This Metallic Beetle was painted 400% larger than life. ©2013 Mindy Lighthipe
Botanical Art is rich in tradition, especially when it comes to technique and composition.
I promised to share with you the class I took last month with Anna Mason at the Selby Gardens in Sarasota, Fl. She has a very wonderful style of painting that is not a “typical” botanical portrait. Her subjects are all larger than life. They give a blast of color as you enter a room or gallery. The images “pop” and as her website is called, Watercolors With WOW, this describes Anna’s work perfectly.
I really didn’t know that much about Anna or the way she painted but I wanted to take a class to see how someone else approaches watercolor. To my surprise these huge paintings are done with mostly very small brushes and are done in a dry brush technique. This is completely the opposite way that I work so it was definitely a challenge for me. I struggled in class but managed to do 2 almost identical paintings in the class. The first painting was done more in the technique I use with my color selection and the second painting was done using a dry brush and Anna’s color palette.
Anna works mostly from her own photographs and it is very interesting to me that if the detail is not present in the photo, it does not appear in the painting. She does not add detail where it is not seen in the photo. This is very different from the way that I was trained and my tendency was to want to add things that I see on the living orchid but were not in focus on the photo. When I questioned Anna about not putting in the missing parts, her reply was, “The difference between my work and other painters of botanical subjects is that my paintings have a high sense of realism, while other botanical painters focus on all of the details which makes their paintings, illustrations.” I thought about this for a while and she is absolutely correct in her thinking. A botanical purest would have to agree that Anna’s paintings are so lifelike that they almost seem like photographs. Traditional botanical works usually have less contrast and depth. Botanical painters often use a formulaic scientific lighting usually leaving out shadows and cast shadows. Often the paintings show cross sections and dissections of plant parts. The typical botanical style clearly is an illustration.
After I got home from the workshop I decided to do a metallic beetle and blow it up 400%. I worked from several photographs and this is my result. I still haven’t reached a comfort zone with her technique and used some of my own techniques thrown in along the way. I do my painting for myself and I like a good challenge along the way. I strive to grow, learn, and incorporate new techniques into my own style and vision.
What is your take on realistic painting versus illustration? I would love to hear your thoughts. Please leave a comment and share your views.
Thank you for writing this Mindy, I was interested to see what you thought of the class and Anna’s style and technique. Early on it seemed clear that her paintings were strong and had a great range of light and depth showing the familiar traits reflected in still photographs.
I know a few artists working in this way with enlargements and only photographic reference – and the results always have great wall appeal.
For me the two are very different – but I enjoy both – like choosing a dessert – different recipes but still a dessert in the end. The purpose is what is important – what is the viewer looking for – I guess it’s similar to botanical illustrations and botanical portraits – they can appear very different in style but the subject is the same. It all comes down to personal taste – for me neither one is superior or better, just different. However botanical and natural history art has a huge range of approaches and in time perhaps each style may be categorised a little more succinctly.
Perhaps ‘botanical art’ is becoming a little more trendy and by showcasing this style makes it more desirable to those who may not be attracted to the more traditional style, which, being life size, takes a lot more observation to see the talent and technique used to illustrate the subject. The larger format is more readily usable in design work and filling a wall – and if it brings attention to the wonders of nature that’s a good thing.
Thank you Vicki for starting out a dialogue about the subject. It seems that there are people who have such strict rules about botanical art and I am trying to get a sense of why people feel so strongly. I agree with you. I really like it all! Cheers! ~Mindy
Thank you so much Mindy for summing up Anna’s workshop. I am new to the world of drawing and painting and have been beating the bushes looking at all the different techniques, arguments for and against, and participating in several of the “groups”. I read and look at all I can and try different things. I was taken by Anna Mason’s technique, liked the hugeness of her works and the brilliant colors and her approach to various subjects. I even bought some of the small brushes so I could try out her tutorials. I feel a person should paint something the way it feels to them, whether it be botanical, illustration, wet-on-wet, dry, negative … all of the techniques have much to offer. The basics, as I understand them, are the same but the way the work is put on paper or canvas is at the artist’s discretion. I like that freedom. I haven’t settled on a technique to embrace but I know what I like and don’t like, I know what I’m drawn to in a gallery and if I can draw or paint something that looks like what it is, I’ll be happy. I take several on-line classes and also will follow Anna’s tutorials. There is so much to know! Thank you again. Happy Holidays! PS: Your metallic beetle is quite something! Beautifully done.
