Watercolors by Paulus Knogh (1737-1802)

After reading Art and Nature I started thinking about the original art that I have - I don't have many. I may as well try to post the few that I do have. The oldest original art that I have are two watercolors by Paulus Knogh (1737-1802). Knogh was a Dutch mathematician and physician who was also an artist and art collector. As an artist he specialized in drawing insects and amphibians. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam has a few of his insect watercolors on their website.

To me these paintings are very reminiscent of Maria Sibylla Merian (1647-1717). As can be seen by his work on the Rijkmuseum website, Knogh was certainly aware of Merian's work. Another artist who was heavily influenced by Merian was August Johan Roesel von Rosenhof (1705-1759). His first book was on insects - Today he is often considered one of the fathers of German Entomology. His second book was on frogs and is still considered to have among the best illustrations of frogs ever produced. Here is one of the illustrations from Rosel von Rosenhof's book. It appears to me that Knogh also knew of this work (I plan to discuss both Merian and Roesel von Rosenhof in future postings). In these pictures you can see the Knogh paintings seem more realistic and finely painted than the Roesel von Rosenhof - but keep in mind the Knogh are original watercolors and the Roesel von Rosenhof is a hand-colored engraving from his book.

WorldCat lists two books published by Knogh. One of them, published in 1803, Museum Knoghianum continens Praeparata anatomica ... Kabinet van naturalien has a title that suggests these painting may have been completed as part of this book. Unfortunately I am unable to locate a copy of this book or even a complete citation to indicate if it has any plates.

Art & Nature: Three Centuries of Natural History Art from Around the World

Art and Nature: Three Centuries of Natural History Art from Around the World

By Judith Magee

Art and Nature is a well illustrated book highlighting the natural history art collection in the British Museum. The book is divided into five chapters covering different regions of exploration: the Americas, Australasia, Asia, Africa, and Europe. The principle focus of each chapter is the artists who painted natural history subjects during the age of exploration.

Since the basis of most of the illustrations is the natural history art collection in the British Museum, there is certainly a British emphasis in the discussion of artists. However, given the extent of British exploration during the 1600-1900s, this emphasis covers quite a lot. The British Museum collection does include several non-British artists, like William Bartram, and this book includes a nice discussion of them as well.

Most of the illustrations in this book are of original art, not the reproductions in books. There are exceptions, but like the title suggests, the book is about the art of nature as opposed to the illustration (in books) of nature. This is especially nice since few people will ever have the opportunity to see the original art from the exploration of the world.

I quite enjoyed this book and the author's writing style. In fact Magee has written a couple of other books, The Art and Science of William Bartram, Chinese Art and the Reeves Collection, and The Art of India, each of which is a more in-depth look at topics covered in this book. More biographical information as well as more  pictures of the art by these artists. I look forward to reading each of these books.

Art and Nature (Originally published as Art of Nature) offers a good introduction with enough biographical information to peak an interest in further study. It is a nice introduction into the artists of the period. Most of the artists were key figures in the illustration of books as well.

Magee, Judith. 2009. Art and Nature: Three Centuries of Natural History Art from Around the World. Greystone Books, Vancouver, 256 p. (ISBN: 9781553655176)

Images of Science: A History of Scientific Illustration

Images of Science: A History of Scientific Illustration

by Brian J. Ford

In my efforts to study the history of natural history illustration, I hope to use this blog to discuss the topic. In doing this I plan to post notes or reviews of the various books and articles I read about the topic. 

After being inspired by Darwin's Ghosts to learn more about the history of natural history illustration, the first book I read was Images of Science: A History of Scientific Illustration by Brian J. Ford. This book is a broad survey of scientific illustration with eight chapters covering different types of scientific illustration: beginning with cave paintings, then moving on to human anatomy, animals, plants, rocks and minerals, maps, space and finally microscopic illustrations.

With such broad coverage, each chapter is necessarily an introduction to the topic covered. For me, being familiar with animal illustrations, that chapter was a bit of a let-down, simply because I felt several things of great interest were either barely touched upon, or skipped entirely. I can only assume the same is true for the other chapters as well.

The interesting thing is that because I know very little about the what all of the other chapters covered, I didn't feel they were inadequate. I found them interesting and informative and in most cases they left me wanting to learn more about what they covered. In this respect I think the author accomplished exactly what he had hoped. In fact, shortly after reading the chapter on botany, I read: 

Tangerini, Alice. 2014. Botanical Illustration: The past carries forward. Journal of Natural Science Illustration. 46 (3): 11-17. 

This article complimented the book chapter. My understanding of the article was enhanced having read the book.

