botanical illlustration
Gramma
surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.
I am a mature age amateur botanical artist who is interested in progressing
to try some illustration work.
I have checked several web sites and many illustrations, but there seems to
be no set standard format of just what features of a plant should be
represented in an illustration.
So far I have seen the following depicted but not all on the same specimen.
a. Habit
b. male flowers and inflorescence
c.male flowers top view
d.female flowers and inflorescence
e.side view of female flower
f. stipule
g. under surface of leaf
h. close up of under surface of leaf
i. bud side and front view
j. individual petals and open view of petals
k.seed pods
some show cross sections, some don't
Is there such a thing as a standard format or is it just up to the
illustrator toshow what they think?
Is there also a better or best means of showing the scale I understand it is
not sufficient to show 'life size'; x1; x.5 etc. as this becomes
meaningless if an illustration becomes reduced
Gramma
P van Rijckevorsel
> I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there are
> surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.
***
One of the prime uses of botanical illustrations is to illustrate botanical
/ taxonomic works. These are written by people who will have special and
intimate knowledge of the plants described. Therefore they will know what
parts of the plants it is necessary to feature, and from what angle, perhaps
mounted in a special way. They will so instruct the artists commissioned to
make said illustrations.
So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which
knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does happen
that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by taxonomists
is critical, after all).
A common device to show scale is a scale bar (usually a line, sometimes with
short cross lines at either end) that represents, say, 1cm, 5cm or 5mm in
the real plant. If the illustration is reduced so is the scale bar.
PvR
Sean Houtman
news:41f616fe$0$35298$b83b...@news.wanadoo.nl:
This is true, generally the author of the work requests the
illustration, and specifies the important features.
There at least used to be a certificate program in botanical
illustration offered by the Smithsonian Institute. Don't think that
you are too old for it, Gesina (Nikki) Threlkeld was about 70 when
she got her certificate.
Sean
Gramma
"P van Rijckevorsel" <dipt...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:41f616fe$0$35298$b83b...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Gramma <ejan...@bigpond.com> schreef
>> I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but there
>> are
>> surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.
<snip>
>So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which
>knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does happen
>that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by
>taxonomists
>is critical, after all).
>
Thank you for replying.
To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am thinking
along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a
competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel including
at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research associate
from a botanic garden.
The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I
wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should be
shown
I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever specimen
I choose.
This could of course be part of what they are looking for - to see how an
illustrator has looked at the plant
I will take on the method of scale you suggested - it is certainly makes
sense
Gramma
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gramma
"Sean Houtman" <gromm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106649932.225ccaab731b22d649df41aa18bf587b@teranews...
> "P van Rijckevorsel" <dipt...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
> news:41f616fe$0$35298$b83b...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
>> Gramma <ejan...@bigpond.com> schreef
>>> I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but
>>> there are surely some botanists who have thoughts on this.
>>
>snip>
>
> There at least used to be a certificate program in botanical
> illustration offered by the Smithsonian Institute. Don't think that
> you are too old for it, Gesina (Nikki) Threlkeld was about 70 when
> she got her certificate.
The Smithsonian would be a bit far for me as I am in Oz
but there are sure to be similar courses here.
Age would not stop me doing something like that, but unfortunately
my pension could !
Not surprisingly, as this is a new direction for me, I have not heard of the
lady you mentioned.
I will do a Google search and see if I can find any of her work
Thank you for your reply
Gramma
P van Rijckevorsel
> To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am thinking
along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a
competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel including
at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research associate
from a botanic garden.
> The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I
wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should be
shown
> I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever
specimen I choose. This could of course be part of what they are looking
for - to see how an illustrator has looked at the plant.
***
What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his
homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and what botanists regard
as the important features.
It may be relevant who the members of the jury are
PvR
Gramma
> Gramma <ejan...@bigpond.com> schreef
>
>> I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever
> specimen I choose. This could of course be part of what they are looking
> for - to see how an illustrator has looked at the plant.
>
> ***
> What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his
> homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and
**what botanists regard as the important features.**
>
I guess I was trying to ask this group that question in the first place.
Gramma...>
>
P van Rijckevorsel
> > What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his
> > homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and
> **what botanists regard as the important features.**
> I guess I was trying to ask this group that question in the first place.
***
You guess wrong. You asked what in general are important features for
plants in general. A one-size-fits-all approach.
What matters for the illustration is the important features of the
particular plant-species portrayed. Features which likely are unique to that
group of plants. A competetent illustator working alone will have to do his
homework in order to deliver a product-made-to-measure ...
PvR
AZTEC
> Gramma ejan...@bigpond.com schreef-
> I am not sure if this is the correct forum for this question but
> there
> are
>
> snip
> -
> So it depends on the plants portrayed (and perhaps the level to which
> knowledge has advanced of the particular plant portrayed. It does
> happen
> that later it becomes known that a feature disregarded so far by
> taxonomists
> -
> -
> Thank you for replying.
