|
botanical illlustration
I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are
surely some botanists who have thoughts on this. I am a mature age amateur botanical artist who is interested in progressing to try some illustration work. I have checked several web sites and many illustrations, but there seems to be no set standard format of just what features of a plant should be represented in an illustration. So far I have seen the following depicted but not all on the same specimen. a. Habit b. male flowers and inflorescence c.male flowers top view d.female flowers and inflorescence e.side view of female flower f. stipule g. under surface of leaf h. close up of under surface of leaf i. bud side and front view j. individual petals and open view of petals k.seed pods some show cross sections, some don't Is there such a thing as a standard format or is it just up to the illustrator toshow what they think? Is there also a better or best means of showing the scale I understand it is not sufficient to show 'life size'; x1; x.5 etc. as this becomes meaningless if an illustration becomes reduced Gramma |
Gramma schreef
I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are surely some botanists who have thoughts on this. *** One of the prime uses of botanical illustrations is to illustrate botanical / taxonomic works. These are written by people who will have special and intimate knowledge of the plants described. Therefore they will know what parts of the plants it is necessary to feature, and from what angle, perhaps mounted in a special way. They will so instruct the artists commissioned to make said illustrations. So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does happen that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by taxonomists is critical, after all). A common device to show scale is a scale bar (usually a line, sometimes with short cross lines at either end) that represents, say, 1cm, 5cm or 5mm in the real plant. If the illustration is reduced so is the scale bar. PvR |
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in
: Gramma schreef I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are surely some botanists who have thoughts on this. *** One of the prime uses of botanical illustrations is to illustrate botanical / taxonomic works. These are written by people who will have special and intimate knowledge of the plants described. Therefore they will know what parts of the plants it is necessary to feature, and from what angle, perhaps mounted in a special way. They will so instruct the artists commissioned to make said illustrations. So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does happen that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by taxonomists is critical, after all). A common device to show scale is a scale bar (usually a line, sometimes with short cross lines at either end) that represents, say, 1cm, 5cm or 5mm in the real plant. If the illustration is reduced so is the scale bar. PvR This is true, generally the author of the work requests the illustration, and specifies the important features. There at least used to be a certificate program in botanical illustration offered by the Smithsonian Institute. Don't think that you are too old for it, Gesina (Nikki) Threlkeld was about 70 when she got her certificate. Sean |
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ... Gramma schreef I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are surely some botanists who have thoughts on this. snip So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does happen that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by taxonomists is critical, after all). Thank you for replying. To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am thinking along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel including at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research associate from a botanic garden. The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should be shown I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever specimen I choose. This could of course be part of what they are looking for - to see how an illustrator has looked at the plant I will take on the method of scale you suggested - it is certainly makes sense Gramma |
"Sean Houtman" wrote in message news:1106649932.225ccaab731b22d649df41aa18bf587b@t eranews... "P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in : Gramma schreef I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are surely some botanists who have thoughts on this. snip There at least used to be a certificate program in botanical illustration offered by the Smithsonian Institute. Don't think that you are too old for it, Gesina (Nikki) Threlkeld was about 70 when she got her certificate. The Smithsonian would be a bit far for me as I am in Oz but there are sure to be similar courses here. Age would not stop me doing something like that, but unfortunately my pension could ! Not surprisingly, as this is a new direction for me, I have not heard of the lady you mentioned. I will do a Google search and see if I can find any of her work Thank you for your reply Gramma |
Gramma schreef
To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am thinking along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel including at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research associate from a botanic garden. The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should be shown I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever specimen I choose. This could of course be part of what they are looking for - to see how an illustrator has looked at the plant. *** What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and what botanists regard as the important features. It may be relevant who the members of the jury are PvR |
