SCIART-L Archives

SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mieke Roth <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:58:49 +0200
text/plain (129 lines)

Thanks. You're right. I let my feelings about that one go, apparently it
sits deep ;-).  The biggest "problem" (for me that is) with that specific
example is that they didn't understand the refractive index of water. So in
that illustration water is just air with a blue colour.. but including
breaking waves at the shore. As you see, sometimes I have problems with
(over) simplification.

-----Original Message-----
From: SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frank Ippolito
Sent: dinsdag 12 augustus 2008 18:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SCIART] ongoing: my PhD question


a couple thoughts...

illustration does not always follow the path of representing reality in 
all of its facets. frequently the artist will choose to emphasize one 
detail or generalize another, depending on the assignment's focus. if 
the shallowness of the water is important (or neutral) then including it 
will add another layer of information. but if that detail is distracting 
or misleading, a blue sea will work better because people will 
understand it to be water and then get on to whatever the illustration 
has been created to convey. illustrators have been editing detail to 
streamline the message for centuries.

although not about science illustration per se, the article linked here 
offers up a few ideas to ponder in this digital age...


>Hi all,
>This morning I had a talk with the professor. As you can imagine we are
>looking for a subject that really interests us both and we know will get us
>going for the next few years. We think we are getting somewhere. 
>One thing I regularly encounter is the difference between my perspective of
>how something should look and how my customers see it. For example: the
>Netherlands are next to the North sea, a shallow sea between the main land
>of Europe and the UK. Because it is a shallow sea I tend to make the water
>the colour that it is, namely a brownish grey. But... my customers do not
>understand this and most of the time we end up with clear blue water. In my
>eyes an abomination, but it is what people understand to be water. Another
>example is the discussion I had with Gay Malin on the Ithaca conference
>talked about it with more people, so I think some of you know what I mean).
>She is complaining that within facial reconstruction the fundamentals of
>model used are in fact wrong. At this moment tissue dept is used to
>reconstruct the face. The tissue dept used to model the reconstruction
>depends upon racial, sex and age differences, but the base of the data used
>for this is very narrow. Most of the time only 2 or 3 people within a
>specific category, if you are lucky. She would like a whole different
>approach to it: on skulls you are able to determine the place where the
>muscles are attached to the skull. To use these and build the face up from
>the muscles itself, she says, is a much better predictor of the real
>representation than the tissue dept. She even goes so far that she thinks
>even a dimple in one's cheek could be predicted by the shape and size of
>place the muscle attaches to the skull.   
>These two examples, one from a simple perspective and the other from a
>perspective that touches the base of a profession, are what we all deal
>on a daily base working with the interpretation of other peoples data. And
>think a very interesting area to do research in!
>The professor and I talked about the perspective of people looking at
>visualisations and the effectiveness of specific kinds of (..models used
>for..) visualisations for different purposes. We also talked about the
>danger of simplifying representations of reality (people might think that
>those ARE reality) too much. Although we don't have a specific question
>the field has been narrowed a whole lot!
>My professor thinks that getting this down to a good PhD question could
>international implications. I also talked about the fact that I don't want
>to do this without funding and he gave me the name of the former president
>of the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW in Dutch), the most
>prestigious organisation in our country, comparable to the Nobel
>organisation in Norway. This former president is very much interested in
>combination of art and science and might be willing to help me getting
>and other necessary means to do this research. Another possibility is
>a pharmaceutical company or such to sponsor me, but that would narrow my
>field maybe too much.
>Any case, this field would also mean that I have a subject that I easily
>write/illustrate about for the general public. And that is also what I was
>aiming for!
>I keep you posted ;-)!
>P.S. even the heated discussion about the Nature article helped!


 Frank Ippolito
 Principal Scientific Assistant
 Div. Vertebrate Paleontology
 American Museum of Natural History
 Central Park West at 79th Street
 NY    NY    10024
 (212) 769-5812
 [log in to unmask]