I choose the reproduce Figure 111. from the first edition of Ramon y Cajal’s 1899 Texture of the Nervous System of Man and the Vertebrates. This image depicts the sensory-motor collaterals of a newborn rat paying attention to the fibers growing out of the motor nucleus. The sample was sliced using a microtome, stained using Golgi’s staining method, and hand drawn by Ramon y Cajal using pen and ink. Ramon y Cajal in the preface of his book states that all the figures depicted in his book are pieces of reality that represent the objective factor. Ramon y Cajal is aspiring for mechanical objectivity but is being disingenuous by ignoring the role of human biases in his figures. In fact, both Ramon y Cajal and Golgi used the same staining methods and perceived similar images under the microscope but interpreted these images differently. Ramon y Cajal proposed the neuron doctrine which stated that the nervous system was composed of discrete cellular units while Golgi believed in the reticular theory which stated that the nervous system was a continuous network of cells. Looking through the images in this book it is difficult to view them as anything other than intricate works of art that were influenced by the artist-author. While studying my particular figure, I was struck by the attention paid to bundles of fibers making me wonder if it is even possible to depict their true nature with freehand drawings. For my reconstruction of the image, I decided to use 9-inch by 12-inch drawing paper and a charcoal pencil. I decided to use a charcoal pencil because I could easily draw different shades of black and capture the fine detail.

Before you start, provide answers to the following:

• What is this image for? The image is taken from a newborn rat to illustrate sensory-motor collaterals.
• Where is the image coming from? What do we know of its source? Its audience? This image is Figure 111 from the first edition of Ramon y Cajal’s 1899 Texture of the Nervous System of Man and the Vertebrates. In the preface of this book the Ramon y Cajal identifies the audience as the “medical public” meaning that the scientific community is the intended audience. The author excepts the audience to have sufficient background knowledge in neurology. The purpose of the book is to illustrate the fine structures of the nervous system.

Materials & measurements

• Can we identify all the materials needed to make it? The sample was prepared using the Golgi method, so necessary materials include potassium dichromate solution, silver nitrate solution, alcohol to dehydrate the sample, turpentine, and a microscope slide with clear gum damar to hold the sample.
• Are there multiple varieties of tools used to make it? There were staining methods prior to Golgi’s method that involved the use of red carmine or black hematoxylin, but Golgi’s staining methods were unique in that it allowed for visualization of the entire neuron and greater detail of tissues. Gold and mercury were also sometimes used instead of silver nitrate.
• What is the stability of a material over time? Neural tissue is very soft, and the dendrites could easily break away from the cell. Potassium dichromate was used to harden the tissue to make it more stable for handling.

Tools & equipment

• What tools are necessary? A microtome was necessary to section the sample and a microscope was necessary to view the stained sample. Ramon y Cajal then simply used pen and ink to reproduce what he saw under the microscope. He rarely used a camera lucida, which would allow him to trace the microscope picture.
• What are the best ways to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools? One drawback is that Ramon y Cajal had to hold the image he saw through the microscope in his mind and replicate it freehand. I can just look at a static piece of paper while I am drawing and replicate it precisely. I think experimenting with different tools and methods you have access too is the best way to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools.
• How do technological changes impact our interpretation/expectation of the image? (e.g., engraving, woodcut, silver chromate) Despite improvements in microscopy and modern imaging techniques that allow us to see samples with greater clarity, I think that Ramon y Cajal’s drawings still serve as useful representations of the nervous system because of their intricacy and attention to detail.

FIELD NOTE 1 OF 3

Date: 02/14/2020

People Involved: Myself

Location: Off-campus apartment

Reconstruction conditions: It was sunny outside and warm inside my apartment, I was using my desk lamp for additional lighting, and was listening to music.

Time and duration of reconstruction: Approximately 25 minutes, 5:30-5:55

Equipment and tools used: 9-inch by 12-inch drawing paper, charcoal pencil, knife used to sharpen my pencil, and a water bottle as a phone stand.

Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:

Until I actually started drawing the figure, I didn’t fully appreciate the complexity of the image. This made me appreciate the difference between seeing something and then actually reproducing it onto a piece of paper. It was difficult for me to keep track of the lines and tangles and found it frustrating it to keep track of all the little details. As a result, I decided to just capture the overall structures in the figure rather than worry about each individual line. This was my first time using charcoal pencil, so I wasn’t aware of how much it smudges.

Prior knowledge that you have: I am aware of Ramon y Cajal’s neuron doctrine in which he stated that the nervous system is made up of individual cells. I have also taken neuroscience classes in which I have studied motor neurons but actually drawing it gave me a different perspective on the complexity of the nervous system.

