Osorio 1
Michael Osorio
Professor Lopez
Encounters With Nature
8 November 2011
For Art Or For Science? That Is The Question!
To fully comprehend the significance of The Audobon, it is essential to first discover the
purpose behind the artist’s methods. Once one knows whether this painting was created for
scientific understanding or for artistic and aesthetic pleasure, it will be easier to grasp why it is
that certain aspects of the painting look a certain way. The book commonly referred to as The
Audobon, is one of the greatest works in the field of ornithology ever created because it is a huge
collection of such astounding illustrations of so many different types of birds. I believe that this
specific plate from the great work of ornithology was created for the purpose of having a greater
scientific understanding rather than simply for aesthetic pleasure. In support, I call upon such
aspects of the painting as: its use of motion, its composition, as well as some particular details
that attention needs to be drawn too.
The primary focus of this illustration is on the wildlife specimens of the birds and
butterflies. Without those essential elements, the painting would undoubtedly lose its meaning
and thus have no reason for being created at all. The big question here is whether or not these
birds and butterflies are here because they make a pleasing composition together that would look
nice in a frame or because the artist is trying to give us a better understanding of the anatomy and
behavior of the species. There is a greater emphasis on motion than there is on stasis, and that is
because it is artistically more convenient when painting birds and butterflies to depict them in
flight because with their wingspan’s open, more of their characteristic visual features can be
Osorio 2
portrayed. The greatest inference to be made upon this observation is that the bird species is
purposefully repeated three times in different phases of flight in order to depict the full range of
motion of the bird. This aspect is very similar to a technique in botanical illustrations of
“combining different stages of development” into one depiction of the specimen.1 Since artists
would do this with plants in order to introduce more knowledge about the physiology of the
species, and I assume the same motive behind the illustrator of these birds is indeed the same.
The only drawback of using this technique in scientific illustrations is that it is not necessarily
completely accurate to have all phases present at the same place in the same time, since this
would never happen in nature. You could probably never encounter three birds (of presumably
the same species) and two butterflies and a caterpillar all in the special arrangement and fluidity
of motion shown in the illustration in nature. It is absurd and probably physically impossible.
This fault in its accuracy almost derailed my belief in its scientific purpose until I realized it had
a specific reason.
Spending a class in the archives allowed us to witness for ourselves a great and diverse
collection of works with botanical illustrations as their focus. Experiencing this for myself was a
helpful resource when trying to uncover the mysteries behind this specific Audubon plate.
During that class, I observed that many of the illustrations of wildlife were for created purely for
artistic expression and could potentially be hung in someone’s living room, while others had no
intention of being pretty and instead focused on demonstrating the finest details of the anatomy
of certain specimens. In her work describing the history of the method of botanical draughtsmen,
Nickelson notes that several of these illustrations were created “not only for decoration but also
1
Kärin Nickelson, “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical
Illustrations,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): 1-25
Osorio 3
for practical purposes”2 meaning that both aesthetics and scientific accuracy were taken into
equal account when molding such works. I noticed that the assigned illustration from The
Audobon had an interesting background choice of being a blank white space. Nickelson also
talks about how the “design of the background” was a “purely aesthetic question” and often left
up to the artist.3 The decision of using a blank white canvas behind the illustration is aesthetic
because it contrasts most strongly with the depictions in order to emphasize them further but it is
also keeping in design with similar works of scientific illustration. I remember certain examples
from the archives that were exclusively for physiological understanding and that had simple,
white, bare backgrounds because the artist wanted to focus solely on the specimen he was
depicting. Although a tree branch with several leaves is present, I believe that it is merely in an
effort to sustain natural accuracy, in other words, to make the scene a bit more realistic.
Only after close analysis of the work did I discover very fine details that contribute
heavily to the argument that this page from The Audobon contains an illustration with academic
purpose. On the bottom of the page, I found a few names written in Latin, and I assume those
labels to be the scientific names of the bird, butterflies, and perhaps even the tree. With this
evidence, and because there is a significant amount of detail drawn in, the tree’s physiology may
also be taken as a primary focus of this work. Pavord, in her historical narrative about the
beginnings of the botanical garden, says that early nature enthusiasts attempted to use Latin to
“forge a system that, eventually, could accommodate every thing that lived on earth.”4 The
scientific names of the species that are written on the bottom of the page identify each animal by
2
Kärin Nickelson, “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical
Illustrations,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): 1-25
3 Kärin Nickelson, “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical
Illustrations,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): 1-25
4 Anna Pavord, chaps. XIII and XIV, in The Naming of Names: The Search for Order in the World of
Plants (London: Bloomsbury, 2005), 205-241
Osorio 4
the Linnaeus system of classification using Latin. Their presence would not add to the artistic
flavor of the work but would rather add clarification and knowledge to the viewer. Any piece of
art that you could find hanging in someone’s den is most definitely not going to have the
scientific names of the creatures because that would be irrelevant. A scientific illustration
attempting to portray correct anatomical and even behavioral information on species would
indubitably find the scientific names useful. The second clue I found was the almost hidden
practice sketch of the bird’s foot on the lower right hand portion of the painting. If this were to
be a purely artistic piece of work, then surely the artist would not make the mistake of leaving
preliminary sketches in plain sight to hinder the aesthetic beauty of the piece. The artist wanted
to make sure that he had the most accurate rendering of the physiology of the bird possible,
because this illustration is for scientific visual reference.