>
> To try and determine my ability against other illustrators, I am
> thinking
> along the lines of entering an illustration into selection for a
> competitive exhibition, where the drawings are selected by a panel
> including
> at least one botanist, one scientific member and one research
> associate
> from a botanic garden.
>
> The choice of plant used is up to the illustrator, and this is why I
> wondered about a standard format of presentation of just what should
> be
> shown
>
> I guess I will have to use my judgement on the features of whatever
> specimen
> I choose.
> This could of course be part of what they are looking for - to see how
> an
> illustrator has looked at the plant
>
> I will take on the method of scale you suggested - it is certainly
> makes
> sense
>
>
> Gramma
> -
good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC
--
AZTEC
Sean Houtman
Yes, for this type of illustration, you want to make sure that the
features that separate this species from related ones are clearly
rendered. That may mean that a part that displays that feature is in
the forefront, or angled so that it is easy to see. Which features
chosen will vary between plants. For instance, if you are
illustrating a grass, and the main feature that separates your
chosen species is the shape of the ligule, you probably want to make
sure that the ligule is prominent.
Doing your homework in a case like this may mean you research the
original description, which will generally start out with a bunch of
latin, and then the same stuff in another language (usually English,
but not always, depending on the native tongue of the describer).
Those descriptions often say something like "looks like
$SOMEOTHERPLANT except..." so you might want to take a look at what
that some other plant looks like.
Sean
P van Rijckevorsel
> Doing your homework in a case like this may mean you research the
> original description, which will generally start out with a bunch of
> latin, and then the same stuff in another language (usually English,
> but not always, depending on the native tongue of the describer).
> Those descriptions often say something like "looks like
> $SOMEOTHERPLANT except..." so you might want to take a look at what
> that some other plant looks like.
***
Well, this is OK as far as it goes, but I would much rather recommend a good
monograph. Not only will this make a close comparison between all the
different species now known (rather than those known at the time of the
discovery of one particular species), but it will also be a lot easier to
read, especially for the layman.
PvR
Gramma
>
> Yes, for this type of illustration, you want to make sure that the
> features that separate this species from related ones are clearly
> rendered. That may mean that a part that displays that feature is in
> the forefront, or angled so that it is easy to see.
That is a fairly standard practice in botanical art,so I am familiar with
looking at a specimen that way. Whether I always get it right is open to
conjecture.
>Which features chosen will vary between plants. For instance, if you are
> illustrating a grass, and the main feature that separates your
> chosen species is the shape of the ligule, you probably want to make
> sure that the ligule is prominent.
I have not as yet felt ready to progress to a body of work on any particular
species, but it is swirling around as a project in the dark recesses for
next year.
> Doing your homework in a case like this may mean you research the
> original description, which will generally start out with a bunch of
> latin, and then the same stuff in another language (usually English,
> but not always, depending on the native tongue of the describer).
> Those descriptions often say something like "looks like
> $SOMEOTHERPLANT except..." so you might want to take a look at what
> that some other plant looks like.
>
I'm sorry if I haven't quite grasped the above but you seem to be saying
that an illustrator could , or should be able to, work principally from
the description of a plant in botanical terms.
Or do you mean in conjunction with a live specimen?
Gramma
Gramma
> Gramma <ejan...@bigpond.com> schreef
>> > What they are looking for may also be how an illustrator has done his
>> > homework, i.e. read up on the plant of his choice and
>
>> **what botanists regard as the important features.**
>
>> I guess I was trying to ask this group that question in the first place.
>
> ***
> You guess wrong. You asked what in general are important features for
> plants in general. A one-size-fits-all approach.
Well yes, I did think there would be some kind of standard features of a
plant that *must* be included in a botanical drawing.
As there isn't , I have learned something.
> What matters for the illustration is the important features of the
> particular plant-species portrayed. Features which likely are unique to
> that group of plants.
I assumed for the purpose I want, which initially is one illustration of a
chosen plant, that I would be able [that it would be correct to do so ] to
take a living plant and draw it from life.
Firstly showing the habit and individual features of that plant,
then highlight the individual aspects or variances of that plant
as different view drawings or cross sections, to scale.
I may be phrasing that wrongly due to my lack of botanical vocabulary, but
would this be considered an incorrect botanical illustration because it was
a stand alone drawing without any comparison to others of the plant species?
Gramma>
>
>
>
Gramma
"AZTEC" <AZTEC....@news.gardenbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AZTEC....@news.gardenbanter.co.uk...
>> -
>> -
>
> good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC
>
> --
If I don't get cold feet in the mean time and if I have the courage I
might run it past for a critique before I enter, which might of course
put me off entering altogether .