Reflection on your practice: Drawing the figure made me appreciate its complexity much more than if I had just viewed it in a book. I came to appreciate that by deciding the amount of attention you pay to details you can change the understanding of the structure. I decided to give up on following each line and each mark due to its complexity but on my next attempt I am going to try to stay as close to the figure as I can. I also liked the feeling of drawing with the charcoal pencil but next time I am going to be more careful about where I place my hands to avoid accidental smudges. In addition, looking at the figure from an artistic perspective rather than a purely scientific perspective, I appreciated the attention paid to shading and contouring.

Photos/video documenting process:

 

 

Questions that arise:

I wonder how many hours Ramon y Cajal took going between the microscope image and the paper in order to capture all the details.

Looking at all the hand drawn figures in this book, I am wondering if Ramon y Cajal would have come to the same conclusions regarding the neuron doctrine if he had been able to photograph the samples.

 

FIELD NOTE 2 OF 3

Date: 02/15/2020

People Involved: Myself

Location: Off-campus apartment

Reconstruction conditions: It was sunny outside, and I used the sunlight coming through my windows as lighting, I was listening to music, and I was using my water bottle and a wooden box as a phone stand.

Time and duration of reconstruction: Approximately 30 minutes, 4:00 to 4:30

Equipment and tools used: 9-inch by 12-inch drawing paper, charcoal pencil, knife used to sharpen my pencil, and a water bottle and wooden box as a phone stand.

Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:

The charcoal pencil was sharp at the beginning and felt easy to draw with but as I kept drawing it become blunt and I found it difficult to sharpen. I was paying more attention to each marking and each line this time and found it very difficult. I tried to watch where I was putting my hands to avoid smudging but there were still smudges on the paper. The paper felt nice against my hand and I had a strong grasp of the pencil. There were no particular smells that stood out to me while I was drawing. I could’ve used some better lighting and will turn on my desk lamp for my next attempt.

Prior knowledge that you have:

I had already drawn this picture once, so I had an appreciation for the complexity of the image.

Reflection on your practice:

This was my second time drawing the figure and I attempted to be cognizant of each line and marking. I found it very difficult to go back and forth between the image and the paper, so I tried to look just at the image and draw. However, my markings would stray from where I intended them to be, so I tried to the best to hold the image in my mind and keep track of the lines. I definitely appreciate the difficultly that Ramon y Cajal faced of having to go between the microscopy image and the paper. I appreciated the fibrous nature of the bundles and how they weave in and out of each other to form tangles. I am also wondering what the oblong shape near the middle of the picture is and if it is an artifact from the staining method used or an important structure.

Photos/video documenting process: 

Questions that arise:  

I am wondering how Ramon y Cajal’s drawings hold up when compared to modern images derived from more advanced techniques.

 

 

Assignment #1

Field Notes

FIELD NOTE 3 OF 3

Date: 02/152020

People Involved: Myself

Location: Off-campus apartment

Reconstruction conditions: It was dark outside, and I used my desk lamp and overhead lights for lighting. I was listening to music while drawing and used my water bottle and wooden box as a phone stand.

Time and duration of reconstruction: Approximately 30 minutes, 7:25 to 7:55

Equipment and tools used: 9-inch by 12-inch drawing paper, graphite pencil, electrical sharpener, a water bottle and wooden box as a phone stand.

Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:

I was using a graphite pencil this time and found it easier to manipulate. I also didn’t have to be as careful about where I put my hands on the paper since graphite pencils don’t smudge. Compared to my previous trial, I had more light because of the desk lamp.

Prior knowledge that you have: This was my third time drawing the same picture, so I was familiar with the detail of the figure.

Reflection on your practice:

Unlike the last two drawings, I was using a regular graphite pencil. I actually found it easier to make smaller markings with the graphite pencil, but I appreciated the final product more from the last two attempts because of the charcoal. I also enjoyed using the charcoal pencil more even though it was more difficult to work with. During this reconstruction, I didn’t have to be as careful with my drawings since I could use an eraser to erase away the graphite markings. I didn’t have an eraser for the charcoal pencil, so I had to be more careful and deliberate with the markings I made. I imagine that Ramon y Cajal was extremely deliberate with each marking he made since he was using pen and ink. I was surprised that even though this was my third time reproducing the picture, I still noticed new details such as parts of fibers that I had not noticed before.

Photos/video documenting process: 

 

Questions that arise:

I am wondering why Ramon y Cajal choose to draw most of his images freehand instead of tracing them. If Ramon y Cajal was aiming for mechanical objectivity wouldn’t tracing the images be the most accurate representation of what he saw under the microscope? I question if it was more of an artistic choice or a scientific choice.