Annalise Nurme
November 2, 11
Writing Assignment 12
Within a few moments of glancing at the conspicuous whiskers of the three birds on
the giant page, I was drawn to the few sentences of information inscribed below Audubon’s
vivid print. “Whip-poor-will. Male 1. F. 2. 3.” Below that, “Drawn from Nature & Published
by John J. Audubon.” Keeping in mind the question of scientific accuracy versus aesthetics
associated with any portrayal of flora and fauna, I found myself wondering to what extent
Audubon had drawn these birds “from nature.” In other words, how much of a scientist was
Audubon, and how much of an artist? As the utter detail of the print answered for his
aesthetic skill, I then wondered, more specifically, why Audubon didn’t just focus his efforts
on a pair, or even a single specimen. The fact that there are three birds, plus so many
indications of their natural environment, calls to question the necessity of such inclusion.
My contention is that Audubon’s view was intentionally holistic, with the purpose of
conveying as much scientific information as possible.
Though there are three whippoorwills visible, it is easy to argue that the top and
foremost bird is the focus of the picture. The fact that it is much bigger than the two
sedentary birds, and is positioned at the top of the page, allow it to immediately dominate
the composition. While this domination provides focus, it also seems to translate to the
male’s relationship with the sedentary females. The male is captured mid-swoop after a
pair of moths in a predatory pose, with a wide-open mouth and glaring eyes. While these
details are eye-catching, that is not their only purpose. Audubon is also revealing aspects of
the relationship between the male and female whippoorwills. Audubon’s compositional
choices only provide for a dynamic spectacle, but also firmly imply that the male is the
largest, most active, most conspicuous, breadwinner of the species.
The two females are essential to Audubon’s compositional rendering, for reasons
other than providing behavioral and compositional contrast to the dominant male in flight.
While the bird just below the male is clearly more static, its twisted pose incites curiosity.
Is it ruffling its feathers? Is it twisting to observe the male? Or is it just about to lift off and
snag the plump caterpillar? No matter what the answer is, the pose is prime for showcasing
the colorful patterns on the female’s head, which differ vastly form the male’s greyish cap.
Furthermore, it provides an alternative view of the whiskered beak in its close position, to
be compared with the open-mouthed male and the profiled view from the second bird. A
final observation reveals that the middle bird is the only example of the whippoorwill’s
feet. These feet reappear in the bottom right corner as a separate, colorless inset. Thus, the
second bird is the real-life example paired with a clean, scientific rendering, a strong
indication of the analytical value of Audubon’s interpretation.
The foremost purpose of the seated bird is as the basis of a compelling cyclical
motion apparent in the arrangement of all of the specimens within the print. From the
bird’s stationary seat, the branch curves upward to meet the slightly larger, less static bird,
over which the largest, swooping bird curves to the left after the two moths, the smaller of
which is floating back down towards the seated bird. This arrangement is hardly subtle,
and aside from justifying a third bird, in drawing the eye around to each of the specimens,
it highlights their qualities. The third bird may be the smallest, most stationary, least
questionable of the three birds, but these are the additional aspects that make it a
foundation for the other two. It is an anchored foil to the others’ motions. Its plumage is
orderly and detailed, such as that of the top bird, and its orientation is such that the nature
of the rested, folded wing is clearly visible, which helps the viewer to make sense of the
middle female with twisted plumage. When everything else in the image is so static, it is the
key to adding direction, so that the eye does not aimlessly skitter around the composition
and is drawn to focus in order on the various aesthetic choices. This meticulous
organization indicates that Audubon made careful selections for the specimens included,
and reinforced their interaction with sound arrangement.
