My comments went poof?! Oh boy.
Frank, I understand clearly what you are writing, and I agree with you.
It is very important to distinguish between science illustration and
other types, methods, conventions of visual communication. This is why
I do not like the idea of "art of science illustration." It muddies the
waters.
Just recently I talked with a person at UMFK who wrote, in essence,
that a bunch of artists are coming to Fort Kent next year. I
immediately corrected him and he published the correction. Then we got
into a discussion about differences, scopes, etc. While searching for a
good keynote speaker I had to keep emphasizing THINK SCIENCE not
minimalism or realism or "nature art" . . . Joan
On Aug 11, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Frank Ippolito wrote:
> Janet,
>
> yes your reply got eaten by the cyber beast, as did part of Joan's
> earlier reply. I hate when all our work just goes poof.
>
> I do know that '03 article - in fact I replied to it and my response
> was published in Nature a couple months later in March '03. The
> editors did in fact water my reply down to the point that it barely
> sharpened. but the point was made. the letter is linked here...
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6927/full/422015a.html
>
> for those who cannot read the archives w/o paying, the body of my
> letter is pasted below- though it may not make much sense without
> reading the article I was reacting to...
>
> The subtle beauty of art in the service of science
>
> Frank Ippolito1
> 1 Division of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural
> History, 79th Street & Central Park West, New York, New York 10024,
> USA
>
>
> Abstract
>
> An illustration may be intended to emphasize details, convey an idea
> or raise questions.
> Sir,
>
> As a professional scientific illustrator I feel compelled to respond
> to Julio Ottino's Commentary "Is a picture worth 1,000 words?"
> (Nature 421, 474–476; 2003). I believe that Ottino's criticisms of
> scientific illustration are founded on an incorrect understanding of
> the field.
>
> Galileo's drawings can't be compared with magazine covers: they are
> two unrelated types of illustration. It is incorrect to conclude from
> such a comparison that scientific disparity exists between them
> because the magazine covers "are left in the hands of artists and
> illustrators" — this artwork was intended to enhance editorial
> material rather than to illustrate research.
>
> Such conceptual illustrations are designed to pose questions. Their
> use on the cover of a science magazine offers the promise of articles
> that inform these questions. The cover art of the 30 January 2003
> issue of Nature (see figure) and the related News and Views and Letter
> (Nature 421, 489–490; 2003 & Nature 421, 530–533; 2003) follow this
> convention. The image does not illustrate the research itself; that is
> not its intended application. Furthermore, the choice of digital
> medium, whether used by the hand of a scientist or the hand of an
> artist, has no bearing on this question.
>
> Scientific illustration follows a different mandate, and it can often
> be found within the pages of the very magazines under discussion.
> These drawings outline structure and clarify detail, as required by
> the subject and requested by the researcher. Because they communicate
> subtleties and eliminate the ambiguities of language, scientific
> illustrations are an important, often necessary, element in precise
> communication (see The Guild Handbook of Scientific Illustration,
> edited by E. R. S. Hodges; Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989).
>
> Scientific illustration is a clearly defined field that benefits from
> active collaboration between scientist and illustrator. Using their
> professional observational skills, scientific illustrators strive to
> render the most accurate representation of their subject. It is, by
> definition, art in the service of science. The act of drawing is, in
> essence, the act of editing. Complaints about omitted details miss
> this important point. Scientific illustrators are trained to eliminate
> non-essential information. The twisted stem of a dried plant is
> smoothed out. The broken edge of a fossil bone is repaired. Cracks and
> discoloration may be removed. These subjects are thus rendered in a
> way chosen to amplify those details that require emphasis.
>
> Scientific illustrations, even conceptual cover art, should be as
> accurate as possible. However, Ottino's proposal to establish rules
> governing the use of realistic rendering techniques is superfluous.
