“Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others.” -attributed to Jonathan Swift
How do we see our world? In particular, how do we observe the natural world around us? What are some different ways of visualizing? In my teaching unit, Visualizing Nature in Art, the goal is to delve into how we see nature as we create art. More important, my unit will help students develop different ways of seeing and observing nature so they can create art in distinct ways.
How we visualize a piece of nature influences how we make a piece of art. In Objectivity (2010), Daston and Galison suggest that actual objectivity is difficult to achieve and is, in fact, more an ideal than an actual result. They argue that what objectivity means changes over time. Before the age of photography, roughly between the 1500s and through the 1700s, “truth-to-nature” approach shaped images created from actual specimens in books of natural history. This meant that atlas makers would often observe numerous specimens of the same natural object to create one image that captured all possible features of that object. They did not create portraits of specific specimens but idealized images that would make it possible for other observers to recognize that object in nature. This method said more about what the draughtsman wanted to portray as a typical specimen, rather than how the specimen actually may have appeared. To portray a typical specimen might mean looking at several samples of the species and amalgamating them into one recognizable drawing. This was the essence of truth-to-nature artisanship (Daston and Galison, 2010).
One very famous and productive truth-to-nature artist was Maria Sibylla Merian (1647-1717), a German artist and naturalist who lived in the Netherlands. She often painted various stages of a natural specimen’s life cycle in the same image. For example, she would paint a plant with both the fruit and flower stages represented, or she might paint a caterpillar and a butterfly together. It was more expensive to paint multiple images, and it also became a sort of narrative or lesson within the one image. Having the insects surrounding a flower or other plant showed an ecological relationship, as well. Accuracy was important to both artists and naturalists, but “…concern for accuracy does not necessarily imply concern for objectivity (Daston and Galison, 69).” The ideal specimen that truth-to-nature presented was meant to enable viewers to recognize a species. This approach to naturalistic images sought to create an exemplar of the species from various specimens. For that reason, an artist such as Merian employed judgement and, as a result, subjectivity.
When naturalists couldn’t produce by themselves the images they needed (as in the case of Merian), they had to hire, train, and then supervise their artists. They often breathed down the artists’ necks, so to speak, to get the illustrations to their liking. Sometimes the collaborations were favorable. It was beneficial for a naturalist to also be an artist, but that wasn’t always possible, so they taught the artists they employed how to see objects and present them in the way the naturalists thought was correct. The artists might have to be willing to travel, as well. Some naturalists interested in taxonomy wanted artists’ help to classify plants and animals. “Imperial administrators, however, were much more interested in the economic potential of botanical exploration – for them, taxonomy was relevant inasmuch as it helped to identify new natural commodities that could be profitably exploited (Bleichmar 2012, 122).” Naturalists and artists were under pressure to perform and deliver.
During the Hispanic Enlightenment in the 18th century and the European exploration of the Spanish Indies, South and Central America, North America, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and the Philippine Islands, naturalists and artists joined expeditions for several reasons (Bleichmar 2012). They went for exploration and discovery, for supplying specimens and illustrations to “cabinets of curiosities, “and for aiding Europe in its commercial enterprises. First, naturalists and their artists observed flora and fauna in these territories to report back to their home countries, so that Europeans would know what was out there. They contributed to natural history through text and illustrations, as well. Second, these reports and illustrations could become valuable for collectors to display in “cabinets of curiosities,” or early museums. Private individuals would have cabinets full of discoveries of specimens and art collected to put on view for other travelers or notables who visited from other cities or countries. Third, naturalists and artists would also bring back their observations and specimens for the royalty or government offices who usually funded their trips. These patrons wanted to know how they could benefit economically from the discoveries. For example, spices and plants could be used to make teas, medicines, dyes, etc., and therefore be economically advantageous. To do the work they loved, the naturalists and artists sometimes lived and worked among Indigenous peoples and learned from them about the bounties and secrets of their surroundings, but ultimately their native countries wanted to exploit and benefit from their findings.
By the 19th century, with the introduction of photography, mechanical objectivity began to phase out truth-to-nature as the ideal manner of visualization. Mechanical objectivity was a reaction against the truth-to-nature approach. It meant that human interpretation should not interfere with the truth of an image. But even with the use of cameras, objectivity remained more of an ideal than a result. For example, photography still required an interpretation of the eye that viewed it. It depended on what the artist decided to focus on and the ability of the artist to render what they saw. The scientists who aimed for an objective view wanted a stripped-down, barebones version of a specimen with no subjective embellishment. This meant there could be defects and blemishes included in a drawing or image. It meant that the entire specimen could be included, not just a portion that might suit the photographer. The goal here was to strip away any element of subjectivity. Much to scientists’ chagrin, subjectivity still crept in. “However many twists and turns the history of the terms objective and subjective took over the course of five hundred years, they were always paired: there is no objectivity without subjectivity to suppress, and vice versa (Daston and Galison 2007, 32-33).” Or, as Anais Nin is attributed as saying, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are (Nin 1961, 124).” It was and is still very difficult to extract the human element of subjectivity from visualization to portray the “truth.”
