Comments on: The Evolution of Cryptozoology Drawings

By: Tube

Tube — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:59:27 +0000

They’ll be ga-ga at the go-go when they see me with Momo.

By: Matt K.

Matt K. — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:01:39 +0000

The boundary that seperates non-fiction and fiction in writing does not exist for some reason when it comes to artwork. I think it’s clearly obvious as the drawings progress, that the artists themselves depicted what they feel the subject would or should look like, and not what the actual witness saw. It certainly seems to take a more monsterous or alien type form. I think it would be interesting to see some clay models sculpted from eye witness reports in the same fashion people do police sketches.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:29:31 +0000

Labeling? Ha, you’ll have to come to my lecture on this and the Bates exhibition.

But seriously (I guess), I want the drawings to speak for themselves here, although, yes, the evolution is from the actual eyewitnesses’ drawings to the more elaborate versions being by artists and theorists.

More info is given live and in person. This is for the visual impact.

By: Buck

Buck — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 14:15:51 +0000

Wow, it is amazing how the artist’s agenda or idea can change the picture so drastically. Is the change usually toward a more monstrous version?

By: jayman

jayman — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:59:28 +0000

It would be helpful to label or give some background to the individual illustrations, such as who drew them, when and where they appeared, etc. I assume the top one is by an eyewitness, or from an eyewitness description, while the bottom is the most embellished. I think I may have even seen the bottom drawing in UFO related material.