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.
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 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 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, 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. 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 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. 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 piece
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
3
dimensions. These three creatures seem to be placed in between where the viewpoints change
from up above to down below, 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 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 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. Also, 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
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
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
sense that this graphic could be improved as well.3 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
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).
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
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.
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.
6
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.
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.
7
MY RESPONSE:
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the feedback.
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