Aline Kim
Writing Assignment 12
The Birds of America by John James Audubon is a collection of life-size bird
illustrations. Fascinated by birds and their environments, Audubon’s goal in printing this book
was to publish accurate illustrations of birds in the Americas. The illustration of the Whip-poorwill in this book depicts three species of that bird and a part of their “environment” which
includes the Vulgo black oak, a caterpillar, and two butterflies. However, while his depiction of
the individual bird species looks realistic because of the use of sharp edges and details, by
creating a static and artificial looking habitat, Audubon portrays an overall untrustworthy,
imprecise illustration of the Whip-poor-will in nature.
The individual Whip-poor-wills are drawn true to size and shape, as Audubon is known
to have had killed, stuffed, and positioned his birds for his artworks. The birds, which are
identified as one male and two female, are drawn with extremely fine detail. The details of the
feathers and the heads captured the small color differences and the lines that make these birds
unique from other species. There is also no depth in the painting of the birds: the lines are all
straight and precise. Faber used the term “the sharp-eyed lynx” to “to emphasize the clarity and
sharpness of vision” a microscope is able capture.1 Audubon captures this sharp-eyed lynx
through his clean portrayal of the birds. The position of the birds is also significant because it
adds motion to this illustration. The birds form a circle and represent the sit, stand, and fly
motion, and also exemplify the male’s dominance over the sitting female partners. To add to this
depiction of the birds, Audubon adds a lone claw, a representation of the Linnaeus system of
1
David Freedberg, “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), 276.
identification. Linnaeus believed that scientific drawings should “depict the characteristic
properties of a Linnaean species.”2 Thus, in many of the botanical art pieces in the Linnaean
style, sexual organs, the shape, the seeds of plants are often key identifying features of different
plant species. In the case of identifying birds, I assumed Audubon used the bird’s feet as a mean
of identifying different bird species in his book. Audubon also gives the commonly used name
and the binomial Linnaean name of both the bird and the tree, which expresses his education and
knowledge on the different birds species and their environment. The Whip-poor-will bird is also
known as Camprimul Gus Vociferous and the Vulgo Black Oak as the Quercus Tinctoria. By
including the claw and clear, defined lines, Audubon’s painting exemplifies the earliest methods
of capturing an individual organism through “accuracy and precision in illustration… [and]
taxonomy and classification.”3
Although the three Whip-poor-will birds are painted as life-size replicas of the actual
species, the layout of the Vulgo black oak tree, the caterpillar, and the butterflies makes the
painting look like an artificial, and not a natural, scene. On the illustration, there is a caption that
reads: “Drawn from nature and Published by John J. Audubon FRS, ELS.” However, Audubon
could not have drawn his scene from nature as the birds live too high up in the trees, and because
birds do not pose for paintings. The addition of the caterpillar, butterflies and leaves, which can
be inferred as the main niche for the birds, are static in comparison to the birds. The scientific
and common names of the caterpillar and butterfly are not given, allowing viewers to infer that
they were important to the birds diet. Contrary to the caption, this scene is not drawn from nature
and displays a posed habitat of the Whip-poor-will bird, leaving me to question the accuracy of
2Karin
Nicklesen, “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations,”
Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): 6.
3 David Freedberg, “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), 300.
2
the overall illustration. In order to construct a more accurate and scientific illustration, Audubon
should have drawn his subject in the center with a white or a plain colored background that
would allow the bird to be the main focus, as Johann Ambrosius Beurer instructed his
draughtsman to do in the botanical paintings he commissioned.4 In Audubon’s engraving, the
bird is not in the center – the center is empty. In doing so, I saw the engraving as an entirely
artistically crafted scene, rather than focusing on the specific bird Audubon is depicting.
The use of color also makes the painting more aesthetical than scientific. Linnaeus
excluded color as a measure of classifying plants and animals because color differed for species
living in different areas and because it was nearly impossible to reproduce the exact colors of
nature.5 The use of color in this engraving, especially the bright colors on the butterflies, makes
the painting pleasing to the viewers. It also makes the painting “clean” by leaving out the some
“imperfections” or signs of decay in nature. For example, some of the tree leaves are torn, which
should naturally lead to a discoloration; however, Audubon chooses not to include this slight
change of color. The color of the leaves also seems unnatural as they range from a shade of light
green to a bluish green. Some leaves are half light green and half dark green, creating a
confusion of what the true colors of the tree is. In addition, there is no depth: when plants
overlap, there most often is a shadow cast on the bottom leaf, but Audubon chooses to exclude
this detail. While in using different shades of green and blue the overall painting seems
unnatural, the contrast of these discolored leaves against the brown, black and white of the bird
makes the Whip-will-poor birds standout in the illustration as the primary subjects, although the
improved background detracts from the legitimacy of the painting.
4
Karin Nicklesen, “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations,”
Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): 7.
5 Nicklesen, “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature,” 8.
3
The paintings accuracy can also be questioned when looking at the publication
information. Audubon was the publisher of the entire book, but the Whip-poor-will illustration
was “Engraved, Printed & Colored by R. Havell.” In her essay, Nickelsen describes how
illustrations were often a drawing of words: the botanist or scientist instructed the draughtsman
as to how to portray the subject.6 From my observation of the painting, I inferred that Audubon
instructed Havell as to how to position the birds and what features of the habitat to include.
