Abigail BlissNovember 2011Encounters with Nature

Audobon Analysis

In John James Audobon’s Elephant Portfolio (1840), the eighty-second plate contains an

image of whippoorwills that I findis vivacious in color, impressive in its detail, and beautiful in

its overall composition. It is is also completely unconventional. This drawing of the three birds

is clearly meant to depict a certain species, and therefore intended to convey scientific

information., Yyet, it defies the conventions for drawing species described by David Freedberg

in “The Doctor’s Dilemma” and by Karin Nickelson in “Draughtsmen, Botanists, and Nature:

Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations.” Because the image does not conform

to the rules laid out for conveying information for classification and is aesthetically appealing

enough to be perceived for pleasure alone, we must consider its purpose. Is it for science or for

show?

The most salient manner in which the image departs from scientific convention in

depiction nature is that it portrays three birds, multiple leaves, and three insects of different

varieties instead of the habitual and simple single focus. Nickelson explains that, traditionally,

“many botanists and draughtsmen also strove to make their images as simple as possible: if the

same relevant information—or, at least, most of it—could be drawn with fewer pictorial

elements, the image’s design usually was simplified by omitting repeated passages.”1 Clearly,

the artist here has included three samples of the same species when one would suffice, and might

even be preferable, in the eyes of many scientists. When copying the image myself, I had

difficulty cramming so many elements into one scene and ended up giving to manipulate the size

1 Karin Nickelson, “Draughtsmen, Botanists, and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006), 19.

1

and position of the larger butterfly in order to make it fit. In the crowded scene, oOne

whippoorwill with brilliantly spotted feathers sweeps down from the top right-hand corner of the

image, another is perched on a branch in the lower right corner, and a third in sits on the same

branch, which runs the base of the image like a border, in the lower left-hand corner. Therefore,

this composition also defies the advice that botanist Cristoph Jacob Trew gave to Johann

Ambrosius Beurer when he wrote, “There should be no more than one single plant per sheet of

paper, and…it should be placed right in the centre of the page.”2 Although Trew is referring to

plants, he probably would have applied the same advice to a depiction of a bird, as well, for the

scientists of the eighteenth century sought a system of classification that would fit all of nature.

Of the whippoorwills, the creatures meant to be the focus of the image, none is at the center.

Add to that the many jagged leaves, complex with their many sinuous veins, and the butterflies,

jarring in their vivid hues, and it becomes difficult to tell what the focus of the image actually is.

So, why did the artist choose to include so many elements and leave the center void of a

central focal point? It seems to me that he was interested in showing the relationship between

the different living elements of the whippoorwills’ environment that are dependent on each other

for existence. The bird whose spotted wings are stretched wide in flight, giving the image the

illusion of movement that is the complete opposite of the static, simple portrayals typical of the

examples provided by Nickelson in “Draughtsmen, Botanists, and Nature: Constructing

Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations.” The birds at the base of the frame do not look at the

viewer, their necks awkwardly quirked to study the insects above them, showing that the focus is

not on the viewer’s perception of the whippoorwills but on the whippoorwills’ perception of their

prey. For, even though Freedberg asserts that “pictures could neither provide sufficient clues to

the essential relations between the objects of their studies nor offer evidence of their internal

2 Nickelson, 7.

2

structures,” the artist is trying to show the predator and prey relationship between the

whippoorwills and the insects.3 One bird is swooping down, beak bared and curved whiskers

looming ominously, pursuing a beautifully detailed and brightly colored butterfly. Another

whippoorwill looks up from his perch on the branch to gaze hungrily at a spotted caterpillar

vulnerably making its way across a green leaf. In a sense, this image even shows a sort of food

chain; the whippoorwill preys upon the caterpillar, which in turn eats the leaf. It shows the life

of the whippoorwill’s environment, clearly indicating that the artist does have a scientific

motive..

