The image I chose to engage with is the neuroglial cells of the adult frog (Fig. 221 from Texture of the Nervous System of Man and the Vertebrates by Ramon and Cajal). The original image depicts multiple types of frog neuroglial cells and is visible via the Golgi method, a staining technique that utilizes microscopy to reveal nervous tissue (Golgi 7). I chose this image because I was intrigued by the idea of mechanical objectivity in anatomic representations introduced in our readings. MacLehose’s article shows that in the continued search for objectivity, we stumble upon alienation and in favor of simplistic, structured representation, we belittle and ignore the existing, more complicated representations. I kept this in mind as I chose to trace the image in three different ways, the final way leading to my final product. I did not have access to silver nitrate and thus, reproducing the image via Golgi Method would be essentially impossible. I started out with a pencil and graphing paper as I traced over the original image handed to us in order to confine this quite complicated structure in nice tidy boxes. I placed my water bottle on a corner of the page to make sure that nothing moved, and I created a homemade pedestal made of shoe boxes and books for my phone to peek over. I used the time-lapse setting and recorded. I did the same for another tracing I did, same scale, this time with tissue paper and a pen. Obviously, replicating the effects of the Golgi Method image especially at parts where I was unable to differentiate once cell from the other would be incredibly difficult. So, last but not least, I did a final tracing, this time with the picture scaled to the dimension of the tissue paper via Rosterbator on the computer, and I realized tracing with a permanent marker would be for the best. The technology that I utilized would allow me to see the most detailed parts of the image in a better focus. In other words, I could simplify the most complex parts into separate entities and trace them that way.
FIELD NOTE 1 OF 3
Date: 02/12/2020
People Involved: George (me)
Location: Will Rice Commons
Reconstruction conditions:
It was pretty noisy, very cold outside, and you could hear the squeak of markers on whiteboards
Time and duration of reconstruction:
30 mins from 6:30-7:00.
Equipment and tools used:
Mechanical Pencil, Ruler, Graphing Paper, Original image handed during class, Pedestal (made out of shoeboxes and multiple books), iPhone and Time Lapse, and Water Bottle/Weight
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
When I started, I could feel my hands start sweating as I realized that the image was incredibly complex, and I was not the most artistic person. As I was tracing, I realized that the C. section where the neuroglial cells of the dorsal funiculus were located were all near mushed with each other. You could make each out if you looked really hard, but with the graphing paper over it, I found myself struggling to capture any of the original image. As I was tracing, though, there was something nice about to seeing each part of the image captured by the square boxes of the graphing paper, making it more simplistic in a sense. My sweaty palm also liked to shift the paper despite having my water bottle down as weight, which annoyingly interrupted the flow of my tracings.
Prior knowledge that you have:
I am actually currently taking neurosystems right now, so I have a bit of knowledge about neuroglial cells and the type of glial cells. It was pretty awesome to see something I thought I would never see except in tests appear in such an involved structure. Also, the thought that animals other than humans had glial cells never really occurred to me until now. It was at this point that I also thought of mechanical objectivity and our discussion on objectivity.
Reflection on your practice:
I realized that I was doing a lot of things improperly in terms of how I wanted my final product to look like. I needed to add more weights, so the paper didn’t shift around too much or else this would be incredibly frustrating. I also knew that a couple of the A. ependymal cells were a little too large for me to be doing single-line tracing, so I decided I would use a pen my next round. Moreover, I realized graphing paper, is not super tracing-friendly, so I would likely have to use something more transparent like tissue paper. Also, I realized that I was tracing too fast and I wasn’t seeing the tiny deviations in each cell that made them different from each other. For the C. section I could barely see anything, so I started drawing out what I thought each cell looked like.
Photos/video documenting process:
Questions that arise:
How can I better improve my tracing for the next round so I can capture as many details as possible?
When I register the image rather pleasantly in square boxes, is this exactly what McLehose was suggesting in his article about objectivity?
Before you start, provide answers to the following (these will be answers for FN#1,2, & 3):
- What is this image for?
It is a depiction of the neuroglial cells of an adult frog.
- Where is the image coming from? What do we know of its source? Its audience? The image comes from a Golgi method in Ramon and Cajal’s article, which seems to be directed towards people who are interested in neuroscience and anatomical depictions in relation to neuroscience. Upon further research, it seems that this article still holds relevance today despite being a relatively old piece.
Materials & measurements
- Can we identify all the materials needed to make it?
Yes, some scientific articles state how the Golgi method is used. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/golgi-staining-technique
- Are there multiple varieties of tools used to make it?
No, but there are multiple ways of creating a similar image. I decided to use simple paper and tracing as it would produce the most accurate image as opposed to doing an engraving on wood or something else. I ended up using Rasterbator and tissue paper because this would allow me to make the most accurate tracing.
- What is the stability of a material over time?
The Golgi method seems to be relatively stable and accurate over time. However, my graph paper will likely not be as stable and will probably get wrinkled pretty easily. Though, it should be a more durable material than either tissue paper that I used. In fact, I would say the tissue paper will be really easy to rip, and it will happen some time soon.
Tools & equipment
- What tools are necessary?
I will need a utensil and a medium on which I will translate the image too, likely some type of paper. A ruler is also very necessary, so I can scale the image properly. The tools are listed in the respective field notes.
- What are the best ways to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools?
I research what exactly the tools do and try to find an alternative to that tool or if I feel what the tool does is negligible given the context of the project, I will move on to the next step. In this case the incredible detail that the Golgi Method shows will be scaled and simplified through Rasterbator in order for me to trace a much better and more accurate image.
