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. 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. At first glance the viewer
originally 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.
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
2
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
drawing of animals.
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 of 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
3
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 twodimensional. 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.
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
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.
Likewise, 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
1
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
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
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
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).
5
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.
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.
6