[g]
Gramma
P van Rijckevorsel
> Well yes, I did think there would be some kind of standard features of a
> plant that *must* be included in a botanical drawing.
> As there isn't , I have learned something.
***
I suppose that roughly speaking there are such features.
But only roughly speaking
* * *
> > What matters for the illustration is the important features of the
> > particular plant-species portrayed. Features which likely are unique to
> > that group of plants.
> I assumed for the purpose I want, which initially is one illustration of
a chosen plant, that I would be able [that it would be correct to do so ]
to take a living plant and draw it from life.
***
Oh yes, do draw one from life.
But the angle from which you draw, the parts depicted and indeed the very
choice of specimen all depend on what you need to show. These must be
educated choices.
* * *
> I may be phrasing that wrongly due to my lack of botanical vocabulary, but
would this be considered an incorrect botanical illustration because it
was a stand alone drawing without any comparison to others of the plant
species?
***
Stand-alone drawings are the norm.
Best advice is to look at a range of monographs, dealing with quite
different plants, such as trees with catkins, trees with "real" flowers,
several herbaceous plants and grasslike plants. That will convey the idea
better than anything anybody can say.
PvR
Sean Houtman
news:BWBKd.139072$K7.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> "P van Rijckevorsel" <dipt...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:41f9180d$0$63646$abc4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> What matters for the illustration is the important features of
>> the particular plant-species portrayed. Features which likely are
>> unique to that group of plants.
>
> I assumed for the purpose I want, which initially is one
> illustration of a chosen plant, that I would be able [that it
> would be correct to do so ] to take a living plant and draw it
> from life.
Yes.
>
> Firstly showing the habit and individual features of that plant,
> then highlight the individual aspects or variances of that plant
> as different view drawings or cross sections, to scale.
Yes, yes.
>
> I may be phrasing that wrongly due to my lack of botanical
> vocabulary, but would this be considered an incorrect botanical
> illustration because it was a stand alone drawing without any
> comparison to others of the plant species?
>
It doesn't need to have a comparison included, in fact, for a
competition, one plant illustrated would probably be better than
several. However, remember that an illustration is likely to be
around for some years, there are a few plant species that are known
only from an illustration, the original specimen having been
destroyed, and the locale collected in unknown. Because of this
posterity, your illustration that takes into account related
species, and shows detail of the features that separate it from
others is likely to score better than one that is less researched.
Sean
Sean Houtman
news:FWBKd.139073$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> I'm sorry if I haven't quite grasped the above but you seem to be
> saying that an illustrator could , or should be able to, work
> principally from the description of a plant in botanical terms.
> Or do you mean in conjunction with a live specimen?
>
Definitely use the live specimen, but remember that the Botanist who
described the plant is familiar with its relatives, and described it in
such a way that some one else would be able to tell them apart using
the description. Monographs (publications dedicated to a single group
of plants, such as a genus or subgenus) also tend to include that
information.
Sean
P van Rijckevorsel
Monographs (publications dedicated to a single group of plants, such as a
genus or subgenus)
***
Lots of monographs are devoted to a family.
Several such in the _Flora of Australia_ which is not a single book but
rather a series of monographs.
PvR
b...@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu
Gramma <ejan...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>"AZTEC" <AZTEC....@news.gardenbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:AZTEC....@news.gardenbanter.co.uk...
>>
>>
>might run it past for a critique before I enter, which might of course
>put me off entering altogether .
Good heavens, don't let anything put you off entering! You have
nothing to lose and everything to gain!
You might want to confer with the contest organizers about what
criteria they will use in judging entries. And even if you don't
"win", you will have the opportunity for your work to be critiqued by
professionals, which can be invaluable.
Note also that there's interest in botanical illustrations for their
aesthetic as well as scientific value. Entering a contest like this
may put your work in front of potential purchasers and even invite
commissions from people who would like drawings of favorite plants.
You'll also have the opportunity to meet other illustrators and people
interested in botanical illustration, which is invaluable, even if it
doesn't lead to monetary gain. It's hard to make money from art, but
creating art is rewarding in itself, and the pleasure in each other's
work you can share with those with the same interests is wonderful,
aside from the advice and information you can obtain from them.
Gramma
"P van Rijckevorsel" <dipt...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:41fbbb92$0$55840$cd19...@news.wanadoo.nl...
giggle
I thought a monograph must be a tonal drawing of some kind
Gramma >
>
>
Gramma
<b...@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu> wrote in message
news:2005Jan29....@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...
> In article <LWBKd.139074$K7.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Gramma <ejan...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>"AZTEC" <AZTEC....@news.gardenbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:AZTEC....@news.gardenbanter.co.uk...
>>>
>>> good luck and, if you don't mind, can we see your entry? AZTEC
>>>
>>If I don't get cold feet in the mean time and if I have the courage I
>>might run it past for a critique before I enter, which might of course
>>put me off entering altogether .
