>Ana, hi
>
>I just got back from vacation in Rome, so apologies for a late response.
>
>Drawing continues to contribute to scientific illustration because
>it does the things that photography alone cannot do. The act of
>drawing necessitates longer and a different type of engagement with
>the subject. I remember as schoolboy being introduced to the head
>illustrator at the Natural History Museum and during his studies of
>a particular spider, he not only discovered their mating habits, but
>the way in which their knee joints were articulated. The later
>discovery was developed for engineering purposes.
>
>The physical act of drawing also promotes reflection and thereby a
>different kind of visual exploration from other modes of image
>production - the focus is on questioning, not on product.
>
>Finally, the scientific illustrator can 'cheat', to visually
>interpret/explain/represent/select what needs to be rendered of the
>subject. And if you start with Leonardo and Durer ... their
>drawings still look so good!
>
>All the best
>
>David
People ask that question of scientific illustrators all the time. why
not take a photograph? My answer is that a finished scientific
illustration is edited information, crafted so as to communicate
clearly. The questioners are usually people who consider editing of
text to be normal and necessary.
-Clara
--
----------------------------------
Clara L. Richardson
Scientific Illustrator
Zoology Dept.
The Field Museum
1400 S. Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60605
http://www.fmnh.org/
in my office Tues. and Wed., often working in Herps on Thurs.
available by email most days
[log in to unmask]
|