- How do technological changes impact our interpretation/expectation of the image? (e.g., engraving, woodcut, silver chromate)
The interpretation of the image definitely changes if the medium on which it is expressed also changes. Knowing that this image was originally shown via the Golgi method makes me feel that the image is objective while my tracing reproduction of it seems more artistic and subjective than anything. In addition, I think enlargement of the picture via Rasterbator makes it feel different than the original image. It seems much less realistic and objective as well.
FIELD NOTE 2 OF 3
Date: 02/13/2020
People Involved: No one just me
Location: New Dorm 3rd Floor Lounge Will Rice
Reconstruction conditions:
Around evening time, the lounge is very quiet, and you can faintly hear people talking in their rooms.
Time and duration of reconstruction:
Approximately 45 minutes from 7:30-8:15 pm.
Equipment and tools used:
Mechanical Pen, Ruler, Tissue Paper, Original image handed during class, Pedestal (made out of shoeboxes and multiple books), iPhone and Time Lapse, and Water Bottle/Weight
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
I pulled out a fresh pen, and I could smell the fresh ink that dotted the tip of it. The tissue paper was incredibly lightweight but was still sturdy. It was a tad wrinkled, and you could feel the creases along the tissue paper. I placed the tissue paper on top of the image, this time putting a book one corner of the tissue paper and my water bottle on the other side. As I was tracing, I could now clearly see the lines. I traced with my pen around the larger black zones near the center of the image and tried to trace along line with perfect precision. My hand was getting noticeably sweatier as I was tracing, and the tissue paper had the annoying tendency to stick onto my hand.
Prior knowledge that you have:
Like I said in my first field note, I am actually currently taking neurosystems right now, and it’s cool to see something I thought that was irrelevant appear on a task such as this. I learned from my previous encounter with tracing this image that it is better to use a thicker utensil and more transparent paper to be more accurate and detailed in my tracings.
Reflection on your practice:
It took me longer than my previous session to trace out everything with my pen. But, towards the end, I realized that again, I was rushing, and I realized that my water bottle became decreasingly effective because I drank out of it a several times. As seen in the video, I had to readjust my tracing a couple of times. In addition, tissue paper is super light and has this tendency to get air bubbles, which I struggled with tracing over. I also began to think about disabilities and how it relates to my left-handedness. I started tracing on the right side first and that made it so much more difficult for me because the left side was getting splotched in my hand sweat, making my pen essentially useless, but then I had a question of why exactly am I going the right-side first despite me being left-handed? Wouldn’t it be more logical to do it the other way? Am I subconsciously prone to a society that sees right-handedness as conventional?
Photos/video documenting process:
Questions that arise:
Why did my left-hand instinctively trace on the right side of the image?
Are their conventional practices to tracing that favors right-handedness?
FIELD NOTE 3 OF 3
Date: 02/14/2020
People Involved: Me and a Friend
Location: New Dorm 4th Floor Lounge Will Rice
Reconstruction conditions:
It was super noisy as it seems that parties just started to happen, the lighting was a little, and the A/C could be heard blowing. It was nighttime and relatively late.
Time and duration of reconstruction:
4 Hours 8:00-12:00 pm
Equipment and tools used:
Permanent Marker, Ruler, Tissue Paper, Scaled Image (6 sheets of paper), Rasterbator, Scissors, Scotch Tape, Pedestal (made out of shoeboxes and multiple books), iPhone and Time Lapse, and Water Bottle/Weights (3 extra books), Friend, Laptop
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
When I pulled out the permanent marker, I could smell its strong, somewhat addicting scent. The scotch tape smelled rather funky for lack of better terms, and I could the solid zzzzzz as I cut out long pieces of the tape. I added layers upon layers of scotch tape onto my scale-up image to make sure that it was sturdy when I traced over it. This tissue paper I had was much less wrinkly and when I touched felt much smoother. There were a couple ridges from the connected pieces of copy paper that I had to sensitively touch with the marker as it could mess up some details of the tracing.
Prior knowledge that you have:
I knew that while the original image was already scaled up in a sense, it would not be enough to trace the original image. My prior field notes and experiences showed that I had to scale this to the size of the tissue paper in order for me to get every minute detail and without skipping over any of it.
Reflection on your practice:
This took me a much longer time than I expected as I am terrible with technology and fooled around with Rasterbator multiple times before finally getting the correct dimensions I wanted. Because I scaled it larger, I had to print out the picture via multiple sheets of paper, and there’s something interesting about the fragmented view of the picture before I put it together with scotch tape. The image appeared much larger and it became much easier for me to trace over each section of the image especially the C. Section. I also traced much more slowly this time, making sure to examine every notch and nook. This was easier with the marker as I could have longer and larger strokes with the side while still having the slim lines near the end of the picture via the fine tip. I realized in my careful tracing that each tiny knob that extend out of the cell mattered and if it wasn’t traced with detail, I would essentially have translated a completely different cell. For some reason, at this point, I also noticed the circular nature of the membrane and the tiny narrow cleft in the middle of the membrane. I’d like to do some more reading up on this to figure out what exactly this structure is. I’d personally like to visualize neuroglial cells of the adult frog via Golgi Method if given the opportunity. As for this image, I think I want to have a more permanent medium, perhaps an engraving in both wood and metal. I think the effects would be more pronounced. Lastly, I had a friend hold up my phone for the last bit and having him there actually made the experience a little different not necessarily better or worse. I talked to him while tracing carefully, which felt somehow different from tracing carefully by myself.
Photos/video documenting process:
Questions that arise:
Why does my experience with having a person beside me change how I felt sensory-wise versus when I was just by myself?
This time, I chose to do the left part of the image first, but it felt rather unnatural, why is that?
While I do think that my final piece was a more accurate depiction of the image than my other ones, does changing the scale somehow also contribute to the “variation” from each translated image to the other?
Does my simplifying of this seemingly complex structure contribute to the objectification model I previously mentioned?