1. Welcome to Taxidermy.net, Guest!
    We have put together a brief tutorial to help you with the site, click here to access it.

First attempt

Discussion in 'Fish Taxidermy' started by chromepursuit, Oct 7, 2014.

  1. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    Re: So I guess ..............

    That's niether here nor there. 100% is irrelivent. Taxidermy was used at some stage and "REMAINS" on the finished product.

    The question is more like: Why are 100 % reproductions not allowed to be entered in the catagory you just mentioned. Because it is recognized as a seperate procedure.. You know that.
     
  2. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    Color me enlightened Dave. That's awesome. Is he the only one ?

    Best, Steve
     

  3. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    Who's Derp???
     
  4. JL

    JL Taxidermist for 64 years

    Doug-P you still are hung up on your definition thing and you still have not uttered one helping word to the original question for help. You prove my point. As for walk the walk and talk the talk I was a Taxidermist when you were being walked to the school bus and possibly before that. Just answer the man's question and show some intelligence in this thread. JL
     
  5. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    Nice to see you follow your own advice.

    quote by JL: " show some intelligence in this thread"

    Intelligence recognizes intelligence JL. It's not the fault of the majority if you find none here.

    I'm gettin' off this merry go round.

    My Best to all, Steve
     
  6. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    JL, if you actually had read the beginning of this thread you would have seen that on PAGE 1 in the 4th response to Chromepursuit I addressed the photo he posted as in my quote below.

    "chromepursuit.....without having a reference photo showing colors that you were trying to imitate it's hard to give advice. As you know steelhead go through a very drastic change in the life cycle. Best advice ever given is to study a reference photo thoroughly and then more so!! Try replicating what you see after breaking down the color "layers" on the skin of the fish...."

    You may not care much for my response and could have said so. Instead you started with the anger and name calling.

    With all the taxidermy experience you have and are so proud of, it would have been so much better if you were a voice of reason instead of such a devisive angry person.

    I personally don't care how long you have been a taxidermist, it's not pertenent to this thread. However, after all those years, it's a shame to embarrass yourself with such immaturish posts.

    You, sir, have set a very poor example with your attacks here especially for the younger beginners that you claim to hold so dear.

    I still think you need to apologise.
     
  7. Harum

    Harum Active Member

    Years ago, when I read the criteria required to win the World show Carl E Akeley award, I gained an impression that to win this award an individual would need to exhibit exceptional taxidermy ability, coupled with a solid artistic perspective.
    I do believe that at the 1995 Taxidermy Championship a reproduction of a Tarpon received the Carl E Akeley award for taxidermy excellence.

    Both the typical molded fish and skin mount have issues based on the method used. I have to believe that people choose to ignore these obvious flaws based on their preferred method or simply by what they are best at. They bash the other method and elevate theirs, it gets old.



    chromepursuit,

    Scott gave you a good link to use.


    -Pete
     
  8. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    "Both the typical molded fish and skin mount have issues based on the method used. I have to believe that people choose to ignore these obvious flaws based on their preferred method or simply by what they are best at. They bash the other method and elevate theirs, it gets old."

    Hi Pete,
    You mention the concept of "bashing". It's been brought up in this thread before but I don't see any evidence of that being the case here, with the exception of some exchanges with JL. It's unfortunate that happened.

    I just fail to see what is so "threatening" about trying to maintain the definition of a descriptive noun.

    Instead of being devisive the terminology used to explain the process a person uses to create a piece [ for the most part we are speaking of fish here ] should bring many of us together in a desire to become accomplished in the many different areas used in our field.

    I don't consider myself a mold maker even though I do mold and cast certain parts in my fish work. Mold making is a much more involved process than what I do. I admire those who can mold and cast custom 3d pieces for a client. Maybe someday I'll pursue that further.

    I suppose this subject should have it's own thread.

    I just think it to be unfortunate that this subject can't be discussed logically and without the personal animosity and dismissive attitudes that have ben shown by some.

    To be clear this is not directed at you Pete......it's just a general observation generated by your quote above.