Like the cyclical composition, the environment gives integrity to the specimens it
supports. The arrangement and differing, fading coloration of the leaves adds just enough
depth to highlight the birds in the foreground, which appear to be on roughly the same
plane. This allows the viewer to acknowledge the difference in size of the male versus the
females. The larger leaves behind the top bird accent its placement and cement it in the
composition, as does the slightly splayed arrangement of leaves centered on the tilted head
of the middle bird, and the mosses underneath both birds on the branch. The two moths,
being somewhat two-dimensional and lacking a background of leaves, would not seem
necessary, were it not for their role as prey and as a necessary pop of color to relieve the
eye from the collection of dull browns, greens, greys and blues. These aspects make them
worthy of inclusion while keeping them from drawing too much attention from the birds.
Their main purpose is as informational aspects of the birds’ habitat.
Once I acknowledged the necessity of each of the elements of Audubon’s “Whippoor-will,” I was able to derive the value of their combination. Audubon’s is hardly a cold,
diagrammatic scientific depiction. Rather, it is breathtakingly detailed and strategically
arranged, and this is what allows Audubon to include so much information. Audubon’s
aesthetic choices not only provide information, but also make that information thoroughly
digestible. Just as David Freedberg mentioned, “we have to learn to take seriously the
overtly poetic language in which scientific and observational breakthroughs are frequently
couched.”1 Freedburg’s text concerns botanical illustration in an older context, yet these
words apply just as readily to Audubon. The depiction of the whippoorwills is highly
detailed and obviously involved much labor. But the beauty and artistic detail of the piece
should not detract from its value as a visually accurate rendering of the whippoorwill.
However, one possible source of inaccuracy is worth keeping in mind, and that is
Nickelsen’s discussion2 of the problematic nature of coloration. Prints, as they were made
en masse, were generally colored by various people, which would allow for variance and
inaccuracy if the specimens were not present for reference. Despite this possible
discrepancy, the coloring of Audubon’s depiction is necessary to tone down and organize
the otherwise overwhelming amount of detail and information.
Ultimately, most delightful aspect of Audubon’s whippoorwills can be found in the
detail. Not in the meticulous rendering of a row of feathers, but in the somewhat grotesque
realities: the whiskers framing the wide-open mouth and the oddly cocked head; the
predatory glare of the male versus the round, passive orbs of the seated female; the paperthin two-dimensionality and helplessness of the doomed moths. Audubon is not one to
spare any detail for the sake of either sterile analysis or aesthetic appeal. In delighting in
the weirdness, the beauty, the behavior of the birds, providing the unabridged locale –
1
Freedberg, David. The Eye of the Lynx: Galileo, his friends, and the beginnings of modern natural
history., 2002.
2 Nickelsen, Karin. "Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical
Illustrations." Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): 125.
through all of these developing details, he convinces the discerning viewer of his credibility
and skill, incites deeper voluntary analysis, and is that much more able to convey his
observations. To the Lincean scholars of Freedberg’s text, visual representation was upheld
as the foremost step in the process of scientific classification. Audubon’s lush illustration is
the epitome of this: an ultimate visual record, which the Linceans, along with any
appreciative viewer, should trust as a sound, inclusive basis for further exploration.
Zuzu:
Alright, so, gettin' to it. Positive response for the introduction: I think that you did a good
job of setting up what it seems at this point to be the focus of your paper. The line starting
with "Keeping in mind" encapsulates that best for me, since it puts out an interesting
topic with many possible paths. I also enjoy what seems like a definitive question that
you're going to pursue, the bit with "how much of a scientist was Audubon, and how
much of an artist?" which feels like a key focal point for the entirety of the essay, maybe.
Negative response for the introduction: Just after what felt like a very strong thesis or at
least idea for analysis, the questions phrased about the three birds, the natural
environment, and the purpose of the holistic view seem a little shallow. They also don't
seem to blend with the previous question, since they don't really address the science/art
boundary, which is what I assume your paper gets into more detail about. If that
scientist/artist debate is your main point, I might suggest simply swapping around the "In
other words..." sentence to the end, after your questions about why Audubon did this and
that.
