I thought after my last journal, I should clarify my position on the whole GSP dealy.

I think his statements on the extent of his copyrights are just wrong. Hilariously wrong.

On the other hand, I think his statements about his grandiose position in palaeontological art are true, especially if we consider dinosaurs. His influence is vast, as an excursion into the galleries of nearly all of you will attest. I even think the he is more influential, and better, than Charles Knight (gasp!).

I've never understood this reverence for Knight. It's like every time he's mentioned, we have to reaffirm him being the best palaeoartist of all time hallowedbehisnameamen. Horseshit. Knight sometimes drew living animals and mammals very carefully, but he was frequently lazy and cartoonish with his dinosaurs. As for his painting prowess, yeah sure the guy could paint, but compared to his influences in the late nineteenth century he was--at best--dull. He had a mediocre feeling for light, fussy uninspired brushwork, sometimes awkward posing, and very conventional compositions. Not that he didn't have him moments, but Greg's claim to be his equal or better is certainly plausible.*

So, yes, I think Grey can be silly, but making fun of his hubris flies in the face of how most of us have approached this whole palaeontology thing. Yes, he's an arrogant fuck. But shit, so what?


*To continue on the theme of Knight bashing, I think Doug Henderson is clearly better than him too.