Thanks Carole for commenting. It is very confusing I think for beginners. I find that when someone study with me, I have to “give them permission” to break the rules. It is almost as if the color or paper or brush will make or break the entire discipline of the art form. My advice is to learn, absorb, create and be try to what feeds your passion!
I think that is an accurate distinction. Botanical illustration can be “dry” for the purpose of showing detail for information purposes. Enlarging and not adding unseen detail, but rather illustrating what is seen is another form of illustration which appears more realistic in my opinion. Taken from a photograph, information is altered or rather “stilled.” I find staring at a live plant, the more I look at it, the more I know it. Photography can be useful to hold a moment of looking, but qualities of a live plant gets lost. How it is expressed is in the hand and eye of the creator.
Hi Debra! When I give an assignment for a scientific illustration the first task for the student is to find out exactly what a scientist or botanist wants to see in the painting. When an artist is hired to do a scientific illustration it is usually to visualize a specific attribute of the plant or animal that makes it unique, the dissections and cross view and is often meant to prove that it is one specie over another… or maybe even a new specie. These type of illustrations are normally done in black and white; pen & ink and are as you say “dry” and clinical. Styles and techniques are vast but these types of illustrations I believe should be done this way so it minimizes false interpretations. This is one of the reasons that learning to measure and record proper proportions is so important.
Stay warm up north Debra!
~Mindy
A really interesting blog Mindy – thank you – it’s great to see this subject being discussed and I love to see people experimenting!
We do tend to think there was a ‘traditional’ painting style but there really wasn’t; Barbara Dietzsch in the 18th Century painted on a dark background and Ehret used bodycolour in his finished paintings rather than watercolour. Redouté used huge contrast in his work sometimes with the shadows being practically black but Franz Bauer was much softer; nor is realism a new thing – see Ligozzi painting in 16th Century Florence, and of course the more recent work of Rory McEwen, who also worked from photographs in his later work and didn’t always include every detail (believe it or not!).
There’s a good essay by Stephen Harris in the back of the book ‘A new flowering, 1000 years of botanical art’ by Shirley Sherwood defining scientific botanical illustration: I would see an illustration as having primarily a scientific purpose and see botanical illustration as being a subsection within the genre of botanical art as a whole.
As Vicki puts it – let’s enjoy all the approaches – the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned!
Hi Martin! Thanks so much for leaving all this great information about all the different styles and artists. I went to the Royal Horticultural Society in London and exhibited my work several years ago purposely to see what they would think of my work because I stray form the “classic”. My paintings all had insects in them and the theme was host plants. They told me they really liked the insects in the paintings but knew nothing about whether they were painted correctly since they only deal with plants. When you look through botanical and floral paintings “bugs” appear everywhere. They compared my work to Maria Sibylla Merian which was a great honor…… in so many of her paintings the insects are not in proper proportion to the plants and they are not necessarily composed on a plant that they would nectar from or use as a host plant. Of course this was so long ago and should not take away from the mastery of her painting. The judges at the Royal Society acted as if I had done something that was never done before! It was a great experience and it was an eye opener to see the very specific standards that they had in the judging. Needless to say they gave me a Silver Medal and I was thrilled….. since I had “stepped out of the box”. Thanks again for your input!