Positive for conclusion: The language you use is very inspiring, and if you wrote like that
throughout the paper then it must be compelling to read. The descriptions of the
individual birds both on their own and in relation to each other suggests a very detailed
observation that the rest of the paper probably expands on. Negative for conclusion:
Although I don't know how much it's shaped by the rest of your paper, the conclusion
seems kind of off-putting bordering on gruesome ("helplessness of the doomed moths")
and the emphasis on artistic analysis overshadows the scientific points, which kind of
slide in there at the end without much purpose. Hope/Pitfall: I hope that you provide
either an argument/debate of the question that you bring up in the beginning of the piece
or some kind of strong guiding force throughout the paper. From the first to the last
paragraph, it almost seems as though you just describe the image in great detail, which
although it would make for an interesting paper it might not have as much character as a
real analysis should. That being said, since I haven't read your paper I have no idea if you
do or don't do these things. Also, I suck at interpretations and commentary, so don't really
think of what I got out of your paragraphs as being the things that everyone would get out
of them.
Response:
Thanks for the complements. My wording is often my strength, but sometimes I get so
caught up in smoothly conveying the information that I sacrifice the argument. I had no
intention for the conclusion to be gruesome, but I don’t really agree that it is. I wanted it to
have a bit of a punch. You are spot-on about much of the paper being description, so I see
what you’re saying about the artistic commentary swamping the scientific analysis. I will
keep this in mind during my review, but since I have no information on whip-poor-wills or
Audubon’s intentions except for what I saw in the print, I think it’s somewhat unavoidable.
The analysis of a painting leaves so much room for descriptive interpretation that I get a
little carried away. I will do my best to stick to my revised thesis and use mainly what
description is necessary.
Michael:
Introduction Reaction:
Positive- I felt great satisfaction at your direction with this paper once I
read the sentence “In other words, how much of a scientist was
Audubon, and how much of an artist?” Especially after the first sentence
or so left me questioning what’s the point you’re getting at. Also, the
multiple questions at the end reassure me that you were having the same
concerns I was.
Negative- I felt disappointed that I could not find your thesis. You do a
good job of setting the scene and giving it a question to answer, but I
don’t know what direction you will go in in terms of what you think.
Response:
I’m glad you approve of my method of setting up my thesis, and I agree
that the thesis is hard to find with all those rambling questions. I need to
clean it up and argue specifically that I Audubon chose a holistic view in
order to convey scientific information.
Conclusion Reaction:
Positive- I was highly inspired by the observations you made which I did
not even notice, like in the sentence “Not in the meticulous rendering of
a row of feathers, but in the somewhat grotesque realities: the whiskers
framing the wide-open mouth and the oddly cocked head; the predatory
glare of the male versus the round, passive orbs of the seated female; the
paper-thin two-dimensionality and helplessness of the doomed moths.”
You were able to fit so much into the final paragraph and even included
a source for support in your last sentence.
Negative- I felt a little overwhelmed because I think you might actually
say too much in your conclusion and should focus more on restating and
wrapping up your thesis/main argument. I also feel like the reference to
the Linceans is somewhat unnecessary unless of course it is a major part
of your body argument, then its fine
I hope that you develop your thesis more in your essay and hold a strong
and decisive opinion on what Audobon is doing with his work. One
pitfall I hope you avoid is to focus on the details of the actual painting
too much without actually saying what they show the viewer. I can tell
from you conclusion that you’ll probably be referring to Freedberg,
which is accurate. I also expect to see some Nickelson in there, talking
about the methods of creating such a piece and why.
Response:
This is great feedback. I should probably cut down on the description in
my conclusion and tighten/resummarize the analysis. I also might want
to spread my references to the articles throughout the essay, instead of
adding the Nickelsen and Freedberg near the end (although that’s where
I thought they fit best – I wanted to sufficiently develop my arguments
before including theirs). The introduction of the Linceans might be too
abrupt, so I’ll fix that. I feel that although I choose to go into great detail
about the visual, I’m a visual thinker and have some drawing experience
myself, and I am able to draw convincing evidence from the specifics of
what I see.