Description of Images Used:
The image I used for the first two field notes is of an insect (Anostostoma Australasiae) drawn for The Natural History of Insects. Its creator is J.O. Westwood. It is presumed to be originally intended for other entomologists or readers interested in insects and served as an accompanying illustration to text descriptions in the book. The image seems to be an engraved illustration (based on historical context and the information from on a similar image by Westwood from this source) . The tools necessary for this process would include a plate and burin for engraving, an intaglio press, ink, and paper for transfer of the image from the plate to paper, and then a watercolor palette and brush to complete the illustration. The photograph copy of the illustration still shows many fine details, so I think the materials used to create it are pretty stable since the work was created in the 19th century. I expect that the engraving technology would have allowed great detail to be produced. Since I only have a photograph of the original work, there is less certainty in interpreting this photograph than the original image. Even with mechanical objectivity, there is not a perfect translation of actual object to the photograph. For instance, I cannot be certain that the faded background in the upper left is due to the illustration or an effect of the photograph, and the exact hue of the colors might be slightly off from the original. Since I do not have or know how to use the engraving tools, I will substitute the image lines created by the engraving by directly drawing on paper (tissue and/or computer) using a pencil to replace the burin. I will use watercolor as well for coloring.
The second image is a diagram of the sensory and motor nervous systems of a worm. It is a composite image of two separate figures (one from Retzius and another by v. Lenhossék). It is taken from Ramon y Cajal’s 1899 Texture of the Nervous System of Man and the Vertebrates. The image is intended for informational purposes for scientists. It is most likely a hand-drawn illustration based off of silver chromate staining of tissues, and probably requires careful preservation for stability of materials. Materials and tools necessary for this image are most likely a microscope and silver chromate for visualization of the tissues, and paper and an ink pen for the representation of the tissues. I plan on recreating this image using wood and sharpie. Since I have a photograph of the original work, I have the same issues as for the Westwood image of deciphering between artifacts of the photograph or fading on the original image. Since this is an image used for scientific purposes with microscopic technology, I expect the details are accurate and very precise.
FIELD NOTE 1 OF 3
Date: 2/12/20
People Involved: Myself
Location: Fondren first floor
Reconstruction conditions: Wide computer desk, bright but warm-toned light illuminating the working surface, the background noise of elevator ding, creaky door, squeaking of chair as people adjust and shuffle about, and the occasional whisper (or louder) of conversation
Time and duration of reconstruction: Approximately 1.5 hour, 4:30-6:00 pm
Equipment and tools used: Scissors, DSLR camera, makeshift stand consisting of the camera bag and glasses case
Materials: Tissue paper, lead number 2 pencil (not mechanical)
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
Although the tissue paper was thin, it was not thin to see every precise line and detail of the image. The vivid pigment of each color of the image was dulled but large discrepancies in the darkness or lightness of the colors could be distinguished. I actually cut the paper after tracing and did not think ahead to stabilize the large sheets before beginning, so initially any residue from my hand would cause the tissue paper to stick to it and shift. It was a slight challenge to re-shift the paper each time so that the parts I had already traced lines up. Eventually the tissue paper stopped sticking and the smoothness of the paper as my hand glided in tracing felt very nice. I also held the pencil very close to the tip for more control of my hand movements and the feel of the pencil if I applied just the right pressure to glide without tearing the paper was also satisfying. One thing I noticed that I like was the sound of the pencil on the paper, I’m not sure if I have an exact adjective within my vocabulary to describe why I like it but it was just the right amount of balance between smooth and textured. I found the crinkling of the tissue paper itself less appealing though. There wasn’t really a smell that I registered while I was tracing, however I do know that every time I walk into Fondren there is a very specific scent that greets me but I adjust very quickly to the scent.
Prior knowledge that you have:
In terms of the image, it seemed to be an aesthetic image used for informational purposes in a natural history book on insects. Based on google search results, J.O. Westwood created other images of insects in the same style as well. I presume the image to be an engraved illustration, since PLATE 14 is designated at the top of the image.