    :)

    DougP
     
  9. Brian W

    Brian W Active Member

    4,674
    24
    Steve,
    That pic was under a general taxidermy catagory on the internet. I'm the SOLE reason you had to have a talk with your 12 year old daughter and because of that one pic she can no longer browse (thats the correct spelling) the fish forum????? LMAO.......and ahhh LMAO again..... You better not let your daughter EVER get on the internet then. And if it was that offensive it would have been pulled.
    It's a pic of a mother carrying her juvenile on her back to quickly avoid danger. What did you tell your daughter it was? Shame on you Steve. And btw, I think you are SPECIAL too.......you're a piece of work man...... and you're welcome.
     
  10. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    1. your post of one monkey on the other got your point across, combined with your insinuating remark, it wasn't innocent and every one who saw it, knows it.

    2. The definition of internet is NOT :/ obscene....

    3. The internet did not make you post what you posted, and insinuate what you insuated. YOU are responsible for your own actions..

    4. Just because it hasn't been pulled yet means nothing. I was told specifically by a moderator they simply do not read everything on here. It ALL cannot be moderated..

    Understand this Brian, I am very sorry "YOU" mis-understood my original post. I am partly to blame as I do not recall finishing my remarks with LOL.... I said what I said thinking you would realize I was only joking, as EVERYONE else was. Now that I know you have extremely "thin skin" I will try and post a LOL. after every joke I make with you.

    Best, Steve
     
  11. Brian W

    Brian W Active Member

    4,674
    24
    Forget it man......there's no LOL insinuation in that paragraph period. Reread the first sentence and see if you can find an lol tone there. Backpeddling cause you got caught again like the first time in 2012 when you sent a PM to me ( I think you called me Brother Brian), saying how you were really hard on Marty and you've calmed down now, you were wrong, yada, yada and you want to be my friend...blah..blah..blah. Anyway your work is very good so I can at least respect you for that.....
     
  12. Perca

    Perca Well-Known Member

    1,574
    43
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  13. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    Perca....Doug, you sure eat a LOT of popcorn!! ;)
     
  14. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    Be carefull pointing fingers Brian. Some people might call it back peddling when you posted what you posted then said "it's a juvenile escaping with it's mother" . No one likes a hypocrite.

    I am not one to hash up old crap that's been "apologized" for and burried. But I see you are so, in defense of my own character, I seem to remember it more like: apoligizing for " loozing my temper" and not being very professional with you as you had stuck your nose in a conversation that did not involve you. I also remember stating Marty got what he deserved because he showed no "respect". I then asked that we be friends and you said no hard feelings and agreed. I guess you lied. Perhaps you could produce the PM for all to see so they can make their own judgement call.

    By the way, Marty and I have since patched up our differences and I consider him my friend, I only hope he feels the same way !

    And lastly, I apologize to everyone else who actually took the time to read through this crap, as it has simply gotten way out of hand......

    best, Steve
     
  15. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    "And lastly, I apologize to everyone else who actually took the time to read through this crap, as it has simply gotten way out of hand...... "

    Steve! Whatd'ya mean CRAP??? Geez, I thought most of it was very profound!!!! ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::)
     
  16. .







    Understand this Brian, I am very sorry "YOU" mis-understood my original post. I am partly to blame as I do not recall finishing my remarks with LOL.... I said what I said thinking you would realize I was only joking, as EVERYONE else was. Now that I know you have extremely "thin skin" I will try and post a LOL. after every joke I make with you.

    Best, Steve

    Bender here,
    I dunno how to highlite quotes but you get wot I've tried to do here . Poor Chromepersuit unintentially got a ball rolling here , all he wanted was critique. Its all gotten a bit boring, was entertaining for a while.
    Just to digress even more, about Steves quote above. Its weird this day n age how some people cant write stuff without the crappy short hand LOL'S n LMAO'S n IMO'S, etc etc whatever half that crap means, I thought it was teenager jargon. If something is written as a joke then is it necessary these days to put LOL after it ??!! as if the reader was too dumb to figure for himself !! And as for all them other crappy abbreviations !! :eek:
     
  17. Harum

    Harum Active Member

    Doug,

    That was a general statement based on observation over the years. It is not difficult to see the underlying current in these discussions that are bias to one method over the other. I did not however state that there was any direct bashing in this post. I thought that was clear, but maybe it is more so now. Also I am not directly calling you out in this regard.