~Mindy
Mindy, This is actually Kathy Tollenaere (one of “Val’s Artists”). I am a very detail oriented person. Had I had the training you’ve had, as a young person, I would be very much inclined to remain with what is seen in my artwork. That being said, however, I can also appreciate deviation once a person has an intimate knowledge of the subject. Obviously there’s room for both approaches. 🙂
Thanks for sharing your experiences and asking for input. Best Wishes over this Christmas and New Year’s seasons.
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for responding to this blog post. Whenever I take a class from another artist I try to do exactly what they are teaching so that I can get a handle on the technique. After the class I go back to the studio and create another piece on my own so that I absorb, practice and perhaps deviate and modify what I have learned to suit my own personal taste and style of working. Too often artists will want to “copy” someone else’s style rather than enfold it into their own repertoire. I believe there are so many approaches and so many ways to create that the more the merrier! ON that note….. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too!
Thank you, Martin. I googled Barbara Dietzsch and Ligozza… so beautiful and interesting. Botanical illustration is always about precise information. Anna’s paintings are beautiful and realistic but if they don’t include the defining information they are not scientific illustrations…. they are art. Rory McEwen’ exquisite works of art are illustrations…. in my opinion. Love reading everyone’s thoughts and opinions!
I agree Nancy. I think that scientific illustration is the dissection and other information that is included in the painting…… but I also think that scientific illustration is art too! Cheers! Mindy
I agree with Martin – botanical illustration has a very specific purpose. Illustration in this context is about accurately rendering some aspect or feature of a plant or flower such that it creates a record for accurate identification of the same plant in the field or to differentiate it from a similar plant. In other words its purpose is essentially scientific and the reason it continues is because few photographers can create an image on one sheet which provides all this information – apart from the wonderful Niki Simpson http://www.nikisimpson.co.uk/
However I wouldn’t agree that painting plants and flowers from photographs enables an artist to portray a high degree of realism. Quite the reverse given the very significant problems that photographs have with the reproduction of tonal values, shadows and true colours.
The ONLY artists who to my mind can claim to be recreating realism are those that paint from observation and use photographs merely as a tool to check out specifics relating to structure and size. Those who have the necessary skills and start by creating studies from life and hence have a careful note of the real colours and tones always produce superior work.
I very much like large work – and larger than life work – but I much prefer botanical artists like Fiona Strickland and Coral Guest and a host of others where the emphasis is not on working from photos.
Some great points Katherine and definitely some artists worth checking out – I love that you have strong views and I think many botanical artists would agree with you over the use of photographs and realism, and the importance of drawing/painting from life.
However, I think the most important influence on how ‘real’ a painting looks is the artist, whether they base their image on a photograph or life studies is largely irrelevant. In fact there is a strong case to say that many artists work would be improved if they studied photographs. Evidence of this can be seen in the recent Rory McEwen book published by Kew where you can compare a painting from life (page 76) and a painting where photography has been used extensively (page 77).
Unfortunately, nearly forty years after his pioneering use of photography in botanical art there are still very few artists using it to its full potential – fingers crossed that one day you will be ‘wowed’ by a realistic painting where afterwards the artist tells you they painted it from a photograph – I hope it will be a pleasant surprise :-)
Dear Martin,
I really like your thoughts here. I find that as I do more and more of my own research, I use my own digital photographs as part of the process. I find that the details when they are in focus are much easier to see than using a microscope. I have difficulty judging the scale and proportion from the microscope to the paper. I have used a camera lucida with a microscope but it is very time consuming and I still need to redraw afterwards. Photography is definitely make a permanent place within the world of botanical art as well as other forms. I am happy to say that I believe it will never replace botanical art/illustration but work hand in hand, helping the artist depict the beautiful and awesome plant world. Thanks for posting!
~Mindy
This is an interesting topic of discussion, I’m so delighted that you raised it Mindy. I am aligned with Martin’s point that there are different sub sections within the genre of Botanical Art. Definitions are useful because they assist art historians and collectors alike. The purposeful option for all Botanical Artists is to be productively working for the same aim, which is to persue the development of the genre in their own way.