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ... Gramma schreef I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever specimen I choose. This could of course be part of what they are looking for - to see how an illustrator has looked at the plant. *** What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and **what botanists regard as the important features.** I guess I was trying to ask this group that question in the first place. Gramma... |
Gramma Wrote: "P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...- Gramma schreef- I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.-- snip - So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does happen that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by taxonomists is critical, after all).- - - Thank you for replying. To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am thinking along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel including at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research associate from a botanic garden. The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should be shown I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever specimen I choose. This could of course be part of what they are looking for - to see how an illustrator has looked at the plant I will take on the method of scale you suggested - it is certainly makes sense Gramma - - good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC -- AZTEC |
Gramma schreef
What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and **what botanists regard as the important features.** I guess I was trying to ask this group that question in the first place. *** You guess wrong. You asked what in general are important features for plants in general. A one-size-fits-all approach. What matters for the illustration is the important features of the particular plant-species portrayed. Features which likely are unique to that group of plants. A competetent illustator working alone will have to do his homework in order to deliver a product-made-to-measure ... PvR |
Sean Houtman schreef
Doing your homework in a case like this may mean you research the original description, which will generally start out with a bunch of latin, and then the same stuff in another language (usually English, but not always, depending on the native tongue of the describer). Those descriptions often say something like "looks like $SOMEOTHERPLANT except..." so you might want to take a look at what that some other plant looks like. *** Well, this is OK as far as it goes, but I would much rather recommend a good monograph. Not only will this make a close comparison between all the different species now known (rather than those known at the time of the discovery of one particular species), but it will also be a lot easier to read, especially for the layman. PvR |
"Sean Houtman" wrote in message news:1106860261.068750950298bc55d9b4ee2cf29183b3@t eranews... Yes, for this type of illustration, you want to make sure that the features that separate this species from related ones are clearly rendered. That may mean that a part that displays that feature is in the forefront, or angled so that it is easy to see. That is a fairly standard practice in botanical art,so I am familiar with looking at a specimen that way. Whether I always get it right is open to conjecture. Which features chosen will vary between plants. For instance, if you are illustrating a grass, and the main feature that separates your chosen species is the shape of the ligule, you probably want to make sure that the ligule is prominent. I have not as yet felt ready to progress to a body of work on any particular species, but it is swirling around as a project in the dark recesses for next year. Doing your homework in a case like this may mean you research the original description, which will generally start out with a bunch of latin, and then the same stuff in another language (usually English, but not always, depending on the native tongue of the describer). Those descriptions often say something like "looks like $SOMEOTHERPLANT except..." so you might want to take a look at what that some other plant looks like. I'm sorry if I haven't quite grasped the above but you seem to be saying that an illustrator could , or should be able to, work principally from the description of a plant in botanical terms. Or do you mean in conjunction with a live specimen? Gramma |
"AZTEC" wrote in message ... - - good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC Thanks -- If I don't get cold feet in the mean time and if I have the courage I might run it past for a critique before I enter, which might of course put me off entering altogether . [g] Gramma |
Gramma schreef
