Considering that these are prints made from sketches and watercolors they are incredibly detailed. They are also "perfect" in a sense because they idealize the organisms that he was depicting and don't show the flaws that a single individual of that species might have had. In that way he was depicting a generalization of all the species that he drew. His work is really a crossover between art and science; especially because when he originally published this body of work camera technology wasn't nearly as good as it is today so this was really the only good way to depict most of these organisms ant to introduce them to the masses. Once again this goes back to the planet's amazing biodiversity.
All of these works have a distinct feeling of horizontal balance to them, whether there is a symmetry to the organisms being depicted, or just a feeling of weight in the subjects. Several of the pieces feel really busy. So much intricate detail for every part of the work. In my art history class we had studied an artist who visited northern countries in South America and was one of the first Europeans who documented flora and fauna in those regions. The name is escaping me, but the time period was around the pre-colonial/colonial era. His sketches reminded me very much of these works.
I agree with the concepts of symmetry, and furthermore the objects appear to be repurposing and combinations of individual geometries. Once again, this points to the dictatorship of recursion, of growth being dependent on how the function was commenced in the first place.
I too agree with the thoughts about symmetry in the paintings. I also feel that there is an undertone of the narritative of power also present in the majority of the works. The center object in the pictures is the most dominant and the viewer's eye is drawn to that object and then moves out to the other objects. There would be a different narritative and visual response if the dominant object was not in the center of the piece and the symmetry was skewed.
I think that in these pieces of art, there is a contrast between the images and their meaning. The illustrations have an almost folklore/fantasy feel to them and the titles below are so unusual to the commoner that they seen almost made up. In reality, Haekel is taking these very real parts of nature and documenting what he sees. I think this puts an interesting perspective on nature in general- theoretically animals being is rooted in science, etc however they still often have a fantastical spin.
I can relate these prints to the diatoms of the previous post. They are all so different and varied. Like Zach said, it's really cool how much detail can be brought out from sketches and watercolors. It reminds me of our photos that we took at the beginning of the semester with the paint cans. We were all so surprised at how much detail we could get simply by using a paint can and some photo paper! It just shows that art is not limited to any certain forms.
Clearly, the most obvious connection between all of the paintings is their very fine symmetry. Coincidentally, Kunstformen der Natur means "artforms of nature," which makes a lot of sense, as nature is full of symmetrical works and patterns, probably most prominent in the layout of cells, which the first painting looks very similar to (if you can see it). I agree with Grace and Zach's point about how much detail the paintings really show.
Considering that these are prints made from sketches and watercolors they are incredibly detailed. They are also "perfect" in a sense because they idealize the organisms that he was depicting and don't show the flaws that a single individual of that species might have had. In that way he was depicting a generalization of all the species that he drew. His work is really a crossover between art and science; especially because when he originally published this body of work camera technology wasn't nearly as good as it is today so this was really the only good way to depict most of these organisms ant to introduce them to the masses. Once again this goes back to the planet's amazing biodiversity.
ReplyDeleteAll of these works have a distinct feeling of horizontal balance to them, whether there is a symmetry to the organisms being depicted, or just a feeling of weight in the subjects. Several of the pieces feel really busy. So much intricate detail for every part of the work. In my art history class we had studied an artist who visited northern countries in South America and was one of the first Europeans who documented flora and fauna in those regions. The name is escaping me, but the time period was around the pre-colonial/colonial era. His sketches reminded me very much of these works.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the concepts of symmetry, and furthermore the objects appear to be repurposing and combinations of individual geometries. Once again, this points to the dictatorship of recursion, of growth being dependent on how the function was commenced in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI too agree with the thoughts about symmetry in the paintings. I also feel that there is an undertone of the narritative of power also present in the majority of the works. The center object in the pictures is the most dominant and the viewer's eye is drawn to that object and then moves out to the other objects. There would be a different narritative and visual response if the dominant object was not in the center of the piece and the symmetry was skewed.
ReplyDeleteI think that in these pieces of art, there is a contrast between the images and their meaning. The illustrations have an almost folklore/fantasy feel to them and the titles below are so unusual to the commoner that they seen almost made up. In reality, Haekel is taking these very real parts of nature and documenting what he sees. I think this puts an interesting perspective on nature in general- theoretically animals being is rooted in science, etc however they still often have a fantastical spin.
ReplyDeleteI can relate these prints to the diatoms of the previous post. They are all so different and varied. Like Zach said, it's really cool how much detail can be brought out from sketches and watercolors. It reminds me of our photos that we took at the beginning of the semester with the paint cans. We were all so surprised at how much detail we could get simply by using a paint can and some photo paper! It just shows that art is not limited to any certain forms.
ReplyDeleteClearly, the most obvious connection between all of the paintings is their very fine symmetry. Coincidentally, Kunstformen der Natur means "artforms of nature," which makes a lot of sense, as nature is full of symmetrical works and patterns, probably most prominent in the layout of cells, which the first painting looks very similar to (if you can see it). I agree with Grace and Zach's point about how much detail the paintings really show.
ReplyDelete