Never mind Gould, look at Audubon - who preceded him - for brilliant bird
art. His images, often gawky but brilliantly composed, capture birds as
they really look, in action - not the pretty, boring poses seen in much
modern bird art. And all this done back in the in the 1830s before artists
could fall back on the camera to stop the action to verify how things
"really" look. See for example
http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/audubon1.htm
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Peter Shute
Sent: Friday, 29 June 2007 10:02 AM
To: Tony Russell; Evan Beaver
Cc: Birding Aus
Subject: Bird prints - who was Gould?
wrote on Friday, 29 June 2007 9:16 AM:
> I always think that collecting Gould pictures is a bit like
> collecting antique furniture. Sure, he was a ground breaker
> and did some good work, but you can get better images with a
> not too expensive digital camera. :)>>>
Especially the ones he never actually saw. From the article:
"This yellow-tailed cockatoo was illustrated in the 1790s. It is an
inaccurate representation because it was drawn from a skin brought back
from Australia."
I always wondered why some of the pictures looked weird - too skinny or
too fat, etc. I expect that's why.
Peter Shute
==========www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===========
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