In terms of the replication process, I had previously taken an art class when I was very, very, very young. The one thing I remembered the teacher saying was to draw very lightly at first, so then when you made a mistake, the lines can be erased completely without any leftover residue. I tried to do so with the tracing, which is also good because the tissue paper was thin and too much pressure might have damaged the paper. I also had the basic knowledge of what an insect is supposed to look like so I feel like that made the different parts I was tracing such as the head, thorax, and abdomen seem clearer even though I could not see directly and clearly through the tissue paper.
Reflection on your practice:
I think I actually underestimated how hard tracing would be. Part of it is due to my own inconsideration of not cutting the paper beforehand and securing it in place. However, the material of the paper itself also posed issues on transmitting the original image clearly. Whenever I traced one part of the insect, the paper would somehow shift so that the outline of the previously traced parts no longer aligned perfectly with the original image underneath. This resulted in a lot of shifting, erasing, and redrawing so that the traced image aligned with the original one. Even though I tried to trace lightly (as explained above), some parts of the insect, such as the end of its thorax, were harder for me to replicate. Eventually, I couldn’t tell if the lines transmitted through the tissue paper were from the image below or due to the residue of my previous marks. It made me wonder if some of the things I am seeing were actually part of the original image underneath or just residues from unerase marks that I unconsciously incorporated or interpreted as part of the original image. The difficulty of seeing through the paper forced me to trace very slowly and focus on each individual part one at a time. It was almost like a macroscopic process view of vision where I concentrated on each insect part very closely before drawing back to look at the overall image. It really made me notice the details such as the fine hairs on the legs and the ends of the small pincers. The artist also colored and shaded the image of the insect, so that even some of the texture of the insect body could be picked up. For instance, the shine from the insect body is depicted using shading and light contrast. I tried to replicate this through the on the tissue paper. However, the medium and tools I am using is different from the original, so I could only shade to the best of my ability though crosshatching, which does not replicate the shading exactly done on the original work. Also, the fuzziness caused by the tissue paper meant that my shading was not as exact in terms of location and size of the spots of light vs dark. The background was probably the most difficult part because it had very fine lines the tissue paper did not transmit well. However, in studying them so closely, I noticed how the technique and curves used in the fine lines in the background (representing grass maybe?) was the same as the lines used to depict the hair on the insect. In addition, I noticed that the larger curves and shapes the fine lines of the background grouped together to form was very much similar to the curves of the insect legs. It makes me wonder if this was intentional to really emphasize the shape of the insect or if the artist engraved the insect first and the tendency to form such shapes and curves followed as he created the background.
Photos/video documenting process:
Questions that arise:
Is it our senses that we cannot trust or is it our interpretation of the senses? As noted above, sometimes I couldn’t tell if the lines on the tissue paper were from the original image or eraser marks. This makes me wonder if it is my senses that cannot distinguish or my interpretation of sensory stimuli. Perhaps in the overall interpretation of the image, I somehow incorporated the un-erased marks into the image that was transmitted through the tissue paper. So then would the problem lie with the supersensory or non-sensory manager of the senses Connor mentioned in “Menagerie of the Senses”? Perhaps to minimize the error from the senses or the supersensory/non-sensory manager of the senses, a macroscopic process view of studying and depicting each individual part in order to create the whole is necessary. But then this leads me to wonder did the original artist use a real-life model? Was the artist practicing a “truth-to-nature” objectivity ideal in creating the engraving/illustration?
FIELD NOTE 2 OF 3
Date: 2/13/20
People Involved: Myself
Location: McMurtry Innovation Space
Reconstruction conditions: Very wide wooden work bench situated in the middle of the room with lots of crafting and building supplies surrounding it. It is clearly a space for creating. I am the only occupant in the room so I could spread out as much as possible. It is evening and the room is lit by standard fluorescent lights. The instrumental soundtrack to the Greatest Showman is playing in the background.