If the history of scientific illustration is something you would like an introduction to, this book is one to consider. It is well illustrated and offers a good starting point. It is not authoritative, but is doesn't claim to be. It is a nice introduction or survey of the topic.

Ford, Brian J. 1993. Images of Science: A History of Scientific Illustration. Oxford University Press, New York, viii, 208 p. (ISBN: 0195209834)

Darwin in Context

Over the past couple of months I happen to read two books about Darwin: The first was Darwin's Ghosts by Rebecca Stott and the second was The Reluctant Mr. Darwin by David Quammen. Both of these books have inspired me in different ways. I have already begun to act on my inspiration from Darwin's Ghosts, but having just finished The Reluctant Mr. Darwin today I'll have to see if my motivation results in action.

In Darwin's Ghosts, Rebecca Stott tells the story of many of Darwin's predecessors who touched on different ideas of evolution—From Aristotle to Wallace and many individuals in-between. With the exception of Wallace, no one else proposed anything like natural selection. Many of the people discussed in the book didn't really propose much of a mechanism for evolution, or transmutation, but they did propose that species evolved or changed—that is they were not created. Some of them even went so far as to suggest that all species developed from a single common ancestor.

What made this book inspiring for me was that Stott, placed each person in context of the social and political environment in which they lived. Each of them in their own way was a revolutionary, at least in their thinking. For some, to suggest that species changed, as opposed to have been created by a higher power, was extraordinarily risky. But beyond that, to develop their ideas, based on their observations and what they had read, placed them as intellectuals and free-thinkers. They were definitely coming up with new ideas that were very radical, given the culture they lived in. It makes you think, what are the unsaid cultural assumptions that limit our thinking today. It is nice to assume that we live in an environment of free thought, that allows for everyone's ideas, but I am not sure that is true. Occasionally we still hear stories of peer-review papers that are rejected and highly criticized, only to receive a Nobel prize later on. The same is true for works of fiction that are rejected multiple times, only to become best sellers once they finally get published.

I have strayed a bit from how this inspired me. I already knew about of many of the scientists discussed in the book, but I hadn't thought of them in the context of their everyday lives before. Some of them were involved in explorations or published books that included beautiful natural history illustrations. I have been interested in natural history illustration for a long time, but not just in the illustrations as art, or even the illustrations as a means of communicating scientific information. Some of what interests me with scientific illustration is the evolution of illustration—from simple wood blocks to metal engravings, then to wood engravings, then lithography, etc. Along with changes in the medium used for illustration, techniques were developed in older mediums to replicate the benefits of other mediums. For example, wood engravings took some techniques from metal engravings, and stippled metal engravings developed from aspects of lithography.

Furthermore, I am interested in the illustrators themselves. Some scientists illustrated their own works, but many books that are renowned for their illustrations, were illustrated by little known illustrators. Take for example, Louis Agassiz. His publications frequently include outstanding illustrations. It is common to read about how Agassiz couldn't find an illustrator that he was satisfied with in the USA, so he brought Antoine Sonrel to the USA as his personal illustrator. Beyond this tidbit of information, little has been published about Antoine Sonrel—He deserves more. Sonrel is just one example, since most scientists have not illustrated their own works, there are many many more illustrators that are virtually unknown today. Their work as artists is overshadowed by the science they illustrated. But you have to ask, what would the science have been without their illustrations?

David Quammen's book, The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, has the same general approach as Stott's book, in that Quammen places Darwin in his cultural context to discuss why it took twenty years and the threat of loosing priority to Wallace for Darwin to publish On the Origin of Species. It is an enjoyable read and covers some of the same people and topics that Stott's book does, but from a different angle and at times with a considerably different perspective. As true title suggests Quammen's book is much more Darwin focused.

The inspiration I found in Quammen's book stems from one short section, perhaps one sentence. At one point Quammen mentions the overriding importance of On the Origin of Species, but then adds that it is odd that relatively few biologists, or even evolutionary biologists have actually read the book. This struck me, as I must confess, I am guilty. I have a couple of copies of the book and it has been on my "to read" shelf for years. I just never seem to get around to it.

Now that these two books have set the stage, putting evolutionary ideas and Darwin himself in cultural context, I think it is high time I read On the Origin of Species. Without having begun, I would recommend reading Both Stott's book and Quammen's book, perhaps before reading Darwin's book. Part of my fear in reading Darwin has been that I know there are some portions of the book that are known not to apply and I haven't wanted to be disappointed in the book as a whole. I think now that Darwin's Ghosts and The Reluctant Mr. Darwin have prepared me for these portions, by adding a context for me to interpret them, I won't be disappointed at all. In fact, I may be even more impressed with the work, knowing more about it's history and the scientific and social environment in which it was published.