Well yes, I did think there would be some kind of standard features of a plant that *must* be included in a botanical drawing. As there isn't , I have learned something. *** I suppose that roughly speaking there are such features. But only roughly speaking * * * What matters for the illustration is the important features of the particular plant-species portrayed. Features which likely are unique to that group of plants. I assumed for the purpose I want, which initially is one illustration of a chosen plant, that I would be able [that it would be correct to do so ] to take a living plant and draw it from life. *** Oh yes, do draw one from life. But the angle from which you draw, the parts depicted and indeed the very choice of specimen all depend on what you need to show. These must be educated choices. * * * I may be phrasing that wrongly due to my lack of botanical vocabulary, but would this be considered an incorrect botanical illustration because it was a stand alone drawing without any comparison to others of the plant species? *** Stand-alone drawings are the norm. Best advice is to look at a range of monographs, dealing with quite different plants, such as trees with catkins, trees with "real" flowers, several herbaceous plants and grasslike plants. That will convey the idea better than anything anybody can say. PvR |
"Gramma" wrote in
: I'm sorry if I haven't quite grasped the above but you seem to be saying that an illustrator could , or should be able to, work principally from the description of a plant in botanical terms. Or do you mean in conjunction with a live specimen? Definitely use the live specimen, but remember that the Botanist who described the plant is familiar with its relatives, and described it in such a way that some one else would be able to tell them apart using the description. Monographs (publications dedicated to a single group of plants, such as a genus or subgenus) also tend to include that information. Sean |
Sean Houtman schreef
Monographs (publications dedicated to a single group of plants, such as a genus or subgenus) *** Lots of monographs are devoted to a family. Several such in the _Flora of Australia_ which is not a single book but rather a series of monographs. PvR |
In article ,
Gramma wrote: "AZTEC" wrote in message ... good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC If I don't get cold feet in the mean time and if I have the courage I might run it past for a critique before I enter, which might of course put me off entering altogether . Good heavens, don't let anything put you off entering! You have nothing to lose and everything to gain! You might want to confer with the contest organizers about what criteria they will use in judging entries. And even if you don't "win", you will have the opportunity for your work to be critiqued by professionals, which can be invaluable. Note also that there's interest in botanical illustrations for their aesthetic as well as scientific value. Entering a contest like this may put your work in front of potential purchasers and even invite commissions from people who would like drawings of favorite plants. You'll also have the opportunity to meet other illustrators and people interested in botanical illustration, which is invaluable, even if it doesn't lead to monetary gain. It's hard to make money from art, but creating art is rewarding in itself, and the pleasure in each other's work you can share with those with the same interests is wonderful, aside from the advice and information you can obtain from them. |
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ... Sean Houtman schreef Monographs (publications dedicated to a single group of plants, such as a genus or subgenus) *** Lots of monographs are devoted to a family. Several such in the _Flora of Australia_ which is not a single book but rather a series of monographs. PvR Just to highlight how much your replies have helped me and to give you a giggle I thought a monograph must be a tonal drawing of some kind Gramma |
wrote in message .. . In article , Gramma wrote: "AZTEC" wrote in message ... good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC If I don't get cold feet in the mean time and if I have the courage I might run it past for a critique before I enter, which might of course put me off entering altogether . Good heavens, don't let anything put you off entering! You have nothing to lose and everything to gain! I only meant from the point of perhaps making some 'glaring' mistakes that a lay person may not pick up, but again that would be the point of getting a critique in the first place. You might want to confer with the contest organizers about what criteria they will use in judging entries. Since I first posted here I have received the assessment criteria which is: 1. Botanical accuracy in the interpretation and portrayal of plant character and diagnostic features 2. Technical merit 3. Artistic merit 4. Suitability for publication, [which I understand from the instructions to artists to mean the drawing must be able to reduce by one third without losing clarity of detail ] The entry literature has also very helpfully given a judges comment on the works entered last year and some of the reasons drawings were rejected. And even if you don't "win", you will have the opportunity for your work to be critiqued by professionals, which can be invaluable. This is basically my reason for wanting to enter - just to see if I am at the standard for selection. If selected then my next entry [2006] would be to aim for winning - the first prize is $5,000 which would always come in handy Note also that there's interest in botanical illustrations for their aesthetic as well as scientific value. Entering a contest like this may put your work in front of potential purchasers and even invite commissions from people who would like drawings of favourite plants. It is certainly a select medium and not everyone's cup of tea. Not everyone can appreciate the work that goes into Botanical art or illustration and I think it would be love of the medium and subject rather than the gains that would start most people off. You'll also have the opportunity to meet other illustrators and people interested in botanical illustration, which is invaluable, even if it doesn't lead to monetary gain. snip It was meeting a past entrant that has spurred me into getting the entry details. It is only the few outstanding artists who can gain the success of Celia Rosser or Jenny Phillips, two of Australia's better known botanical artists, well beyond my ability but I'm working on it.. To which end I had better keep practicing. My thanks to you for interest Gramma |