> Professional standards are already in place for scientific
> illustration. Magazine editors recognize that their educated
> readership can distinguish between a beautifully rendered concept and
> the current state of scientific research. Scientific illustrations
> exist within this context. They communicate with and within
> conventions that reach back in time from this issue of Nature to the
> pages of Galileo's notebooks.
>
> -frank
>
>> Okay, I just emailed an incredibly long rant about science
>> illustration and Nature Journal that I think got lost in cyberspace!
>>
>> Rather than repeat the WHOLE THING, I will just mention an article in
>> Nature Journal, 30 January 2003 issue that wasn't so flattering. The
>> cover title says "Scientific illustration Can you believe your eyes?"
>> and inside, the title is "Is a picture worth 1,000 words?" It's by
>> Julio M. Ottino, R.R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied
>> Science, Northwestern University.
>>
>> It's a critique that much of the science art that is published today
>> is "divorced from science and science plausibility."
>>
>> Janet Wilkins
>>
>>
>>> From: Joan Lee <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: 2008/08/11 Mon AM 10:42:58 CDT
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [SCIART] conference publicity
>>>
>>
>>> On Aug 11, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Frank Ippolito wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> it is a nice prop in an important publication. though the basic
>>>> sentiment is about how integral illustration is within the
>>>> sciences,
>>>> I do wish that the author hadn't repeated returned focus on the
>>>> aspects seen at the meeting that had so little to do with actual
>>>> science illustration. Terryl Whitlatch's "fantasy creatures...
>>>> inspired by the anatomy of real animals" is a nice sidebar to our
>>>> profession. on its own it would have served as such. but the author
>>>> then quotes Warren Allmon description of "... inspired guesses, and
>>>> artistic creativity to form a picture of what animals may have once
>>>> looked like." all the part's of Warren's talk where he mentions
>>>> actual
>>>> paleontological illustration (and not popularized animal
>>>> restorations)
>>>> is left out. he then mentions Jame's Gurney's Dinotopia talk. this
>>>> keynote was interesting and entertaining but not about real science
>>>> illustration. all this in a one page article leaves little room to
>>>> mention what science illustration really is and what GNSI typically
>>>> focuses on during a conference. in Omni magazine this would have
>>>> been
>>>> expected. I guess when I see writings in journals such as Nature or
>>>> Science I am expecting an article written for scientists.
>>>>
>>>> -frank
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, hey, hey! I got my copy of the Nature article and I didn't
>>>>> even
>>>>> need to make the trip to Tufts (not a long drive for distance, just
>>>>> the so-called "rush hour" traffic that lasts all day).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been looking at the link for a time and found that you didn't
>>>>> need to subscribe, however, the article still costs $32.00 and it
>>>>> was
>>>>> just one page! (Gulp!) So, I FINALLY decided to just write to the
>>>>> library at Tufts yesterday and received a PDF copy this morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was well worth the wait folks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Janet P. Wilkins
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: gretchen halpert <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Date: 2008/07/29 Tue PM 06:51:33 CDT
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: [SCIART] conference publicity
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,Here are two links of interest:
>>>>>> The first is from Jim Gurney's blog, with a very nice report of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> conference under July
>>>>>> 24th: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/07/guild-of-natural-
>>>>>> science-illustrators.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second is an article that was in the Journal Nature. Your best
>>>>>> bet for reading it is from a university library unless you have a
>>>>>> subscription. The article came out the week before the conference
>>>>>> and was posted on the bulletin board at the
>>>>>> registration.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7202/full/
>>>>>> 454278a.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both good press for the GNSI.
>>>>>> The Ithaca conference committee rocks!
>>>>>> Cheers,Gretchen
>>>>>> Gretchen HalpertGNSI past-president (Gail, I owe you the
>>>>>> tiara.)Elmira, [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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]
>>>> http://www.productionpost.com
>>>> http://research.amnh.org/~esg/
>>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> 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]
> http://www.productionpost.com
> http://research.amnh.org/~esg/
|