    When I work up a piece I utilized a combination of both skin mount and molding methods in an attempt to duplicate nature. To be clear, not simply a fin or head mold and in some cases not completely dry skin. In my opinion this has helped me to reduce the amount of obvious flaws that each stand alone method exhibits. I suggest that any individual that wants to evolve their work should utilize the better aspects of each of these taxidermy related methods.

    -Pete

    By the way how did this statement get overlooked?

    Years ago, when I read the criteria required to win the World show Carl E Akeley award, I gained an impression that to win this award an individual would need to exhibit exceptional taxidermy ability, coupled with a solid artistic perspective.
    I do believe that at the 1995 Taxidermy Championship a reproduction of a Tarpon received the Carl E Akeley award for taxidermy excellence.
     
  18. If a skin is used on a mount then its taxidermy, if a skin isn't used then it aint. Cant be more black n white than that. ;)
     
  19. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    I have not had the privilege of meeting you yet Pete, hopefully at next years world show.

    With all due respect, I understand your efforts to elevate taxidermy to a higher level and while doing so, gain a positive public acceptance. You'd like them to see it how we see it (as an art).. After all, if enough art procedure and things that are not exactly taxidermy are added to traditional taxidermy, sooner or later everyone will just accept it ALL as Artistic Taxidermy or Wildlife art.

    You yourself said you use the best of both methods, skin mounts and molding methods and made the insinuation to forget about the bad parts of both. To me, this would be considered a hybridization of sorts for the betterment of "taxidermy". I would assume this is also the definition Scott was looking for. "Spork" : The hybridization of a spoon and a fork for the betterment of "silverware".

    My question has been ignored as well as your statement. Maybe you can answer it for me. Explain to me why reproduction parts are allowed in Taxidermy catagories where skin is present but nothing of the real specimen is allowed in the "reproduction" catagory. If they were considered taxidermy as a whole and judged equally, the only seperation in catagory would be by species alone, with the normal criteria Anatomy, artistic merrit, etc. of course. Do you think who ever suggested the seperation in the beginning thought reproductions were not considered taxidermy in the "traditional sense".

    The only logical interpretation for me is this. I have not competed in the world show, I have competed many times in my state. I would say I understand the criteria of that particular show as I have been blessed to do well there. That being said, I also know the judge will judge as he/ she understands the criteria.. Interpretation of that criteria is also not the same from judge to judge. Also, the criteria is broken up into catagories. The criteria is on a point system, though I have had judges who never write down what score they give each catagory of criteria. Just a final score which leads me to believe weight may be given to one catagory over the other depending on that particular judge. A competitor might score well in part of the criteria and not so well in another. So in direct response to your tarpon winner in 1995, it would be possible this won a first by carrying most of its points in the "creativity", and "artistic impact" criteria rather than the "taxidermy skill" of the criteria. After the judges Scores are averaged, the mount is given one final score that embodies the catagories of criteria. Correct? So if one mount is given a 93 and another a 90, the 93 gets the first even though it may have scored poorly in the TAXIDERMY catagory of the criteria.

    I wish to be clear, It is not my intention to belittle or not recognize the piece or the artist who won the 1995 Akeley award. It deserves respect as it is the only one to ever win it. And why is that. Are all the judges considering the criteria the same ? Is the competiton really that tough, or was that Tarpon just really that good.

    The bottom line is this: This whole discussion is about the definition and in my opinion preservation of "ONE" process as it was originally defined hundreds of years ago, before it was turned into a "spork".

    Lastly, it never even entered my mind to belittle someone elses method to elevate my own prefered method. If that was true, why would I be defending skin mounts as taxidermy and not reproductions ? Everyone knows I prefer reproductions......And Pete, I don't think you were singling me out either but evidently in this day and age, you just about have to attach a disclaimer to everything you publicise for fear of being eaten.....

    Steve
     
  20. JE

    JE Well-Known Member

    Hi Pete (Harum) , I haven't seen you on here for some time. I miss seeing your works.
    As for the thread, I do fish replicas only, (including custom molding) and simply label myself an Artist. I couldn't think of a short version of anything else ! if I said I was a Taxidermist I would be getting a lot more phone calls but would be turning down a lot of work lol
    Sorry I cant comment on the original post, I get an error when I click on the link.
    Carry on folks, this is very entertaining lol

    John