Time and duration of reconstruction: Approximately 2 hours, 9:00- 11:00 pm
Equipment and tools used: Small wash-bucket for paint brush, DSLR camera, makeshift stand consisting of the camera bag and whiteboard eraser
Materials: lead number 2 pencil (not mechanical), regular size computer paper, smallest size brush I could find, water-color palette courtesy or McMurtry innovation space
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
I always notice the scent of wood when I walk into the McM innovation space, it just makes me think of a workshop bench kind of smell, which I felt was very fitting for the occasion of trying to replicate the image. The table surface was overall very smooth but it did have the occasional etch and scar, however this did not affect my drawing at all. The soundtrack I played in the background created a very fun and calming mood. Unlike the tracing last time, I could see the vivid colors and intensities of the lines very clearly when trying to replicate free-hand. In fact, I found the color palette of the image, the whiteness of the computer paper, the colors of the water-color palette against the wooden table to be very aesthetically pleasing. Occasionally, when I had to erase, the eraser running across the page was silky smooth and a very nice feeling.
Prior knowledge that you have:
Based on my research, the image is presumed to be an aesthetic representation of Anostostoma Australasiae by J.O. Westwood. The background is uncolored and neutral while the insect is vivid both in color and texture, so the focus of the work is definitely the insect. From my tracing last time, the artist seemed to have used painstaking detail especially when including the hair or spines on the legs of the insect, which leads me to conclude it is meant to be a very accurate and detailed representation of the insect
Reflection on your practice:
This was actually a very difficult replication. In duplicating the image first by free hand, I began with the easiest and largest outlines. Unlike my previous tracing, I could not skip around when replicating the different body parts of the insects. I needed to finish each part of the insect before going on to the next so I could establish points of reference to continue. I also noticed that lines that I had missed or mistook for something else during my first tracing replication (for instance I thought the hair/spines were single lines but were actually a thin shape made from two lines) were now much more evident and sharper to me than when I first looked at the image. Although tracing made replicating the accuracy of the spatial placement of the lines very easy, drawing free-hand was a different matter. I had a difficult time gauging the how wide the curves of the legs and body needed to be or how large the parts needed to be in relation to each other. For some parts, I actually used the method practiced in class where I only looked at the image without looking at the paper to try and draw an accurate depiction. I would do the same shape several times and then look at the shapes I created. Then I would erase all of them just enough so that there was still some residue leftover. Unlike during tracing, the pencil residues this time actually guided my final shapes as I took the average of all the shapes I had drawn. I suppose that in a way I was trying to replicate through the truth-to-nature objectivity ideal by taking the average of all of the different shapes. I also took more liberties in replicating the detailed spines/hairs on the legs or the different segments on the antennae because replicating them with exact accuracy would have been almost impossible since the lines are so fine and many. I also noticed the fine horizontal lines augmenting the shading on the body of the insect but decided not to replicate those either for the same reasons. It made me wonder whether the artist took any liberties of his own presuming the image was created by looking at the actual specimen of the insect. For some reason, drawing instead of tracing also made me notice how human-like the joints and different leg segments on the insect were.
Coloring the image with water-color was even more difficult than tracing. The coloring process also really highlighted for me how off some parts of my replication was, both spatially and in terms of relative size. This was especially evident when I colored some of the legs. Trying to create the same exact shades of color was a trial and error experiment. The watercolors spread easily on the paper and the exact intensity of each color was hard to control. Having to color the insect also forced me to study how nuanced the color of the insect was. It was not just brown but different shades of brown with different overtones like red and yellow and orange and white. Having to color the thorax also made me notice that the texture on the light center of the thorax almost seemed like there was a face imprinted onto it with semi-human features.
Overall, this second replication process was more engaging this time. I can recall the features better because I had to work harder to replicate them.
Photos/video documenting process:
Questions that arise:
I noticed that whenever I tried the technique of looking only at the image and drawing the shape, I did it several times for the same shape and then took the average. Is this “average” shape a different concept from the “supernormal” brain images we discussed? I am not taking multiple real brain images and converging them into an average ideal, but multiple attempts at a real image replication and converging them into an average. Does this average represent a more objective and accurate representation? Based on the voxels article we read, objectivity is associated with an ideal “norm” compiled through images that are (supposedly) accurate and produced through mechanical objectivity. So then is objectivity and accuracy the same thing?