This sense of vivacity, so potent in Audobon’s image, is also a rebellion of sorts against

the scientific convention for portraying species. Figure 10.1 of “The Doctor’s Dilemma,”

“Anatomy of two-headed calf born in April 1624,” shows the beast, splayed back down, dead

and skeletal, with detailed sketches of his bones below.4 The contrast between the full,

feathered, and flying whippoorwill and this skeletal corpse is striking. It is possible that the

reason for the difference in depiction lies in a difference of motive. While the artist of the

Audobon image seems to want to capture the relationships between the animals, the Linceans

that Freedberg describes aimed “to go as deep as they could in order to find what was essential in

things – and that essential they found in element of biological reproduction.”5 To do so, they had

to look at the innards, organs, and biological construction of the animals.6 While the artist of the

Audobon album is more than content to draw the patterns in the birds’ feathers, the spots and

stripes on the wings of the butterflies, and the curved contours that line the caterpillar’s back, the

Linceans and botanists wanted to know what lay beneath the outer level.

3 David Freedberg, “The Doctor’s Dilemmas,” The Eye of the Lynx (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002), 7.4 Freedberg, 279.5 Freedberg, 286.6 Freedberg, 4.

3

While it seems that the image has a scientific agenda – to show the relationships between

its elements – it could also be appreciated as a work of art alone. The artist’s use of color is a

departure from the standards of scientific illustration and enhances the aesthetic appeal of the

drawing. Nickelson explains that “Colour, on the other hand, was explicitly excluded from the

qualities that Linnaeus thought eligible for characterising species” and therefore was not always

included or emphasized in sketches meant to convey scientific knowledge.7 In Audobon’s image

of the whippoorwills, however, the artist went to painstaking lengths to hand color the browns

and blacks of the whippoorwills’ feathers, the deep oranges and blues of the butterflies, and the

varying shades of green that cover the leaves. So too, the curves in the birds’ whiskers, the

intricate patterns of their feathers, particularly the spread tail feathers of the one in flight, and the

bright stripes and spots on the butterflies’ wings, which could be useful for identifying the

creatures, also give the image the capacity to be perceived as art and not a scientific illustration.

Even the size of the huge image is more typical of a painting hung in an art museum than an

illustration in a book meant to convey scientific knowledge. In addition, unlike many scientific

sketches, this image elicits an emotional response. The viewer cannot help but fear the sharp

beaks, beady eyes, and monstrous whiskers of the whippoorwills and dread the swallowing up of

the vulnerable, whimsical butterflies.

The image of whippoorwills is both an artistic masterpiece and means of conveying

scientific knowledge. Yet, it is clear that Audobon madethat the artist of the whippoorwill page

of the Audobon album made no effort to adhere to preceding conventions laid out by the

Linceans of the early seventeenth century and the botanists of the eighteenth century. In a sense,

however, his rejection of the starkrigid, geometric sketches in favor of the curving lines of the

whiskers and stems that so emphasize the vivacity of the whippoorwills and their environment is

7 Nickelson, 6.

4

fitting. The eighteenth century witnessed a shift in gardening styles from anthe appreciation of

the style of linear rigiditygeometric, rigid style, epitomized by the French masterpiece at

Versailles, to a desire to make the garden so reminiscent of nature in its most unruly and natural

state that the artificiality could be passed off as authenticity.8 In that context, our artist’s

seemingly rebellious choices are not as outlandish; there was a general movement to view nature

in less of a strict, stark, controlled look and more in a manner that, while no less constructed,

appeared to be more unruly and natural. It seems that the ebb and flow of society’s perception of

nature, its changing preferences and shifting perceptions, encompass garden design and scientific

illustration. Culture leaves no flower unstudied, no landscape unsurveyed, no stone unturned.

8 Keith Thomas, "Cultivation or Wilderness?" Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500-1800 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 256-257.

