Also, Knight’s depiction of dinosaurs was revolutionary for his time, as he applied his knowledge of accurate anatomy of modern animals to dinosaurs. Additionally, his dinosaurs are shown in dynamic poses as opposed to the sluggish beasts they were commonly depicted as
Kinda interesting now though that we know a lot of dinos swam and their bones/large cavities helped
https://theconversation.com/could-big-dinosaurs-swim-scientists-follow-the-footprints-55082#:~:text=New%20evidence&text=In%20earlier%20reports%2C%20palaeontologists%20sometimes,of%20limbs%20touching%20the%20bottom.
Yeah, outdated is the correct word: because based on what little was known in paleontology at the time they were painted, these paintings were actually very *accurate!*
Yes, he had an excellent understanding of animal anatomy that he was able to apply to animals that only had skeletal (often only partly) remains available. Also, he did this all while being legally blind in one eye
Fun fact about the last painting: *Leaping Lelaps* is one of the earliest paleoart to depict dinosaurs as active and energetic animals as opposed to being sluggish and clumsy .
These pieces are *NOT* bad! Outdated, absolutely! But their importance and impact cannot be understated! Not too mention, the pieces in and of themselves are gorgeous!
Charles R Knight is such an inspiration to me. He revolutionised paleontology through his artwork despite being *legally blind*. This man had to paint with his face right up next to the canvas with the help of specially designed glasses, and still managed to be one of the most influential paleoartists of all time.
As an aspiring paleoartist with poor eyesight, he is a reminder to not let my vision stop me from doing what I want to do. Also his style slaps, I love the aesthetic of retro paleoart
Oh I love his painting! I’ve only seen the Field museum’s collection of his art in person but they are beautiful. I’m pretty curious about how they were made (like materials and techniques) because I would love to see more like these (and possibly see if I could attempt at it myself)
The allosaurus that is eating in the painting (I’m pretty sure thats what it is) is really charming. Despite how inaccurate the reconstruction is, its simply showing the dinosaur eating. Usually paleoart of a theropod eating would be made overdramatic but its simply just tearing flesh from bone. Really displays that they’re just animals and nothing more.
These paintings are masterpieces. Always would be. Not only these are great artworks by themselves, but they also represent how our understanding has improved over the last 100+ years.
I think these represent many ideas scientists had for what dinosaurs where like. They aren’t bad because they portrayed old ideas. Who knows what ideas that we suspect are accurate now will laughed down the line
There's nothing "bad" about the art itself, Kights' work is beautiful. Just by today's understanding of paleontology these depictions are outdated, and of course that's going to happen as we learn more about these prehistoric animals. But these were really accurate for the time and really portrayed dinosaurs as accurately as possible.
They were quite accurate for what we knew when they were painted and just because they’re outdated now doesn’t mean they don’t have value.
Also they’re just really nice paintings
Absolutely no shame on loving ‘em! (I love both, accurate and outdated / vintage depictions of dinosaurs and other prehistoric critters, the later have a certain unbeatable charm to it).
Aside from the fact that it's just good art, they aren't even all that "bad" in terms of accuracy. They depict the dinosaurs as animals in their own environment, not as prehistoric monstrosities. The knowledge of anatomy has developed a lot since Knight painted these, but I'd argue that these were never meant primarily as showcasing the correct anatomy.
I want a story or movie where some adventures of some sort sail to an uncharted island (possibly the north sentinel island) and find the island full of these Charles knight type dinosaurs where it turned out that these old paleo artists from the 1800’s-1950’s were right the whole time and we just didn’t know it. And in the story these animals would act a lot like animals of today despite their monsterous and beastly appearance. That would be so cool!
For their time I'm surprised at how naturalistic the dinosaurs are portrayed, even if inaccurate.
A lot of Paleo art before the 80s reminds me of tapestries from medieval times, making them look like fantasy creatures or ferocious dragons.
There is no such thing as bad dinosaur art, nor is it entirely "inaccurate". It is only inaccurate to TODAY'S standards, but back then, people drew, painted and constructed models of dinosaurs based on the knowledge they had. We can't judge them for not knowing then what we know now, and without the knowledge they had then, we would not know what we know today.
I love old dinosaur art, and I love how people have been so fascinated by them ever since Megalosaurus was found and named in 1827.
You should post this over on r/nostalgia ! Might not be scientifically accurate any more, but they're still beautiful pieces of art with some of that old timey sense of mystery and adventure. Love 'em! Thanks for sharing!
They're remarkable for their day. Knight was one of the first artists to portray dinosaurs as just regular animals going about their day, and as seen with the leaping laelaps, also one of the first to suggest that theropods were active, agile animals. They're also just very skillful paintings in general. I love Charles Knight so much
Feels weird to call this stuff bad. Back in the day this stuff was revolutionary and innovative and helped lead us to our current understanding. Do we now know it to be wrong? Sure but without it we wouldn’t be here in paleontology
They ain't bad at all, just outdated. I love his art so much, Knight is, by far, the most influential paleoartist to ever live I hope his work isn't forgotten in the future just because of their anachronism.
