Audubon Assignment

Audubon Assignment

In John James Audobon’s Birds of America there are over 400 plates of several bird species in their respective habitats. Each plate contains such an extreme level of detail, however, based off of my observation of plate eighty-two, there are strange elementsthat appear in the drawings. The birds are not exactly portrayed naturally; they have almost an idealistic and cartoonish quality about them.Additionally, the specimens do not appear three-dimensional; they appear strangely static, as if they were dead when they were drawn which. This is indeedin fact how Audubon observed severaldrew the majority of his specimens. Audubon’s work reveals the problem that arises when people attempt to harness nature through possession and destructionkilling and possession instead of appreciating it in its natural environment,; they lose sight of why they valued it in the first place, often for the very qualities that are destroyed once it is possessed by humans, possess it; its untamed beauty and wildnesswilderness.

In the plate that we are studying, plate 82, there are three whip-poor-wills, two butterflies and one caterpillar. All of these specimens are arranged in a harmonious manner, however, if you look closely, the bird in the top portion of the painting appears to be eyeing the butterfly next to it in a threatening manner. This relationship leads the eye to view the picture in a circular manner from the first bird to the butterfly, continuing to the second butterfly and then the bird at the bottom, to the bird next to it and then to the caterpillar. This illusion of a living food chain is ironic because of the fact that Audubon used dead specimens as models forthe animals in his sketches. Despite Audubon’s effort to faithfully represent nature, the sketch remains very still, and no illusion of motion is portrayed.This emphasizes what was lost when the specimens were killed for observation; their natural predator/prey behavior was destroyed along with their freedom and vivacity.

The main focal point of the sketch is the whip-poor-will in the upper half of the page. It dominates mainly with its large size, dark color and threatening attitude. Upon first glance, the bird seems to be portrayed quite realistically, however the texture of the feathers is off, as is the glassy look in the bird’s eyes. The one thing that is severely lacking in this portrayal of the bird is its three dimensionality. This most probably stems from the state of the specimen that Audubon used as a guide when sketching the image. As aforementioned, the vivid energetic quality of the bird is lost. This has several consequences one of which is that the bird is not accurately portrayed. Even though the drawing is quite detailed, elements of the animal’s death seeps into the drawing inadvertently in the way that the extended wings appear stiff and the eyes appear glassy and unmoving. These observations create problems because they separate the drawing from the animal that a person might find in the wilderness. If the point of Audubon’s collection of illustrations is to create an encyclopedia of scientifically accurate portrayals of bird species, then he has failed because the elements of death greatly affect a specimen, making a natural living thing appear unnatural and defeated. These problems are in additionThis problem adds to the already prevalent issues that several people had with regard to the difficult task of trying to be completely accurate in scientific drawings. It is quite impossible to portray a specimen exactly as it appears in nature and adding another inaccurate element such as the dead state of the specimen results in an even more inaccurate drawing. To the naturalist CessiCesi, even scientific drawings from living natural specimens were too misleading and embellished, words were more applicable when describing natural samples.[1]

The balance and symmetry of the engraving is an important facet of the affect that the image has as a whole. While not exactly symmetrical, there is a balance present in the numbers of specimens in the picture. There are three whip-poor-wills, two butterflies and one caterpillar and three main sections that branch off of the main stem in the center of the picture. This balance of items in the image is unnatural because it is rare to see so many of the same animal species in such a small area. As a result, I think that the specimens were most likely arranged in their present position according to the artist’s discretion. This action emphasizes the loss of the natural quality of the sketch as a result of the artist’s aggressive manipulation of nature without regard to how his domination of the specimens would affect their natural quality, the quality that he wished to capture in the first place. As a result, the natural elements of the drawing were disturbed, not only in the details present or not present in the depictions of the specific animals, but also in the unnatural arrangement of the specimens on the page, in what the artist assumed to be their natural environment, behaving in the way that he thought they would behave.their supposed natural environment behaving in a way thought to be similar to their natural behavior.

This particular illustration by Audubons stands out to me as quite different than the other illustrations that we have looked at in class. The reason is mainly because the this illustration does not appear to be as naturalistic as most of the others. In those, the artists were extremely occupied with ensuring the precise nature of every single aspect of the drawing. Naturalists went to great lengths in order to ensure that their draughtsmen created images that were as accurate and realistic as possible including making them copy conventional images of specimens that they wanted them to sketch.[2]

The draughtsmen had to make sure that they created images that were recognizable by anyone familiar with the other scientific drawings of the day. The Audubon plate does not follow these conventions; the image is more artistic than scientific. This statement is supported by the effect that the colors have on the image. The colors are very bright and dramatic, seeming garish and unrealistic. The fact that each image was hand colored by artists who had not been present when the image itself was drawn from the specimens is also a key n important reason why the image is not as scientifically accurate as those that Nickelsen discussed in her article.