However, I thought it was impossible to distinguish what Havell’s contributed to the painting as
an artist. Who decided on the color? Why were certain details of the bird included? How did the
Audubon and Havell negotiate on what details should be included? And did Havell have any
education on the Whip-poor-will or birds in general? Without any knowledge of this relationship
between Audubon and Havell, I question the accuracy of the painting, and how useful it could
be for scientific analysis and classification.
Although Audubon’s engraving of the individual Whip-poor-will is extremely detailed
and precise, the entire illustration lacks the fundamentals of a scientific illustration. If he had
drawn the bird in the Linnaean way, he would have included a representation of the bird and the
anatomy of it, rather than including as elaborate of a background as he did. While the science
and study of the birds are represented, the artistic elements, such as the use of color and
movement detract from these realistic looking birds. Although the individual species seem
realistic in shape and size, Audubon’s intention of creating such an expensive book and his
relationship with Havell creates questions about what was more important: the art or the science?
However, from the way I viewed this artwork, because of the lack of captions and descriptions
6
Nicklesen, “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature,” 8.
4
about the artist and the naturalist and the unnatural use of color, I believe the engraving was
more likely to be on display rather than be used in a science lab.
5
Bibliography
Freedberg, David. Introduction to The Eye of the Lynx: Galileo, his friends, and the beginnings
of modern natural history, 1-10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
Freedberg, David. “The Doctor’s Dilemmas,” in The Eye of the Lynx: Galileo, his friends, and
the beginnings of modern natural history, 275-304. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2002.
Nicklesen, Karin. “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century
Botanical Illustrations.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical
Sciences 37 (2006): 1-25.
6
7
Appendix:
Nell Patterson
Response to Kim
Introduction
I feel informed by this introduction because I think it includes all the information necessary
for an introduction. You include what the book is, what is generally looks like, and you
provide a very strong opening claim for your thesis. The last sentence is especially specific
and powerful. I do, however, feel slightly bored as well. If you add another sentence at the
beginning that really surprises the reader, I think it will make the introduction more
interesting and want to read on.
Conclusion
I feel satisfied with this conclusion because it definitely pushes boundaries that were not in
the introduction. Instead of just saying it was inaccurate, you push your thinking to say it
would more likely be artistic rather than scientific in nature. This shows that your thinking
has developed throughout the essay. However, the first three sentences of the conclusion
are a little repetitive. I can imagine these were probably the main ideas and your
paragraph, and restating them here is not always the most effective conclusion.
What to Include
You mention the Linnean concept in your conclusion, so I would imagine you would
reference Freedburg and our other readings of the development of the Linnean concept.
Additionally, I would imagine you would reference Nickelson because I think you are going
to try and describe the artistic elements of the work and how they distract from the
scientific portion of the drawing.
Potential Pitfalls
In your introduction, you emphasize color. Its possible you will not include all parts of the
drawing and focus too much on certain aspects of the piece instead of all of its details. Also,
you use a lot of the same sentence structure, so it is possible the prose might become
slightly repetitive. But, the ideas seem very solid and I don’t think they could skew you very
much.
My response to Nell:
Hi Nell!
Thank you for your comments. Unlike your essay or Xiaoling, I realized my introduction is kind
of boring: I didn’t really make it as personal, and rereading my essay, it does kind of sound
bland. And its interesting you picked up the repetition in my conclusion because as I reread my
essay, I did repeat a lot of phrases and words – so thank you for pointing that out. And you were
8
right: Freedburg and Nickelson appear a lot in my essay. I do not think I emphasized too much in
color – maybe the use of the word color makes my intro and conclusion slightly misleading.
Xiaoling Yu
Response to Kim
Introduction:
Intrigued: When you say “overall untrustworthy, imprecise illustration of the Whip-poor-will,” it
makes me want to read more to understand why exactly you believe it to be imprecise.
Muted: While you provide a very good description of what the image depicts, it lacks the interest
factor until the last sentence (which I assume to be your thesis).
Overall: You have very concise writing that no doubt allows you to present your arguments very
clearly.
Conclusion:
Confused: Your thesis from your introduction was that the painting is “inaccurate” but you begin
your conclusion saying that it is “extremely accurate and precise.”
Curious: you reach a very interesting “higher” conclusion at the end of your essay about who
was more important. While you don’t exactly answer the question, I feel as though it makes the
reader think more after reading your essay than prior to it.
Hope you include:
- Specific analysis of different aspects of image that allows for specification as to which is
an artistic element and which is scientific
- What constitutes an image as accurate or inaccurate? How does artistic interpretation
play into this?
- What is the Linnaean way of drawing an animal or plant?
- What was the relationship between artist and naturalist?
Potential pitfalls:
- Straying from your thesis as you develop your arguments
- Leaving questions unanswered
My response to Xiaoling:
Hey Xiaoling!
Thank you for your comments. You were right when you noticed or at least hoped I didn't
contradict my thesis in my conclusion. What I tried to imply was that the individual birds were
painted realistically, but when you look at the entire painting, the scene just seems false despite
the birds looking real. I hope that explains your confusion! And I will change that to make it
clearer!
See you tomorrow!
9
Aline
10