaeontographical subjects and are unrelated to such things in every way. It will still probably be a while before I get back to palaeo, I can still see myself returning to something more than just skeletals, but for the moment I still feel a certain bitterness about "palaeo-art" that is keeping my at bay, but one day I'll probably return and, as John said, try to "make palaeontography something worthwhile again". It is good to see that people appreciate what I have produced in that genre. Anyway, I'm considering getting back to the artistic pursuits as I have some ideas sloshing through my head for several things I want to make. I have been wondering if I should go with digital painting as the means of production, or if I should go with physical, brush-and-paint-type painting. On the one hand, I could work up a digital painting much quicker and avoid mistakes easier, plus I would actually have a physical painting with me, which in my opinion lends a little degree of respect to the work (though admittedly it doesn't matter much because quality does not rely on whether a painting exists in a physical or a digital form) and I don't have to worry about pixellation in the fine details. Additionally, there is the fact that aside from pencil, I have done little in other physical media. The last time I painted anything in an artistic context was over seven years ago. So, overall I think I am more familiar in using a digital medium. Also, it would take me a while to get everything I would need for making said physical work of art. So yeh…

So it seems that the people running this thing are becoming an even bigger bunch of prudish wankers than they used to be. Suddenly only people who are 18 years old or older can join, and while I have little fondness for this place, I can certainly say I was not 18 when I first subscribed, and I do hope they don't start persecuting others such as me, though given their disposition to idiocy here, I wouldn't be surprised of that. I suspect it has something to do with so-called "mature content", and I say that is one of the most stupid concepts developed by society. It echoes Mediaeval prudishness and shame of the body. I say that the body is nothing to be ashamed of and it should be noted some ancient peoples, like those often frighteningly clever Greeks, admired the body as it was and made some spectacular statues depicting the un-accessorised human form, and many astoundingly brilliant Renaissance artists followed suit.
I guess if Michelangelo were around today, a great part of his work would be called "mature content". Actually, that almost happened to him when a priest complained about his use of nudes in his paintings. Michelangelo responded by painting said priest nude, in Hell, with donkey's ears, and a snake biting his nether parts*. I do thusly to the people running this site.
Now, there is also the problem of weenie kids coming here and posting excrement on their pages and swiftly being made fun of and I can see them being pandered to by some site administration. Now, no matter how I detest these weenies, I oppose any measure to kick other people off this site for them, or kicking them off because they were offended. Either way things work, it is stupid, somebody, somewhere, will be offended by something stupid, that is just how ridiculous people get to be but I don't think it is a reason to censor anything or to keep people from registering to an art site.
To conclude, there are too many pillocks making too many decisions that they shouldn't be put in a position to make; the outcome is nauseating at best, infuriating at almost best, and outright grotesque at... err... mediocre.

I suspect I may be banned for this. If that is the case it will only make the people running this clown show of unenlightened brutes, prudes, and Facscists even worse.

*I have had the fortune of seeing that image in person, it is in the Sistine Chapel, in Michelangelo's "Last Judgement".

Tagged by *jconway

1. Palaeontologists I have met: Gregory Paul, Robert Bakker (I even have a signed marker sketch of a Leptoceratops that he once drew), John Horner, S. Christopher Bennett (not really met, he never talks to anybody when he is not giving a presentation, but I did see him give a presentation, which is as close as I could get to talking to him), Dave Peters (not a palaeontologist, but included here because he has a habit of annoying actual palaeontologists, which is generally only something palaeontologists do to each other), Phil Currie, Luis Chiappe, Michael Carr (see the note for Bennett, though Carr is not as reserved, he prefers to talk to other palaeontologists), and a few more who are generally unfamiliar to those more interested in Mesozoic archosaurs.

2. My list of palaeontologists I have met is probably ten times smaller than what several other people here could write.

3. I have an evil plan to move to a more civilised country, but I haven't decided what more civilised country I should move to. I primarily blame indecisiveness.

4. I haven't drawn anything by hand worth posting in two years. My more recent work has primarily been vector. I have tried to make vector work that is not a diagramme, but than I look at *nyctopterus's work and wonder why I bother. So I stick to skeletals.

5. I've been growing Thomas Huxley-style sideburns [link] in recent times, but whenever I get a haircut the people always trim them to look like normal long sideburns, as is the style today, even if I explain that I want them to be atypically bushy.

6. I have a masochistic tendency to throw myself into other people's debates at bad times or bring up "controversial" topics that people with more tact never dream of bringing up in conversation. It has brought me countless enemies. This is all said in a very positive tone.

7. Among a good number of other magic tricks I have perfected over the years, mostly out of boredom, I can make a toothpick disappear and reappear, which means I could qualify as a wizard in Florida. I also can bend spoons, which means I could qualify as a psychic. Both are rather simple but I'm more interested in the first option than the second, I think wizards are a bit more reputable.

8. I once worked at a museum cataloguing mini-blobsters from Mazon Creek. I had a strong desire to just write "blobster" on all the labels, excepting the ones that I could tell what they were. Eventually I figured out what all of them were and the impulse to label all of them as blobsters lessened. I still want to go over there and quickly finish my work on the yet uncatalogued specimens so that I may fool a palaeontologist working on Mazon Creek fossils into thinking that "Blobster hansonii" is a valid species.


I tag ~bensen-daniel, *dustdevil and ~little-al.