John James Audubon’s engraving demonstrates the problems that occur when people attempt to harness possess nature through possession and destruction without considering understanding that through this possession, nature loses its pure value and raw attraction. the reasons why they were so drawn to the nature in the first place and without considering that several of those qualities are destroyed once nature is tampered with by humans. The plate brings to the viewer’s attention thehighlights the unnatural method that Audubon used to observe animals which was, viewing and sketching them when they were dead and stuffed. Consequentially, Audubon’s need for dead specimens to draw resulted in the deaths of hundreds of animals. This method of observation directly conflicts with the traditional goals of a naturalist, which are centered on preservation of living natural specimens. The fact that Audubon’s desire to observe and draw the natural specimens resulted in their death, completely conflicts with the usual desires and thoughts of a naturalist. This conflicting situation resulted in an artistic yet inaccurate sketch of the specimens. It is important to realize the e to consider the effects that humans can have on nature inadvertently, even when trying to value it by studying and researching it. We must also stop to consider why something is valuable to us and whether and how much that value can be altered by interference with its natural existence.

Appendix: Feedback and Communication

Feedback from Daniel Ross:

Intro:

Positive:

I am impressed by your very well constructed thesis. I like the way the way use commas as it breaks apart the thesis into different succinct sections that strike the reader one at a time but then all come together as one whole argument.

Negative:

I thought this sentence was a little bit awkward and drags on a little bit:

Additionally, the specimens do not appear three-dimensional; they appear strangely static, as if they were dead when they were drawn which is indeed how Audubon observed several of his specimens.

I don’t think you need anything after “as if they were dead”.

Conclusion:

Positive:

I was satisfied as it seemed you lay out a good summary for what you were trying to prove in your thesis, and you seem to cover your points clearly and concisely.

Negative:

I was a little confused with some parts of the conclusion. I thought the first sentence was very long and it became difficult to focus on the all the aspects you were trying to cover. I was also slightly confused by some of the context such as:

The fact that Audubon’s desire to observe and draw the natural specimens resulted in their death, completely conflicts with the usual desires and thoughts of a naturalist. This conflicting situation resulted in an artistic yet inaccurate sketch of the specimens.

Although I think the issue is that I have not read the essay yet, because I am not sure what you mean by Audubon’s desire resulting in their death.

What I hope to see?

Your introduction does a really nice job at laying out your thoughts about the illustration and concluding with a thesis, so I hope the body of your essay comes across as just as clear and concise. What worries me slightly though is your conclusion, it doesn’t appear to completely match up with your introduction, for example the conflict about Audobon’s desire and the natural specimens death was never mentioned in the introduction, yet you do mention that the creatures look like they’re dead in the intro so I bet in your body you do a nice job of connecting those two items, but just be careful you haven’t gone in a separate path than what you initially laid out.

Feedback from MikeyHoeksema:

Good:

You have a really interesting topic here. I never even thought about the fact that the birds could have been drawn after they had already been killed and stuffed. In the opening paragraph, you have a lot of good detail leading up to the your thesis that builds it up well. You also do well in the conclusion of restating your thesis, although there may be a better way of doing it (See Needs Improvement). The conclusion seems like it ties up all of your thoughts and ideas throughout the paper though which is very good.

Needs Improvement/Suggestions:

The biggest thing that I noticed was your thesis. It took me a couple of times reading through it and looking back at the opening paragraph to understand what you were trying to get at. Once I did figure it out though, it was good. Perhaps you might want to reword a couple of things. “…through possession and destruction…” is a bit vague and might want to be rethought. Maybe, “Audobon’s work reveals the problem that arises when people attempt to harness nature after killing it instead of while it is still alive: they lose sight of why they valued…” or something more pretty, but along those lines.

In your conclusion, you do a good job in terms of the fact that you restated your thesis; however, you may want to try to reword it differently. I looked over it compared to your original thesis in the first paragraph and it is almost word for word what you had said already. The thought is definitely good, but it needs a bit of work. The last thing that I would say about the ending paragraph is that you may want to think of an interesting twist at the end that ties together your essay.

What to watch out for:

The only problem with this thesis is that I would not be able to come up with enough supporting evidence to prove your thesis. Also you must be sure to tie back your supporting points to your thesis at the end of each paragraph. I certainly hope that this essay works because it is a very interesting thesis, but that’s the only thing that I worried about.

My response to feedback:

Hey!

So here are some of my comments:

I agree with Dan's critique in my introduction. I definitely tend to write in run on sentences and I plan on revising the particular sentence that talks about the dead nature of the specimens. Also Mike's feedback about my thesis is very helpful, I'll work on it until it's more concise and understandable.

With regards to the conclusion, I will attempt to cut it down and make it more understandable and connected to the rest of the essay. I will also clarify what I meant when I said that Audubon's desire to study the specimens resulted in their death. Basically I meant that since Audubon used dead and stuffed animals in order to draw them accurately, his need for them resulted in the deaths of more animals for his samples. I also plan to make sure that my thesis matches up with each component of my paper so that I don't lose focus.

Thanks guys!

Emma Hickman

1

[1]Freedberg, David. The Eye of the Lynx: Galileo, his friends, and the beginnings of modern natural history, University of Chicago Press, 2002, page 6.

[2]Nickelsen, Karin. “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations.” Studies in History and PhilosphyPhilosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): 10.