5

Appendix: Email Correspondences

Correspondence with Lindsay:

Me:

Hey Lindsay!  Here are my two paragraphs.  Let me know what you think!  Thanks so much!In

John James Audobon s Elephant Portfolio (1840), the eighty-second plate contains an image of

whippoorwills that is vivacious in color, impressive in its detail, and beautiful in its overall

composition.  Yet, it is also completely unconventional.  This drawing of the three birds is

clearly meant to depict a certain species, and therefore intended to convey scientific information,

yet it defies the conventions for drawing species described by David Freedberg in The Doctor s

Dilemma and by Karin Nickelson in Draughtsmen, Botanists, and Nature: Constructing

Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations.   Because the image does not conform to the rules

laid out for conveying information for classification and is aesthetically appealing enough to be

perceived for pleasure alone, we must consider its purpose.  Is it for science or for show?The

image of whippoorwills is both an artistic masterpiece and means of conveying scientific

knowledge.  Yet, it is clear that the artist of the whippoorwill page of the Audobon album made

no effort to adhere to preceding conventions laid out by the Linceans of the early seventeenth

century and the botanists of the eighteenth century.  In a sense, however, his rejection of the

stark, geometric sketches in favor of the curving lines of the whiskers and stems that so

emphasize the vivacity of the whippoorwills and their environment is fitting.  The eighteenth

century witnessed a shift in gardening styles from the geometric, rigid style, epitomized by the

French masterpiece at Versailles, to a desire to make the garden so reminiscent of nature in its

most unruly and natural state that the artificiality could be passed off as authenticity.   In that

context, our artist s seemingly rebellious choices are not as outlandish; there was a general

movement to view nature in less of a strict, stark, controlled look and more in a manner that,

while no less constructed, appeared to be more unruly and natural.

Lindsay:

Hey! Here are mine!

6

Three birds, two butterflies, a caterpillar, eight leaves, and a branch; simple enough in theory, yet

so much plays into the representation of such items. The artist’s choices in color, texture, size,

scale, size in relation to other objects in the piece, and depth all drastically impact a viewer’s

perception of a specimen both aesthetically and scientifically. In “Introduction, and Going to the

Tropics,” Nancy Leys Stepan wisely notes that due to the inherent background information,

experiences, and notions that all viewers and artists bring to a piece, “all media are mixed

media.”1 Thus, every drawing or botanical study is a compilation of all the things one has seen up

to the moment, including things related to the particular specimen and things in life that are

unrelated and are subconsciously (or even perhaps consciously, on occasion) projected onto the

particular specimen. Botanical drawings rarely are accurate scientific representations of plants

because of this fact; rather, they would be more adeptly named cultural representations.

The human eyes don’t process and observe subjects in the same ways and are likely to miss even

details that are important both when drawing from observation and when copying another’s

work. In the process of copying Audubon’s piece, I found myself completely overlooking entire

branches and leaves as they were in the background and I simply didn’t find them as interesting

or important as other aspects. Thus, the human eye is judgmental and fickle; which makes for

drawings to be there is no way to accurately portray a subject. Therefore, my representation of

John James Audubon’s piece is one that speaks about my personal experiences with nature, my

dislike of birds and my perception of what a bird “should” look like; absence of skill causes one

to revert to sign systems and other semiotic systems. Leaves, for example, begin to have equally

spaced alternating veins rather than the specific, unique veins that vary in size and spacing, as

well as neat, symmetrical points on either side. It is paramount, due to the human tendency to

revert to signs and to alter images subconsciously and consciously, for people to get out and

experience nature firsthand and to recognize that categorization is only a mildly fruitful exercise,

having more cultural significance than scientific.

Lindsay:

Hi!Here are my comments. Feel free to take them or leave them, and to email meor call me (617

462 5661) if you want some clarification. Overall I thinkyour essay seems very clear and well

put together.Thanks,Lindsay*Intro:*Positive- IntriguedYour thesis is really clear, and the

language overall is fairly concise. Iparticularly like your last sentence, as it lays out (what I

7

assume to be)the focus of the piece--whether the purpose of Audubon's piece isscientific usage or

aesthetic pleasure. I also think you have a logical,successful progression of first introducing the

subject of the paper (theimage), then explaining what it is depicting, then bringing in the two

sources you will be incorporating, and then laying out the thesis.Negative- Overwhelmed

(mildly!)The third sentence of your intro (This drawing. . .) is very long. While itdoes make

sense, I had to read it several times to take in all of theinformation. . .hence being a little

overwhelmed :). Additionally, thesecond sentence is nice because it is short and striking, but it is

also alittle confusing because the "yet, it is also completely unconventional"implies that in the

first sentence layed out why the picture seemedconventional, which I am not sure that it totally

accomplishes. Finally, Iwould be careful of words such as "vivacious," "impressive," "beautiful"

because they are subjective and don't really further the piece (althoughthey sound really fancy).

