I guess I am no longer taking a break, so I thought I should update my journal. I have come to a decision regarding my DA account though: I am responding to all comments, but I am no longer responding to simply faves. I am sorry, but it just takes to much time for me right now. I really do appreciate all of the faves, but I'm more interested in comments and commenting.

With that out of the way Ican get to the subject of this journal entry:
RAPTORS, NINJAS, GIANT MONSTERS AND ARCHITECTURE!

I am an architect, so i think about architecture a lot. I like monsters, so I think about monsters a lot too. This morning I had a thought as I was getting ready to go to my office. The reaction some people on DA (an probably elsewhere) have to "raptorized" giant monsters reminds me of the reaction many critics had (and some still have) to the development of "modern" architecture during the beginning of last century.

When the industrial age brought the development of new building materials such as steel, reinforced concrete (the Romans used concrete - but not reinforced concrete), plate glass and mass production; it made it possible for architects and engineers to design buildings that could not have been built previously. Prior to the invention of steel and reinforced concrete the tallest buildings where about 10-11 stories. The walls had to be so massive at the first floor that to go any higher it made the buildings unusable, unbuildable or unaffordable. The use of steel and reinforced concrete allowed us to shatter that barrier and we have builds over 100 stories now. Interestingly, the addition of large panes of affordable glass allowed these giant buildings that were actually much more massive than older buildings to appear less massive. It also became possible for a building to actually be much less massive (than a 19th century building), but it could still appear more massive. The perception of massive became liberated, to some extent, from the buildings aesthetic expression. However, many critics did not like the changes (and some still don’t). They liked the way buildings had been made, or at least how they looked and thought the new possibilities where a step in the wrong direction. They thought a building should look massive, even if it is not.

A simple example is one of the oldest building elements – the column. Masonry columns are very strong and can hold enormous weights. But compared to a steel column, they are very massive themselves. A 2’x2’ solid stone column can be replaced by a 10” hollow steel column. They are both equally strong, but they look very different. To many early 20th century critics the steel column just looked to fragile. It looked like it would snap under its massive load. It upset their perception of how things should be.

Clearly, I think, we see a similar thing happening with giant monsters. There are a large number of svelte, “raptorized” giant monsters on DA. Some people like them, some don’t. No problem with that, everyone has their own tastes. What I have a problem with is when people claim one or the other is more realistic. Giant monsters are inherently unrealistic in that they can not be made of flesh and bone (bricks and stone). They would have to be made of something new (steel and reinforced concrete) to even be possible. Thus, whenever we are discussion giant monsters we are talking about “fantastic” creatures made from “fantastic” materials. Because of this, giant monsters can be of any design and be equally “realistic.” It is erroneous to claim that a giant showa-style monster is more realistic than a giant zilla-style monster. It is equally erroneous to claim the reverse. The look of a giant monster is one of personal choice, not realism. The structure has been separated from its expression. The column (monster) need not be massive to be incredibly strong. So please realize that claims of super realism (for either side) are just not worth it. They have no basis in reality!

Now I really need to get back to work!