In conclusion, this particular page from The Audobon contains a scientific illustration
that displays natural specimens in order to increase knowledge of anatomy and such while at the
same time holding to an essence of aesthetic attraction. Although some may encounter this
picture with a focus on its vividness and beauty, that was not its main intention. The obviously
attention-grabbing use of detailed color and the combination of different natural elements make
for an eye-pleasing piece to be sure. But what is essential to its significance is that
multiple depictions of the bird in different phases of flight, and the scientific names of the
organisms, provide valuable information on an academic basis. Whether or not this illustration is
the most accurate or realistic depiction, it is still an incredible example of how illustrations
played a major role in the study of natural history.
Osorio 5
From Annalise to Mike
Introduction
Skeptical (first sentence):
Non-assertive language – “perhaps,” “attempting,”
“trying.” The rest of your paragraph is so convincing that you can afford to be more positive
about what you think is the most important step.
Settled (last two sentences):
Your assertion
is intriguing and succinctly stated. Adding your methods of evidence ensures the reader of
organized direction.
Conclusion
Disappointed (first sentences):
You’re restating the intro
instead of immediately offering your own personal spin.
Reassured (second half):
Though
your conclusion doesn’t seem to have a personal spin, your restating of what you’ve covered
(with slight difference from the first paragraph) is neither unnecessary nor particularly
boring.
Your introduction has explicit direction. I expect that you will go beyond the
aspects mentioned in the last sentence and mention their significance in terms of the conveyance
of scientific information. I hope that you will not simply describe a pleasing detail and then
mention the informational purpose, incorporating Nickelsen’s discussion of informational value.
I hope that you will also criticize Audubon’s depiction and mention what you might think is
unsuccessful or unnecessary, along the lines of Freedberg’s discussion over the
Osorio 6
difficulties/downsides of illustration. As I don’t see much evidence of development of ideas from
introduction to conclusion, try to question your analysis and add further spin.
Dear Annalise,
Thanks for the constructive criticism. So with the first negative comment I agree that starting off
the paper with "perhaps" isn't so assertive. However, I believe that "attempting" and "trying" fit
in context with the meaning of the sentence. But in the interest of helping my paper I got rid of
all three words. As for my conclusion, I also see what you mean, my first sentence doesn't really
SAY as much as I want it to say, so I will revise it and make it more clear that I am doing more
than just restating my thesis. But restating my thesis IS what a conclusion should do, and a thesis
doesn't require a personal spin because its a personal utterance of what I believe.
Thanks,
Mike
Dear Annalise
Introduction Reaction:
Positive- I felt great satisfaction at your direction with this paper once I read the sentence “In
other words, how much of a scientist was Audubon, and how much of an artist?” Especially after
the first sentence or so left me questioning what’s the point you’re getting at. Also, the multiple
questions at the end reassure me that you were having the same concerns I was.
Negative- I felt disappointed that I could not find your thesis. You do a good job of setting the
scene and giving it a question to answer, but I don’t know what direction you will go in in terms
of what you think.
Conclusion Reaction:
Positive- I was highly inspired by the observations you made which I did not even notice, like in
the sentence “Not in the meticulous rendering of a row of feathers, but in the somewhat
grotesque realities: the whiskers framing the wide-open mouth and the oddly cocked head; the
predatory glare of the male versus the round, passive orbs of the seated female; the paper-thin
two-dimensionality and helplessness of the doomed moths.” You were able to fit so much into
the final paragraph and even included a source for support in your last sentence.
Negative- I felt a little overwhelmed because I think you might actually say too much in your
conclusion and should focus more on restating and wrapping up your thesis/main argument. I
also feel like the reference to the Linceans is somewhat unnecessary unless of course it is a major
part of your body argument, then its fine
I hope that you develop your thesis more in your essay and hold a strong and decisive opinion on
what Audobon is doing with his work. One pitfall I hope you avoid is to focus on the details of
the actual painting too much without actually saying what they show the viewer. I can tell from
you conclusion that you’ll probably be referring to Freedberg, which is accurate. I also expect to
see some Nickelson in there, talking about the methods of creating such a piece and why.