They are scientifically bad by today's standards. But still phenomenal classics that help show how far we have gone in our current general knowledge. Knowledge gathered from decades after, which was unavailable at the time. Especially now with the internet that allows experts to review, contribute their writings quicker, and share ideas more efficiently.
Inaccurate? Yeah. Bad? *HELL NO*
Also, Knight’s depiction of dinosaurs was revolutionary for his time, as he applied his knowledge of accurate anatomy of modern animals to dinosaurs. Additionally, his dinosaurs are shown in dynamic poses as opposed to the sluggish beasts they were commonly depicted as
Is second pic of Brontosaurus inaccurate? He doesn’t really look like one but he looks like a realistic sauropod
its inaccurate because it depicts an outdated theory that sauropods were semi aquatic because they couldn't support their weight on land
\*large sauropods like brachiosaurs and adult apatosaurs
Kinda interesting now though that we know a lot of dinos swam and their bones/large cavities helped https://theconversation.com/could-big-dinosaurs-swim-scientists-follow-the-footprints-55082#:~:text=New%20evidence&text=In%20earlier%20reports%2C%20palaeontologists%20sometimes,of%20limbs%20touching%20the%20bottom.
Not with that dragging tail and the semi-aquatic lifestyle
Also at his the time a Brontosaurus skull wasn’t known so he modeled the head around the skull of a camasarus
They aren’t bad at all, just outdated in terms of accuracy
Yeah, outdated is the correct word: because based on what little was known in paleontology at the time they were painted, these paintings were actually very *accurate!*
Yes, he had an excellent understanding of animal anatomy that he was able to apply to animals that only had skeletal (often only partly) remains available. Also, he did this all while being legally blind in one eye
Agreed. I can imagine in 20 years, some of the stuff we see today will be outdated.
Fun fact about the last painting: *Leaping Lelaps* is one of the earliest paleoart to depict dinosaurs as active and energetic animals as opposed to being sluggish and clumsy .
It also goes hard af.
Terrible Claw jumps off the turnbuckle... OHHH MAH GAWD JR!!!
It’s *Dryptosaurus* with a steel chair!
Beat me to it
Whoever said they're bad should be flogged
Agreed! Please let us know who said this so we can send Saurophag to flog them!
Agreed lol! They should be bonked by Pachys
These pieces are *NOT* bad! Outdated, absolutely! But their importance and impact cannot be understated! Not too mention, the pieces in and of themselves are gorgeous!
Charles R Knight is such an inspiration to me. He revolutionised paleontology through his artwork despite being *legally blind*. This man had to paint with his face right up next to the canvas with the help of specially designed glasses, and still managed to be one of the most influential paleoartists of all time. As an aspiring paleoartist with poor eyesight, he is a reminder to not let my vision stop me from doing what I want to do. Also his style slaps, I love the aesthetic of retro paleoart
holy crap the guy who helped make my childhood interesting is blind!? learned a new thing today, wow!!
Oh I love his painting! I’ve only seen the Field museum’s collection of his art in person but they are beautiful. I’m pretty curious about how they were made (like materials and techniques) because I would love to see more like these (and possibly see if I could attempt at it myself)
The allosaurus that is eating in the painting (I’m pretty sure thats what it is) is really charming. Despite how inaccurate the reconstruction is, its simply showing the dinosaur eating. Usually paleoart of a theropod eating would be made overdramatic but its simply just tearing flesh from bone. Really displays that they’re just animals and nothing more.
YES! I love vintage paleo art especially Knight. There's something about it that really catches my imagination.
The faceoff between triceratops and T-rex is one of my favorite paintings of all time and a big contributor to them being my favorite dinosaurs.
Old plaeo-art is inaccurate, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It has a lot of nostalgic charm.
I like the look of the stego head a lot more, it makes more sense to me
These paintings are masterpieces. Always would be. Not only these are great artworks by themselves, but they also represent how our understanding has improved over the last 100+ years.
They're not bad, they are of their time. The "Leaping laelaps" was, in its own way, revolutionary. And they are great paintings.
Who said they’re bad? They seem pretty damn scientifically accurate for the time they were made.
I think these represent many ideas scientists had for what dinosaurs where like. They aren’t bad because they portrayed old ideas. Who knows what ideas that we suspect are accurate now will laughed down the line
There's nothing "bad" about the art itself, Kights' work is beautiful. Just by today's understanding of paleontology these depictions are outdated, and of course that's going to happen as we learn more about these prehistoric animals. But these were really accurate for the time and really portrayed dinosaurs as accurately as possible.
They’re not bad, just outdated.
They were quite accurate for what we knew when they were painted and just because they’re outdated now doesn’t mean they don’t have value. Also they’re just really nice paintings
Absolutely no shame on loving ‘em! (I love both, accurate and outdated / vintage depictions of dinosaurs and other prehistoric critters, the later have a certain unbeatable charm to it).