>
> Good heavens, don't let anything put you off entering! You have
> nothing to lose and everything to gain!
I only meant from the point of perhaps making some 'glaring' mistakes that a
lay person may not pick up, but again that would be the point of getting a
critique in
the first place.
> You might want to confer with the contest organizers about what
> criteria they will use in judging entries.
Since I first posted here I have received the assessment criteria which is:
1. Botanical accuracy in the interpretation and portrayal of plant
character and diagnostic features
2. Technical merit
3. Artistic merit
4. Suitability for publication,
[which I understand from the instructions to artists to mean the drawing
must be able to reduce by one third without losing clarity of detail ]
The entry literature has also very helpfully given a judges comment on the
works entered last year and some of the reasons drawings were rejected.
>And even if you don't
> "win", you will have the opportunity for your work to be critiqued by
> professionals, which can be invaluable.
This is basically my reason for wanting to enter - just to see if I am at
the standard for selection.
If selected then my next entry [2006] would be to aim for winning - the
first
prize is $5,000 which would always come in handy
> Note also that there's interest in botanical illustrations for their
> aesthetic as well as scientific value. Entering a contest like this
> may put your work in front of potential purchasers and even invite
> commissions from people who would like drawings of favourite plants.
It is certainly a select medium and not everyone's cup of tea.
Not everyone can appreciate the work that goes into Botanical art or
illustration and I think it would be love of the medium and subject rather
than the
gains that would start most people off.
> You'll also have the opportunity to meet other illustrators and people
> interested in botanical illustration, which is invaluable, even if it
> doesn't lead to monetary gain.
<snip>
It was meeting a past entrant that has spurred me into getting the entry
details.
It is only the few outstanding artists who can gain the success of Celia
Rosser or Jenny Phillips, two of Australia's better known botanical artists,
well beyond my ability but I'm working on it..
To which end I had better keep practicing.
My thanks to you for interest
Gramma
P van Rijckevorsel
> I thought a monograph must be a tonal drawing of some kind
***
In general it is a good idea to look up any unknown word in a dictionary.
Lots of words mean the opposite of what they appear to mean, or originally
meant. Take "decimate".
PvR
Monique Reed
Something that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that you will do
your best work if you are illustrating something you love. Someone
who knows and loves roses and orchids might do a technically competent
job illustrating grasses, but the work won't have the "involvement" or
"investment" of someone who has a gut relationship with the group.
That said, drawing is also a way of understanding--you notice a lot
when you have to draw something, so you may find yourself falling for
something you draw.
Everyone was right when they said the features to be illustrated will
vary from plant to plant or group to group. For
example--Nepenthes--tropical pitcher plants. For these guys, it's
going to be the leaves and pitchers--shape, size, marking, etc. The
flowers are extremely secondary. For orchids, it's mostly about
flowers and their details. For things in the carrot and mustard
family, it's fruits and leaves. For a tree, it might be fruit,
leaves, and bark. Some families have specialized structures that are
like fingerprints for each species. You'd put the other bits in, of
course, but the emphasis will change from plant to plant.
M. Reed
P van Rijckevorsel
at least a spot where one can work sufficiently relaxed ;-)
PvR
Monique Reed <mon...@mail.bio.tamu.edu> schreef
Gramma
> Well, in that case you should also mention pleasant work circumstances, or
> at least a spot where one can work sufficiently relaxed ;-)
Got that! a specially made corner of the kitchen overlooking the flower
laden back patio
where the light comes in from the left and my special light with a daylight
globe is at the ready.
>> Something that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that you will do
>> your best work if you are illustrating something you love.
<snip>
That is the hard part , I'm frantically trying to decide what I will draw -
I just want to do so many.
It will have to be something we have in the garden or I can buy in a pot so
I
have a live specimen
Currently the favourites are a species geranium or pelargonium ; possibly
a begonia. I also love native flowers so maybe our native hibiscus [
Alyogyne heugelii] although I suspect the natives will have been done to
death
Then I also love some of the plants that are classed as weeds.
Decisions, decisions. Time is running downs so I will have to decide soon.
I told my art tutor today what I was thinking of doing
and she was all for it so I will get back up and constructive criticism
there.
I can't thank everyone who bothered enough for their in put.
I will let you know what I decide eventually decide to draw, until then
I will be away sorting that out .
My thanks again
Gramma
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<ejan...@bigpond.com> writes
>I also love native flowers so maybe our native hibiscus [
>Alyogyne heugelii] although I suspect the natives will have been done to
>death
There's a revision of Alyogyne in process. Of the 5 species at the last
revision, one has been transferred to Hibiscus, and the remainder 4
split into a least 10. var. leptochlamys has been transferred from
huegelii to pinoniana.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Gramma
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" <{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xCegWBAR38$BF...@meden.demon.co.uk...
Gramma