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-poor-

will 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 through his use of colors, Audubon portrays an

overall untrustworthy, imprecise illustration of the Whip-poor-will in nature.

The 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 little 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 nature 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 without including any written description

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

about the bird’s habitat, leaving me to question the accuracy of 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, the I saw the engraving is looked at as an entirely artistically crafted scene, rather than

focusing on the specific bird and not specifically the bird that Audubon is focusing on.is

depicting.

The use of color also makes the painting more aesthetical than scientific. Linnaeus had

excluded color as a means measure of classifying plants and animals because color differed for

those species living in different areas and because it was nearly impossible to reproduce the

exact colors of nature a species.5 The use of color in this engraving, especially the bright colors

on the butterflies, makes the painting pleasing to the viewers. The use of color 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

seemss unnatural as they range from a shade of light green to a bluish green. Some leaves are

half light green and half dark green, confusing viewerscreating a confusion of what on 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 leaves this detail out, while he does include the

many vines of the leaves.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

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

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.

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 it is was impossible to distinguish what the artistwhat Havell’s contributed

ed to the painting from what he was instructed to illustrateas 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? This Without any knowledge of this relationship between Audubon and Havell,

I question the is crucial in understanding how accuracy te of the painting is, and how useful it

could be for scientific analysis and classification.

Although Audubon’s engraving of the individual Whip-poor-will is extremely accurate

and precisedetailed 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 n 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. three

birds are positioned so that viewers can understand the relationship between male and female

6 Nicklesen, “Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature,” 8.

4

Whip-poor-will birds, the composition in the circular form creates a movement, which is an

artistic element. 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 who what was more important: the artist or the naturalistart or the science? However, from

the way I viewed this artwork, Wbecause of the ith this conflictlack of captions and descriptions

about the artist and the naturalist and the unnatural usage use of color, I believe the engraving is

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 PattersonResponse 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 IncludeYou 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 PitfallsIn 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 YuResponse 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