Gramma schreef
I thought a monograph must be a tonal drawing of some kind *** In general it is a good idea to look up any unknown word in a dictionary. Lots of words mean the opposite of what they appear to mean, or originally meant. Take "decimate". PvR |
Howdy from Texas,
Something that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that you will do your best work if you are illustrating something you love. Someone who knows and loves roses and orchids might do a technically competent job illustrating grasses, but the work won't have the "involvement" or "investment" of someone who has a gut relationship with the group. That said, drawing is also a way of understanding--you notice a lot when you have to draw something, so you may find yourself falling for something you draw. Everyone was right when they said the features to be illustrated will vary from plant to plant or group to group. For example--Nepenthes--tropical pitcher plants. For these guys, it's going to be the leaves and pitchers--shape, size, marking, etc. The flowers are extremely secondary. For orchids, it's mostly about flowers and their details. For things in the carrot and mustard family, it's fruits and leaves. For a tree, it might be fruit, leaves, and bark. Some families have specialized structures that are like fingerprints for each species. You'd put the other bits in, of course, but the emphasis will change from plant to plant. M. Reed |
Well, in that case you should also mention pleasant work circumstances, or
at least a spot where one can work sufficiently relaxed ;-) PvR Monique Reed schreef Howdy from Texas, Something that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that you will do your best work if you are illustrating something you love. Someone who knows and loves roses and orchids might do a technically competent job illustrating grasses, but the work won't have the "involvement" or "investment" of someone who has a gut relationship with the group. That said, drawing is also a way of understanding--you notice a lot when you have to draw something, so you may find yourself falling for something you draw. Everyone was right when they said the features to be illustrated will vary from plant to plant or group to group. For example--Nepenthes--tropical pitcher plants. For these guys, it's going to be the leaves and pitchers--shape, size, marking, etc. The flowers are extremely secondary. For orchids, it's mostly about flowers and their details. For things in the carrot and mustard family, it's fruits and leaves. For a tree, it might be fruit, leaves, and bark. Some families have specialized structures that are like fingerprints for each species. You'd put the other bits in, of course, but the emphasis will change from plant to plant. M. Reed |
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ... Well, in that case you should also mention pleasant work circumstances, or at least a spot where one can work sufficiently relaxed ;-) Got that! a specially made corner of the kitchen overlooking the flower laden back patio where the light comes in from the left and my special light with a daylight globe is at the ready. Something that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that you will do your best work if you are illustrating something you love. snip That is the hard part , I'm frantically trying to decide what I will draw - I just want to do so many. It will have to be something we have in the garden or I can buy in a pot so I have a live specimen Currently the favourites are a species geranium or pelargonium ; possibly a begonia. I also love native flowers so maybe our native hibiscus [ Alyogyne heugelii] although I suspect the natives will have been done to death Then I also love some of the plants that are classed as weeds. Decisions, decisions. Time is running downs so I will have to decide soon. I told my art tutor today what I was thinking of doing and she was all for it so I will get back up and constructive criticism there. I can't thank everyone who bothered enough for their in put. I will let you know what I decide eventually decide to draw, until then I will be away sorting that out . My thanks again Gramma |
In article , Gramma
writes I also love native flowers so maybe our native hibiscus [ Alyogyne heugelii] although I suspect the natives will have been done to death There's a revision of Alyogyne in process. Of the 5 species at the last revision, one has been transferred to Hibiscus, and the remainder 4 split into a least 10. var. leptochlamys has been transferred from huegelii to pinoniana. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message ... In article , Gramma writes I also love native flowers so maybe our native hibiscus [ Alyogyne heugelii] although I suspect the natives will have been done to death There's a revision of Alyogyne in process. Of the 5 species at the last revision, one has been transferred to Hibiscus, and the remainder 4 split into a least 10. var. leptochlamys has been transferred from huegelii to pinoniana. -- Hopefully that won't have any bearing if I choose that plant Gramma |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter