top of page
Search

2. How depictions of Biological Organisms Become Art - Botanical Illustration

  • isobeltilston2004
  • May 3, 2021
  • 7 min read

Botanical Illustration -​

​

I took an interest in botanical drawings after looking into all the avenues of biology related art. I enjoy realistic drawing but tend to stay in my lane with portraiture. Researching this topic, I hoped it would not only make me more knowledgeable on the art form but also improve and expand my own skill-set. At this point in my research, I was only interested in how Botanical Illustration related Art and Biology, so I went into it in some depth.​ ​

​

Exhibitions -​


I found a few exhibitions that were dedicated to this kind of art such as 'Unearthed' at the Dulwich picture gallery[1], The Royal Horticultural Society Botanical Art Show[2], Shirley Sherwood's Gallery at Kew Gardens[3], and 'Beatrix Potter' at the V&A[4]. ​

'Unearthed' showcased predominantly photography, with some of the first known Victorian images by Talbot produced by his experiments with paper negatives.

It also featured works by the first female photographer Anna Atkins and 3D stereoscopic photographs (capturing and displaying two slightly offset photographs to create three-dimensional images) by the Lumiere Brothers. From the glamour and eroticism of artists Robert Mapplethorpe and Nobuyoshi Araki, to experimentations with still life compositions. This form of art originates as accurate illustrations of organisms however, in this exhibition I found artists creating rather interpretations of organisms perhaps due to the access gained to cameras and editing software. The Art form shouldn't be considered lost because it isn't conducted in the original way. The artists are still paying homage to Botanical illustration with the focus on botany and science throughout. I see themes ranging from typology (series of artworks illustrating a classification system or set of types) and form to experiments with color and modernism. Similarly, Shirley Sherwood's comprehensive catalogue of over 1,000 paintings and drawings by more than 300 artists living in 36 countries charts the emergence of a new wave of botanical painting – described by the Kew Garden's website as 'a renaissance in scientific art'. What I mainly took from my research into these two exhibitions is that as the world modernizes so does the artwork. ​

Once a year the Royal Horticultural Society (the group who run the Chelsea Flower Show)

have a Botanical Art Show in London - at the RHS Horticultural Halls. This Show is the top botanical art show in the world including international exhibitors from Europe, Asia, Australia and Africa. This gives the exhibition a diverse range of images and artworks ranging the whole spectrum of plant life from eucalypts to anemones, onions to orchids. Additionally, due to it being a competition you are guaranteed Botanical art of the highest caliber. Elaine Moore Mackey[5], ISBA member, comments on the show saying, 'Indeed, visiting such shows provides a humbling reality check for anyone considering, even in the distant future, submitting work for the RHS Botanical Art Exhibition... these are the best artists in the world, competing for some of the most coveted medals in this field'. The style of this show, quite differently from the 'Unearthed' exhibition, is described by Mackey as '...pure botanical illustration. The RHS is definitely science-heavy and a hall full of intricate and accurate botanical illustration'. These images can be considered not only art but educational due to their hyper realistic-ness which is much more like to original Botanical illustration. The Beatrix Potter exhibition documents her developing the eye of an expert investigative scientist, able

to draw living creatures with great conviction. Similarly, her work was guided by the principle of portraying nature as accurately as possible, using fine brushes to define 'meticulously and minutely' the anatomy of the most delicate specimens. The blogger, The Frustrated Gardener[6], says 'Remarkable as some good pieces of botanical art are, I wouldn’t necessarily want them on my wall at home'. What I take from my research into this exhibition is that perhaps with the lost need for these illustrations in the educational field, artists allowed their images to become more abstract to be appealing decoratively.

​

I decided to see if any of the books I have bought after exhibitions contained anything related to this line of research. Monet especially included plant life in his art. Not realistically portrayed, but more of an impressionist style however their importance is evident. Van Gough’s renowned sunflower painting has an uncanny resemblance to Monet’s. I also liked an artist called Oskar Kokoschka’s floral art. It shows how although botanical illustration began as a scientific device, it evolved into a decorative art form that even became very unrealistic with different artist’s styles (note: I refer to this statement of mine later when I realise it is partially false upon further investigation).​


The History -​


At this point in my research, I could see the fine line between science and art that Botanical illustration danced on. Furthermore, it was evident that this was an art form practiced worldwide throughout history. I wanted to know where it originated from and where the transition into art took place[7]. ​