FIELD NOTE 3 OF 3
Date: 2/14/20
People Involved: Myself
Location: McMurtry Innovation Space
Reconstruction conditions: Very wide wooden work bench situated in the middle of the room with lots of crafting and building supplies surrounding it. It is clearly a space for creating. I am the only occupant in the room so I could spread out as much as possible. It is late afternoon and the room is lit by a combination of natural and standard fluorescent lighting. Claude Debussy is playing in the background.
Time and duration of reconstruction: Approximately 1.5 hour, 4:00-5:30 pm
Equipment and tools used: self-healing cutting mat (to create straight edges), wooden block (to create straight edges), DSLR camera, makeshift stand consisting of the camera bag and glasses case
Materials: Wooden block, sharpie fine point
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
The block of wood I chose was just a little larger than the image in terms of width. It had a satisfying weight to it. Although it looked very smooth, the wooden surface of the block was still a bit grainy. It smelled very strongly of new wood which also happens to smell like olives for me. The sharpie scent also occasionally drifted into my nose. When I made marks with the sharpie on the wooden block, it was not very smooth, and sometimes the grooves in the wood would derail the path of my sharpie. The color of the wood block was a nice champagne like shade with darker streaks of sand, I think it served as a very aesthetic background for the image.
Prior knowledge that you have:
Based on the image description, it is a diagram of the sensory and motor nervous systems of a worm, and a composite figure two separate figures. The letters on the image act as labeling points of different types of cells and junctions. It is taken from Ramon y Cajal’s 1899 Texture of the Nervous System of Man and the Vertebrates.
Reflection on your practice:
This was my first replication using a medium other than paper. I chose wood because I wanted to see how recreating using a harder medium would differ from my previous paper replications. One thing I noticed immediately when recreating is the way the sharpie ink bled onto the wood. The lines were not as sharp and edged as the original image, especially when I was drawing vertical lines. Replicating the image also made me notice the precision of the spatial arrangement of the nerves and nerve cell bodies. At some junctions, there is almost an infinitesimally small distance between two parts while at others the nerves cross over each other. The bleeding of the sharpie took away some of the control I had over making sharp lines so that at some points the lines bled into areas that should have been empty space. Unlike my previous replications with paper and pencil, there was no way to fix any mistakes. Once the ink was on the wood, there was no erasing or averaging of previous attempts. In replicating the image, I also noticed the shade gradient some of the lines had, going from dark to light. However, I found that I was unable to reproduce the gradient through sharpie because the ink always marked the wood surface with the same intensity of color. For some reason, I also did not notice the two holes on the surface of the wooden block until after the replication process had started, so I had to work around them during the process. I noticed that shading on the image was done through gradients of small dots, which I had not noticed before. The replication process also highlighted for me the dotted lines running vertically down the image that I had previously only dimly registered. I could not really figure out if they were an intended part of the image or an artifact of technology used to create the image, such as from the silver chromate stain of the tissue. In trying to create these dotted lines, I took the liberty of replicating an approximately similar dotted line for I found it to be almost impossible to create the exact same dotted line with the same number of dots. However, I suppose that almost everything in my replicated image is an approximate of the original, just with varying levels of accuracy. It was difficult to spatially place everything in its exact place as in the original image using free-hand. In addition, some of the lines were so fine that that their thinness could not be replicated using the sharpie I had. The complexity and intricacy of the lines on the image warranted attention to even the slightest details. I found that the technique that worked the best was moving methodically and consecutively form one part of the image to the next contiguous portion.
I found that the process of engaging with the image in ways other than just visually viewing the image really forced me to be more critical of the image in wondering about its original creation process and purpose.
Photos/video documenting process:
Questions that arise:
I noticed that throughout the process I made adjustments or took liberties due to the limitations of my skills or lack of materials. However, it makes me wonder how the level of detail and accuracy of an image relates to its intended purpose? Do details like the vertical dotted lines need to be reproduced accurately for the purpose of the image? I also noticed that I found myself very pleased with the aesthetic of the dark lines on the wooden background. This reminds me of the article on Bell and the importance of beauty in representation. So, then what does beauty mean, or how is it defined if we were to approach visual stimuli from a process view? What does the process view of vision break down to?