Botanical Illustration should not be seen as a pejorative term. Any technique involving watercolour has to be worked with as a means to an end, to suit the person who is working with it as well as their subject matter. No singular technique is better than another.
In the bigger picture, so far as attitudes to Botanical Art are concerned, it is still generally considered by the majority of art critics and historians to all be Illustration and therefore secondary to Fine Art. This is because the image is floated upon a white background, which is traditionally the Illustrator’s modus operandi.
In truth it is the individual quality of an artwork that defines its worth, not the technque or the status an artist gives to it with their ownership over a technique.
Something as truely magical and absloutely honest in its technique and observation, such as a Redoute rose or a Rory MeEwen persimmon superceed any definition other than being an example of unsurpassed excellence.
Dear Coral,
Thank you for commenting on this topic. I find that there are so many opinions that it almost similar/compatible with debates on religion! I really like the explanation that you wrote about Botanical Art is considered illustration because of the white background. In order to see the plant and it’s parts it is difficult to see the true “anatomy/morphology” of what is going on. I love Margaret Mee’s Amazon paintings but many of them do not truly show the aspects of the plant for identification. They show how the plant fits into its environment. I believe this is necessary also to truly understand how the plant grows, rather than just showing its parts.
I teach my students that an “illustration” depicts visually written text. If they are working with a scientist, botanist. entomologist etc. they should find out what the painting should,”say”. It goes back to… , “A picture is worth a thousand words”. As botanical Artists we aim to depict those words into beautiful, graceful, accurate as well as scientific depictions of the natural world.
Thanks again Coarl!
Cheers,
Mindy
Just re-reading your quote…. ”A picture is worth a thousand words” As Botanical Artists we aim to depict those words into beautiful, graceful, accurate as well as scientific depictions of the natural world.’
Here you are offering an explanation of your purpose as an artist, which is something very useful to the people who look at your work, including the art historians and art critics.
Something that came clear from the Rory McEwen show was how little he wrote about his work. This has led to a lack of understanding of the processes he used and why he used them, particularly with regard to his compositional arrangements and his use of photography.
Its such an interesting point that Katherine Tyrell makes about observational work. Naturally, I am biased towards this way of working, but I am also curious to know why some people perfer looking at paintings produced from photographs, rather than direct observation. Perhaps it is beacuse when an artist draws from observation they do so through the filter of their own psyche, and this leaves its mark upon the work in sometimes strange naieve ways. Observational drawing is a form of personal training for the eye, hand, brain and mind. It is a personal endeavour that is an ongoing quest for those who engage in it. Perhaps this is why it has never faded away and is always renewing itself from generation to generation.
If we accept that we have an actual Botanical Art movement emerging here, not just a banner to stand under, we will all eventually be defined by what the art historians and critics of the future say about us. This implies that we have a very special and unique opportunity to make a decision to document ourselves at this moment in time.
An art historian or critic works mainly from research, and the best ones have further insights that are their own personal conclusions. It may therefore be useful for all Botanical Artists to ensure that their work is documented with explanations and essays, describing their individual purpose and critera for working. If an individual artist keeps an archive of this kind it will provide research material for the future. It will also put the power in the hands of the artists themselves to decide how they will be understood in the future.
Thanks again Mindy for inspiring such an interesting discussion, and to Anna Mason too, for lighting the spark.
Dear Coral,
This is a very detailed and thoughtful addition to this blog post. With your permission I would like to create a new blog post and show case this response as it is written so well and I think many people will be interested in reading it. Often responses are lost in the comment box and this one should be read by anyone who creates or appreciates Botanical Art. Do I have your permission to repost and can I promote your work, website etc..? I have your book in my botanical art book collection. It was one of the first books I purchased many years ago. It is a gem! Let me know your thoughts. You can reach me at Mlighthipe@mac.com
thanks,
Mindy