Ross Dan Writing Assignment 12

While the illustrations in John James’s Audobon’s Birds of America may appear to be

pieces of natural history, in the specific drawing of three birds, two moths, and a caterpillar, there

are many components that lead the viewer to believe the piece is inaccurate. At first glance the

viewer feels great admiration that an illustrator could create a picturesque representation of a

scene from wildlife; nonetheless, after some time spent studying the image the viewer recognizes

this piece requires multiple improvements to become an accurate scientific representation.

Initially the illustration may appear to capture the same effects as a photo, as the artists draws

with great detail and vibrant colors, yet as the viewer studies the piece he becomes suspicious of

its accuracy due to components such as the positions and sizes of the creatures, the view point

the artists draws from, and the numerous colors used in the illustration.Initially the illustration

may appear to capture the same effects as a photo, as the artists draws with great detail and

vibrant colors, yet as the viewer studies the piece he becomes suspicious of its accuracy due to

components such as the positions and sizes of the creatures, the view point the artists draws

from, and the numerous colors used in the illustration.

An obvious issue that leads the viewer to believe the piece is an inaccurate depiction is

the composition of the illustration. The artist choses to compose the graphic on a very large

scale, a page that is multiple feet in width and length, which makes the viewer question how the

artist chose to translate the actual creatures’ sizes to the sizes of the creatures portrayed in the

illustration. As the viewer studies the image it becomes evident that there seems to be an obvious

issue with the relationship between the sizes of the creatures. The birds appear to be the forefront

of the illustration, the dominating creatures in the piece, yet when the viewer continues to

observe the piece it becomes apparent that some of the leaves of the tree are actually bigger than

the birds. For example, the leaf that is placed under the branch is large enough that one of the

birds could be lying on it, like the caterpillar lying on another one of the leaves. Nonetheless, the

birds appear much larger than the caterpillar so there seems to be a size discrepancy between the

leaves illustrated in the picture, an indication that this is more like an abstract artistic

representation that would not concentrate on the details such as the relationships between the

sizes of the different creatures.

The viewpoint the artist takes when creating the picture is another composition issue that

makes the viewer question the accuracy of the piece. It appears as if there are two separate

viewpoints portrayed in the graphic. One viewpoint is from up above the birds, and the artist is

looking down right above the bird with the open wings who appears to be soaring through the

air. The second viewpoint is from down underneath the other two birds who are sitting on the

branch of a tree, and it appears as if the artist is looking up from a few feet away. The different

viewpoints give the impression the artist witnessed these two different scenes and then combined

them in an attempt to fill the very large page. While it is obvious that the artist did not witness

this exact scene, to make the picture more convincing as a scientific representation of nature he

should have created a single viewpoint for the entire image. Additionally, the placement of the

leaves complicates the issue of the viewpoints even further. Near the bird that is flying it appears

as if the leaves are below it, which would mean the artist was up above, yet with the birds that

are perched on the branch it appears as if the leaves are behind them, which would mean that the

artist was down below and some distance away from the tree, further confusing the viewer. It is

too obvious that the artist was attempting to put together numerous different scenes and it

distracts from the idea that this graphic could be a piece of natural history rather than just another

2

drawing of animals. To make the picture more convincing as a scientific representation of nature

the artist should have created a single viewpoint for the entire image.

With two separate viewpoints in the image, it is difficult to come to a conclusion about

what sort of depth the artist is trying to portray. In the instance of the birds, the viewer can get

somewhat ofpiece together an idea of the creature’s appearance in three dimensions due to the

portrayals of the creature lying down, sitting upright, and flying through the air. However, in

terms of the moths and the caterpillar it is very difficult to gather any sort impression of their

appearance in three dimensions. These three creatures seem to be placed in between where the

viewpoints change from up above to down below, . Once again it is difficult to tell whether the

creatures are seen from over the top or from below and some distance away, and as a result they

appear two-dimensional. Moreover, the two moths do not have any leaves behind them either, so

they lose the ability to cast a shadow, which would be a very helpful tool in trying to gather

conclusions about the creatures’ appearances in three dimensions. This loss of depth takes away

from both the illustration’s scientific and artistic value as it complicates how the viewer should

be looking at this piece, and raises the question of whether the artist had ever actually studied the

creatures in all three dimensions rather than just having looked at drawings of them.

The colors the artist choses to use in the graphic also make the viewer question whether

the artist was just trying to please the viewer aesthetically or if he was trying to create a natural

history piece. In Karin Nickelsen’s Draughtsmen, botanists, and nature: constructing eighteenth

century botanical illustrations, she writes, “The colouring of the illustrations is another example

of the unrealistic techniques adopted by eighteenth-century botanists. It is often taken for granted

that draughtsmen painted their images in lifelike colours…. This range of variation in tones by

far exceeds the natural spectrum.”1 Just as Nickelesen writes, the colors in this illustration appear

1  Karin Nickelsen, "Draughtsmen, Botanists, and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations,"

3

to be unrealistic as well. It looks as if the branch is dying as the bark looks decrepit and is

peeling; yet all the leaves still look green and lush. There is not a single sign that the leaves are

dying, as the shades of emerald radiate off the page, yet they are attached to a dying branch.

LikewiseAlso, the two moths appear very different in the way they are colored. One appears to

be painted in bright shades of red, orange, and yellow, and looks like a creature that might be

found in a rainforest, where the other moth is dominated by darker colors. As Nickelsen points

out sometimes too many colors can be used, and in this instance the coloring appears unrealistic.

The viewer is not convinced that the colors he is seeing were the actual colors the artist saw,

which may be more appealing artistically but does not satisfy the viewer’s urge to learn in a

scientific manner.

In attempting to combine different stages of the creatures into one graphic the artist

makes the image appear less realistic. In trying to depict the stages of the moth, and also the

three different positions of the bird, it makes the viewer recognize that it is not possible to see all

these stages, positions, and creatures at once. Nickelsen writes, “Numerous examples prove that

eighteenth-century botanical draughtsmen used techniques that, in effect, made their images

unrealistic. Combining different stages of development, as in the Curtis illustration, is but one

example of these techniques.”2 In this instance it is clear that the illustration appears unrealistic

because the artist attempted to combine different stages of development. There are creatures

moving around and sitting still as if all their movements could be captured in one scene, which

may seem scientific, but all the motions appear distractive and unrealistic when drawn in a single

scene. Never would all six of these creatures be in one exact viewpoint, and it makes the viewer

in Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (n.p., 2006).2 Karin Nickelsen, "Draughtsmen, Botanists, and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations," in Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (n.p., 2006).

4

question whether the artist ever saw and studied these creatures or if this is just an artistic

representation of birds and moths.

As Freedberg discusses in The eye of the Lynx: Galileo, his friends, and the beginnings of

modern natural history, Faber and Colonna always had a strong sense that the scientific

illustrations could be improved, and after studying this illustration the viewer is left with the

sense that this graphic could be improved as well.3 Between the viewpoint of the artist, the

positions and sizes of the creatures, and the concepts and movements that the artist attempts to

capture this piece does not appear scientific but rather more of an artistic portrayal of moths and

birds. A piece that appears to impress the viewer with great detail and artistic talent actually

leaves the viewer disappointed as he discovers it is in dire need of improvement in order to

become a great work of natural history. Between the viewpoint of the artist, the positions and

sizes of the creatures, and the concepts and movements that the artist attempts to capture this

piece does not appear scientific but rather more of an artistic portrayal of moths and birds.

3 David Freedberg, "Introduction, and The Doctor’s Dilemmas," in The eye of the Lynx: Galileo, his friends, and the beginnings of modern natural history (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 292.

5

Emma:

Introduction:

Positive-Intrigued: Last few sentences: Very nice observations on the illustration, your comments are insightful and thoughtful. I am curious about where you will take your thesis. Good description of the painting.

Negative-Confused: Last sentence: Could you elaborate a little bit on the reasons why the painting is lacking in scientific accuracy?

Conclusion:

Positive-Impressed: First couple sentences: You have very keen insights in the conclusion and you make good use of the sources.

6

Negative-Unsatisfied: Last sentence: Summarize the specific ways in which the painting could be improved for scientific accuracy.

Hopes: I hope that you will explain the specific areas of the illustration where the artist falls short in depicting scientific accuracy.

Pitfalls: Try to avoid irrelevant analysis of the picture, make sure to stay on topic and explain in detail why certain images in the picture are inaccurate or why aspects of the picture appear unrealistic.

Mikey:

Good: Your opening paragraph is very good. I like your thesis. It makes a good point and you build it up well towards your thesis. I don’t see much wrong with it actually. You do a good job of restating your thesis in your conclusion. You quickly go back over the points that you supposedly made in the body paragraph, which, when the reader is finished reading, strengthens his/her belief in your essay.

Needs Improvement/Suggestions: In the opening paragraph, there is nothing much wrong with it. There are a couple of instances where you might want to reconsider your word choice. This is small, but you refer to the viewer as a “he”, which some very picky people might find offensive. The only other thing is your final sentence/thesis is a little long. Possibly consider breaking it up? I’m pretty sure that a thesis does not specifically have to be one sentence. In your conclusion, I personally like the referral to the Freedburg reading. However, since most people do not know who Faber and Colonna are, they might become a little confused for a second. Although you do explain their points though, so that may not matter. Your final sentence sums up your argument well; however, you might want to find some interesting twist to add onto the end of the essay, just to increase your readers experience of the essay. Overall, very good though.

Things to watch out for: Just make sure that you have enough points to support your thesis. Also, just make sure that they’re well explained and that you briefly tie them back to your thesis at the end of each paragraph.

MY RESPONSE:

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the feedback.

7

In terms of my introduction I will be sure to work on the last sentence, as both of you pointed out that it could use some work. I think I will take Emma's advice and try to clarify the reasons for why I believe the painting is lacking accuracy, and Mikey's as well to clean up the structure of the sentence.

In terms of the conclusion there seems to be a sense of dissatisfaction between the two of you. I think by incorporating a little more specificity as Emma noted, I may be able to add that twist that Mikey is looking for as well. I will pay particular attention to the last sentence of the conclusion when I go through and edit the piece.

As a whole I will go back through the piece sentence by sentence and make sure all the analysis is relevant and on topic. I will make sure I have enough detail to make clear concise points.

Thanks,Dan

8