Osorio 7
From,
Mike
From Mike to ZuZu
Introduction Reaction:
Positive- I was pleasantly entertained and quickly drawn to your paper right from the get-go. The
introductory sentence “Locked away in the annals of the Amherst Archives Special Collections,
safe from the ravaging fingers of time, John James Audubon’s Birds of America lies”
immediately puts a smile on my face because of the unexpected narrative-manner in which you
decided to take your intro. It puts an exciting twist on the assignment and I thought it would take
away from the actual substance of your first paragraph but it only added character.
Negative- I found myself confused when you write, “The layering of information is not a result
of the many pages of the book, each with an image that relates only a single appearance of a bird.
Each page in and of itself possesses a wealth of knowledge.” I think I understand what you’re
trying to say but I feel like the logical order of these two sentences should be rearranged or
maybe you can combine them and simplify it.
Conclusion Reaction:
Positive- I felt assured and resolved by the end of your conclusion (as a whole) because it feels
like a concluding paragraph. You tie your argument up nicely and put a little bow on top. You
very craftily summarized your main point and really made me feel like the confusion or
controversy surrounding the question was resolved.
Negative- I was a bit frustrated with the sentence “And yet in the century after, Audubon proves
that not only can a scientific journal contain images that serve their purpose to biology while
retaining a sense of artistic quality, but also that the images within can actually use artistic
devices in order to serve a scientific cause.” And that is because why I feel like the point you are
making is supremely important and essential to your argument, the two halves of the sentence do
seem a bit redundant (even if in deeper meaning they aren’t) and the sentence is too long.
I hope that you go into much greater detail and break your argument down into its basic parts
because after the introduction I am left curious for what evidence you will use as support. I also
hope that you avoid letting the unique style of your writing get in the way of being punctual and
to the point of what you’re really trying to say. Overall ZuZu youre an excellent writer.
From ZuZu to Mike:
Introduction Positive Comment: I felt greatly interested by the praising words you used to
describe Audubon's work, and it makes me as a reader feel drawn in. Especially because of
phrases like "...one of the greatest works in the field of ornithology ever created," it really makes
me feel compelled to read more of the essay. I also like that you set out the potential argument
and then strongly and clearly take a side with "I hold the belief that this...was created for the
purpose of having a greater scientific understanding rather than simply for aesthetic pleasure,"
and then you go on to state how you plan to argue this.
Introduction Negative Comment: Two
things really stood out to me that made me feel uncertain about this, in a way. The first was your
Osorio 8
use of "we," which I forget if Professor Lopez said you should use or not (if so, then disregard
this) but it makes the writing feel kind of weird. Especially phrases like "The book we refer to as
The Audubon" have a strange sense of forcefully pulling the reader in, as though you're telling
them what they think. Secondly, I'm not sure about your continued references to the assignment
AS an assignment. That also breaks the conviction of the argument that you're building
up.
Conclusion Positive Comment: I feel satisfied by this conclusion, and it certainly has a very
"conclusion-y" feel. Not only obvious phrases like "In conclusion," but phrases that have an air
of summary like the final sentence provide the piece with a firm punctuation.
Conclusion
Negative Comment: Unlike the conviction of the introduction, the conclusion seems a little bit
flaky. Phrases like "as well as many others I'm sure," and throwaway words like "Sure," make
the reading casual in a negative way. I assume your argument was that it was primarily and
perhaps only scientific, but you really only brush against that in concluding with the sentence
starting with "While at the same time..." and even then the summary argument isn't very strong,
only providing minor comments which don't really overpower previous strong words like
"beautiful" and "vivid".
Something I hope for in this essay is that you take a firm stance on
your argument like you seem to be doing in the introduction, and follow out the path firmly. A
pitfall I hope you avoid is just dancing around the painting, commenting on components within it
but not actually explaining why they are significant or how they support your argument.
Dear ZuZu,
Thanks for the constructive criticism. I appreciated the positive comments and totally agree with
those of course. My use of "we" is very informal and may make the reader uncomfortable like I
am generalizing everyones opinion and forcing them to believe what i say. So I fixed that. Also,
you're right, its unprofessional to refer to my paper as a paper, or breaking the fourth wall, and it
weakens the strength of my argument, so I tried to eliminate those references. With my
conclusion, the phrase "as well as many others I'm sure" is another informal (writing what I'm
thinking) kind of talk and doesn't really add anything so I eliminated it. I wanted my conclusion
to be POWERFUL and as a reader you didn't feel that at all so I need to make my convictions
more forceful and really conclude in what I believe in.
Thanks,
Mike