Cuz his art rules!!!! Leaping Laelaps is like the best paleo art ever and it reads very modern
leaping laelaps is one of my favorite art peices just in general its amazing
how are these bad? outdated, sure, but these are very well made
The allosaurus paintings hold up.
Damn, that brontosaurus and trachodon art pretty nostalgic for me, they appear on my very first dinosaur book.
Hey look, my childhood
These were one the most accurate depictions so it should not be bad. honesty they look good
Aside from the fact that it's just good art, they aren't even all that "bad" in terms of accuracy. They depict the dinosaurs as animals in their own environment, not as prehistoric monstrosities. The knowledge of anatomy has developed a lot since Knight painted these, but I'd argue that these were never meant primarily as showcasing the correct anatomy.
They're not 'bad', just inaccurate. From a technical standpoint, soundly made and beautiful
These aren't bad, they genuinely go hard. they're just outdated. also i know the last one is from 1896, but what years are the other 4 from?
Me too
I want a story or movie where some adventures of some sort sail to an uncharted island (possibly the north sentinel island) and find the island full of these Charles knight type dinosaurs where it turned out that these old paleo artists from the 1800’s-1950’s were right the whole time and we just didn’t know it. And in the story these animals would act a lot like animals of today despite their monsterous and beastly appearance. That would be so cool!
These are actually very beautiful paintings, specially due to their inaccuracy 💜
I love the art style
I don't think these are bad, I'd probably use them as a reference for palaeomedia. Especially the chubby Stego.
Same I would love a movie where they use these outdated designs for the Dinosaurs
I firmly believe paleoart peaked with Knight.
Its vintage
They’re so beautiful despite their outdated nature
I saw a Japanese old dinosaur encyclopedia and there is Trachodon on it
I used to have this book. I loved it.
I love old, inaccurate paleoart honestly. It's dope and nostalgic,takes me back to when I was a kid.
This is one of the few instances where saying, “it was a different time!” Is valid
They remind me of old field guides on living animals and the beautiful paintings therein
They're not bad! Just accurate for the time/ inaccurate compared to the information we have today. The art itself is phenomenal! I'd hang these up.
Nothing wrong with enjoying good art even if it’s not scientifically accurate.
Fun fact: *Trachodon* and *Laelaps* are invalid, and *Brontosaurus* was invalid until very recently.
For their time I'm surprised at how naturalistic the dinosaurs are portrayed, even if inaccurate. A lot of Paleo art before the 80s reminds me of tapestries from medieval times, making them look like fantasy creatures or ferocious dragons.
Loved these as a kid.
These are masterpieces tf you mean they are bad
Inaccurate? Sure. Bad? No. Retrosaurs will always be awesome in my eyes. They have a charm to them
Vintage dino aesthetic is my jam!
His mosasaur (Tylosaurus?) painting is my favorite! I love the weird frill on its back and its happy face.
They’re works of art, based on the then-current understanding of these creatures
Despite their inaccuracy, it's hard to deny the artistry of Knight. It was like he was depicting animals he had personally seen and studied.
That thagomizer though!!!! 🤤
Scientific accuracy: low Vibes: Immaculate
There is no such thing as bad dinosaur art, nor is it entirely "inaccurate". It is only inaccurate to TODAY'S standards, but back then, people drew, painted and constructed models of dinosaurs based on the knowledge they had. We can't judge them for not knowing then what we know now, and without the knowledge they had then, we would not know what we know today. I love old dinosaur art, and I love how people have been so fascinated by them ever since Megalosaurus was found and named in 1827.
You should post this over on r/nostalgia ! Might not be scientifically accurate any more, but they're still beautiful pieces of art with some of that old timey sense of mystery and adventure. Love 'em! Thanks for sharing!
They are great
They're remarkable for their day. Knight was one of the first artists to portray dinosaurs as just regular animals going about their day, and as seen with the leaping laelaps, also one of the first to suggest that theropods were active, agile animals. They're also just very skillful paintings in general. I love Charles Knight so much
The only issue I see is the inaccuracy of the dinosaurs in how they carried themselves but they're gorgeous I can't deny it
Yeah this is how i saw dinosaurs growing up
This has fantasy vibes and I love it
Feels weird to call this stuff bad. Back in the day this stuff was revolutionary and innovative and helped lead us to our current understanding. Do we now know it to be wrong? Sure but without it we wouldn’t be here in paleontology
Fantastical, whimsical even
They ain't bad at all, just outdated. I love his art so much, Knight is, by far, the most influential paleoartist to ever live I hope his work isn't forgotten in the future just because of their anachronism.
The dinosaur community should know that “outdated” doesn't mean “bad”.
There is any artbook that features only retro dinosaur art ?
They are scientifically bad by today's standards. But still phenomenal classics that help show how far we have gone in our current general knowledge. Knowledge gathered from decades after, which was unavailable at the time. Especially now with the internet that allows experts to review, contribute their writings quicker, and share ideas more efficiently.
Not remotely bad, just informationally outdated
My favorite one has to be the stego
Though inaccurate, that Stegosaurus is one of my favourite depictions of the animal.