*Conclusion*:Positive- FulfilledIn your conclusion, I think it is clear that the body of your essay

musthave moved from the question (was the image created for science or forshow?) in the

beginning to the conclusion that the image was constructedfor *both* science and for show due

to the cultural shift of the eighteenthcentury. Thus, as a reader I am fulfilled. I think it is also

good thatyour conclusion goes further than just directly answering the question youlayed out in

the beginning, as it is clear therefore that there must havebeen movement and exploration

throughout your paper. Particularly I enjoyedyour last sentence as I think it is a very clear

summary of your entirepaper and just a very good way to end. Similarly, the first sentence of

your conclusion is super clear and nice as a reader because it is short andobvious. . . in a

satisfying way.Negative- WonderingI really struggled to come up with any negative because I

think yourconclusion is very good. However, I suppose I am left "wondering" (I knowthat is not

a very good adjective. . .) what the "so what" of the paper is.While I am fulfilled in that you

totally answered the question you set outto answer, it would be nice to add one final sentence

broadening the topicand relating it to current day activities. Why is what you just provedrelevant

to the study of botany and just for draughtsmen in general? Why isit important/ why did you just

spend 4 pages talking about it? As I saidbefore though, I am nit-picking for something that is

wrong.Note: I'm pretty sure the artist of the whip-poor-whill is John JamesAudubon. . . your

second sentence of the conclusion could be made a littlemore clear by incorporating that fact.

*Potential Pitfalls/Successes:*I could definitely see you successfully laying out the ways that the

pieceis scientific and how it is aesthetically pleasing, and using the Linneanclassification system

8

to back the claims up. Additionally, I would assumethat you incorporate Freedberg and

Nickelsen (especially as they arementioned in your intro!). I would be wary, however, of simply

"slappingon" the theories of Nickelsen or Freedberg and/or talking more about theirtheories than

the piece and how the theories relate to the work. Also, makesure you engage in the theories and

add in your own ideas, even if it isnot using "I"--it would be interesting to talk about your own

drawing inthe paper and how it is similar and different (and whether its purpose isscience or

aesthetics).

Me:

Hey! Here's my feedback!INTRO:Positive: Impressed.  You use Stepan’s quote well to show

how a viewer sees an image differently based on his past, and your last sentence, strong in both

eloquence and conviction, drives hope that point.Negative: off-put. I know that’s not specific,

but for some reason I just don’t like the long lists of the first and second paragraphs.  They make

for jerky reading, and I feel like once a list enumerates more than three factors, as the second one

does, it becomes hard to process each individual one.  Perhaps this is just a stylistic preference,

though.  I know that a lot of people in class appreciated the clarity and structure that a list

provides.CONCLUSION:Positive: Connected.  Because you use “I” and talk about your personal

experience with the phenomenon of people distorting that which they see in front of them based

on past preferences or experience, the paragraph is relatable and personal.Negative: Confused.

Perhaps this is the point, but it seems that the focus of your conclusion is more on you and your

individual perceptions than it is actually about the Audobon image.What I hope you address:-      

the numerous artistic elements you describe in the second sentence of your intro and how they

contribute to the image’s aesthetic and scientific aspects-       stepan’s argument that people’s

baggage when viewing a picture has the ability to distort itWhat I hope you avoid:-  although the

personal “I” is effective in the last paragraph, I hope that the majority of your essay wasn’t based

a model like “here’s what was there, and here’s what I drew.  Look how my personal preferences

influence what I see.”   That might get tiresome or alienating.