There is some indecisiveness on the internet as to where it first emerged however, I've decided to go with China. Flower painting as in independent art, untainted by practical considerations, began in China as early as the seventh or eighth century AD when, in the West, Nature was still an object of mistrust or even fear. Decorative uses of plants in wall paintings, carvings, and on ceramics or coins date back to at least ancient Egypt, more than 4,000 years ago. Ancient Greece is where people began using illustrations to identify plants and flowers. Pliny refers to Krateuas in particular, a Greek physician of the first century BC, who is widely considered to be the father of botanical illustration. The oldest surviving illustrated manuscript, the Codex Vindebonensis, dates from 512 AD. Depictions of plants abound in early Indian art: with carvings on temple walls, pottery designs, motifs on woven carpets and embroidered textiles, representations of the Buddha at Bodh Gaya, and illustrated folios. During the 15th century, herbal books describing the culinary and medicinal uses of plants where printed containing illustrations of flowers. In the 16th century, as printing techniques advanced and new plants came to Europe, wealthy individuals and botanic gardens began to commission artists to record them. Botanical art became vital for scientific records- pre cameras and microscopes. Many people first became interested in botanical art because of the paintings of roses, lilies and other flowers produced by royal flower painter Pierre-Joseph Redouté. Redouté had the unique distinction of painting flowers for Marie Antoinette (the last Queen of France) and the Empress Josephine Bonaparte. Contemporary botanical artists share a concern for the environment, particularly considering climate change, as well as for drawing attention to plants. Drawings can illuminate aspects of plants in a way photo cannot. However, they are more for aesthetic purposes these days. ​


I think perhaps what I begun to consider at this point was that decorative flora illustration and botanical flora illustration always existed concurrently. One did not become the other but rather botanical illustration became decorative botanical illustration. The research into the history showed me floral illustration was existent before it was a science and continued separately simultaneously. Earlier I had concluded that botanical illustration evolved into a decorative art form; this I still believe to be true, but it retained that scientific factor that normal decorative flora illustration doesn’t have or need. That’s why I was wrong to mistake Monet's, for example, impressionistic style of flowers as an adapted version of botanical illustration. What I am investigating is not how one merged into the other but specifically how the scientific illustration became art. ​


Conclusion for Botanical Illustration -​

​

Botanical & Animal illustration strives to combine scientific accuracy, in terms of the organism's form and color, with aesthetic appeal. The organism must be portrayed with this level of accurate detail to be recognized and distinguished from other species. The aesthetic appeal in the modern day is perhaps now more important than the prior due to its practical purpose being more commonly for decoration, with science books now full of highly detailed photographs. With the invention of macro lenses and microscopes, an even more detailed and accurate image can be formed than by the botanical artists and illustrators depended on throughout history to record these species. Forms of flora and fauna too small for the human eye can now be seen through photographs but this doesn’t disregard the practicality of these illustrations before they became Art, being used by physicians, pharmacists, botanical scientists, and gardeners. For example, born in Germany in 1834, Ernst Haeckel[8] spent his life researching flora and fauna “from the highest mountaintops to the deepest ocean.” A biologist, naturalist, philosopher, and artist, his incredible drawings helped to educate the world about microscopic organisms that were previously unseen. He coined terms still in common use today, such as phylum, stem cell, and ecology. His work has left a legacy both in the scientific and artistic worlds and have even inspired the work of artists today. While these works are not as relevant to researchers today, they have become an inspiration for artists who are paying homage to plant and animal life in contemporary ways. ​

You may think that botanical illustration was always an art. It was drawn or painted or printed and that is art. The definition of Art is; the application of human creative skill and imagination in producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. The key world to me there is 'primarily'. I think it would be naive to say that the botanical illustrations were never appreciated for their beauty, however it is the fact that they were alongside this appreciated for their informative purpose. With the evolution of technology, it's informative purpose of identifying species became redundant. I consider at this point is when it became true art because it was only then that it was truly appreciated primarily for its beauty.


Response to Botanical Illustration -​


^^

Photographic images I took of some flowers arranged in a typical typology style of original botanical illustration. The flowers are not in their fresh blooming stage of life but rather dead and dried up. This represents how Botanical illustration has died out yet the way that the flowers have still kept their striking violet represents that, the Art lives on.


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page