Me:

hey thanks for the comments! for the intro, i'll try to break up/clarify the long sentence, eliminate

the "yet" and say "It is also completely unconventional" instead, and alter the sweeping

9

vocabulary.  for the conclusion, I'm so glad you were able to see the connection between the

intro and the conclusion!! i will try to come up with a  way to connect it to the overall history of

botany. I'm tryna think of what my argument implies ultimately for botany.  Also, i may add a

sentence or two about my drawing, as per your recommendation, and try to steer clear of just

slapping on the theories of others.  Thanks so much for more helpful advice and I'm sorry this

email chain is such a mess! Hopefully we can compile it successfully.

Lindsay:

Hey Abigail,

Thanks for your feedback. I will consider changing the list in my intro (honestly I'm not sure

how I feel about it still, I was suprised that some people liked it in class) and I will also try to

incorporate more of the texts in the body of my essay (as you are correct, I think a big focus of

my paper was comparing what I drew to the original and how this was similar or different to the

draughtsmen who copied from earlier people). I knew as I was writing that this was likely

problematic, so I'm psyched we get a few extra days to revise.

THANKS again!

Lindsay

Correspondence with Kevin:

Kevin:

Hey guys,So below I included my intro and conclusion. We should probably give feedback

separately instead of in a group so we can better organize it when we have to copy the whole

discussion and turn it in. I just thought I would send it them to you first as one email. Let me

know what you guys think.Thanks,KevinIntro:Although aesthetically pleasing, upon first glance,

the 82nd plate of John James Audubon’s The Birds of North America may seem to be a cluster

of unorganized chaos. However, under further analysis and observation, the illustration is indeed

well planed out and I believe Audubon has arranged the subjects in the picture in this way on

purpose. As Nickelsen explained, the botanical and specimen illustrations served a greater

purpose than just décor; “However, notwithstanding their beauty, they were not produced

principally for decorative purposes but in order to be published in books of the technical

literature in order to communicate botanical knowledge. This scientific side of plant images

10

tends to be overlooked…”  In Audubon’s illustration of the whip-poor-will in the 82nd plate, he

is showing this exactly.  He creatively explores the ideals of scale, balance, depth, detail and

motion in the painting to depict the importance of this particular arrangement.Conclusion:In my

analysis of John James Audubon’s The Birds of North America and in the illustration of the

whip-poor-wills especially, I can conclude that the preempted arrangement of the organisms was

an extremely important piece of the painting. The specific placement of certain specimens in the

scene gave insight and allowed the viewer to have a deeper understanding of the birds

themselves. Audubon’s successful use of certain aspects of illustration were crucial in the

explanation of scene and why it was essential for the organisms to be located where they were. In

botanical and zoological illustrations and especially full scenes like the one depicted here, I

believe the success of the arrangement is directly related to the viewer’s experience with the

picture.

Me:

Hey! I really liked your two paragraphs! Here's my feedback.  Hope it helps! Also, my two

paragraphs are at the bottom. Let me know what you think.INTRO:Positive: Grounded.  I feel

comfortable with my understanding of your argument that the artist uses artistic techniques to

convey scienceNegative: Alienated.  Vague words like “in this way” and “showing this” and

“this particular arrangement” tip toe around your argument instead of drawing the reader into it. 

More specific diction might help captivate your reader.  What do you mean by “importance” in

the last sentence?And just a heads up, I think you have a typo…”planed” should be “planned”

right?CONCLUSION:Positive: Pleased.  I like that I can see the very strong connection between

your intro and conclusion.  It is clear that you addressed the same question all throughout the

essay instead of wandering from point a to b and off on different tangents.Negative: Unsatisfied. 

Similar to the intro, unspecific phrases like “specific placement” and “certain specimens” and

“certain aspects” don’t do it for me.  What was the placement? What were the aspects?  What is

the “deeper understanding”? So, too, sentences like “Audubon’s successful use of certain aspects

of illustration were crucial in the explanation of scene and why it was essential for the organisms

to be located where they were” don’t actually explain why it was essential or crucial.  It just

states that it was.  Perhaps, you explain this more in your body paragraphs, but having just read

your intro and conclusion, I feel kind of left in the dark.What I hope you address in the essay:

11

-       How the artist’s use of different artistic elements like “scale, balance, depth, detail and

motion” add to the scientific knowledge it illustrates-       How Nickelson’s text relates to the

image-       How the arrangement facilitates a deeper understandingWhat I hope you avoid in this

essay:-       just going through the different artistic elements and describing them without

explaining their significance.My Paragraphs:In John James Audobon’s Elephant Portfolio

(1840), the eighty-second plate contains an image of whippoorwills that is vivacious in color,

impressive in its detail, and beautiful in its overall composition.  Yet, it is also completely

unconventional.  This drawing of the three birds is clearly meant to depict a certain species, and

therefore intended to convey scientific information, yet it defies the conventions for drawing

species described by David Freedberg in “The Doctor’s Dilemma” and by Karin Nickelson in

“Draughtsmen, Botanists, and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations.” 

Because the image does not conform to the rules laid out for conveying information for

classification and is aesthetically appealing enough to be perceived for pleasure alone, we must

consider its purpose.  Is it for science or for show?The image of whippoorwills is both an artistic

masterpiece and means of conveying scientific knowledge.  Yet, it is clear that the artist of the

whippoorwill page of the Audobon album made no effort to adhere to preceding conventions laid

out by the Linceans of the early seventeenth century and the botanists of the eighteenth century. 

In a sense, however, his rejection of the stark, geometric sketches in favor of the curving lines of

the whiskers and stems that so emphasize the vivacity of the whippoorwills and their

environment is fitting.  The eighteenth century witnessed a shift in gardening styles from the

geometric, rigid style, epitomized by the French masterpiece at Versailles, to a desire to make the

garden so reminiscent of nature in its most unruly and natural state that the artificiality could be

passed off as authenticity.   In that context, our artist’s seemingly rebellious choices are not as

outlandish; there was a general movement to view nature in less of a strict, stark, controlled look

and more in a manner that, while no less constructed, appeared to be more unruly and natural.

Kevin:

Hey thanks for the insight! Hope my feedback helps as well.Intro:Positive-Pleasantly Surprised.

The last 2 sentences of your introduction were effective, different and for lack a  better term, a

breath of fresh air. It was great to see that you were attacking the problem with asking a question

and in a sense engaging your reader into the process of analyzing the picture.Negative-

12

Confused. I was only somewhat confused because of the fact that it doesn't seem to me that you

take a direct side and come out with whether you think the piece is for science or show.

However, I do believe you will explore your point definitely in the body.Conclusion:Positive:

Assured. Your point was made and completed clearly in your conclusion. You left no doubt in

my mind that you understood your argument and conveyed it appropriately.Negative:

Unsatisfied. Although the word seems harsh, I just feel there is a little bit of repetitiveness with

starting the second sentence with yet,.. as you had done in similar fashion in your introduction.

Also the word stark was used twice in the conclusion. If you could find another substitution i

think the word stark would have more conviction.Possible pitfalls/successesI hope that you

address the issues addressed in nickelsen's and freedberg's writings that you had mentioned in

both the introduction and the conclusion. I would hope you avoid bouncing back and forth

between the sides and make direct arguments favoring one side of the issue or the other.

Kevin:

Hey Abigail!In response to your comments, I just wanted to say thank you for bringing some of

my problems to light. I will be sure to fine tune some of my sentences to get rid of the vagueness

you were talking about. After rereading my intro and conclusion I completely agree with you. As

for the conclusion, I do feel like without the rest of the essay you might feel left in the dark so Ill

be sure to read my whole essay through again and determine whether clarification is necessary.

Thanks again for all your help!Kevin

Me:

Hey Kevin!Thanks a bunch for the feedback!  I'm glad you were pleasantly surprised by my intro

and found it relatively effective. I feel like I do take a side within my body paragraphs as to

whether its for science or show, which you obviously couldn't know without having read the rest

of the essay.  As for the conclusion, I will try vary my word choice and syntax so as not to seem

so repetitive.  In addition, I will be wary of bouncing back and forth between sides and try to

take a firm stance throughout my essay.  Once again, thanks! And good luck with your essay! I'm

sure it'll turn out well.

13