The image that I chose to reconstruct was Sir Charles Bell’s “Arteries of the Head” from his Engravings of the Arteries publication. This image depicts several arteries in the head down to some of the finest detail with labeling for major arteries needed to be known for anatomy students. I chose this image because it was interesting to look at and as someone who is a neuroscience major, everything that I have studied and all the textbook images I engage with of the head include the brain. This was new to me because it only highlights the arteries and no specific brain anatomy. One aspect of mechanical objectivity that intrigued me was kind of “trained judgement”. I thought it would be interesting to approach an image that I have not been trained to recognize because I originally thought this was the best form of objectivity. The image looked very simple. Tt was just some curvy lines of black and red. However, which each tracing I found new details I wanted to capture in the next and experienced a variety of emotions that showed themselves in each reconstruction. I originally started with a digital reconstruction. This reconstruction was most accurate to the original in terms of placing, I was able to directly copy the image on an app I had a lot of experience with. Then, I moved onto to tissue paper tracing. This experience was entirely negative. I was extremely impatient; I could not see the details I wanted to highlight, and my pen would run out of ink. I wanted to reconstruct an image that could hold the purpose intended for the original image. I wanted to capture every detail like anatomy textbooks do and appropriately label arteries. Overall, I had a more positive experience when I window-traced the image using colored pencils. I had more colors at my disposal to make image accurate and could take my time because I was not in a public place where I felt rushed or distracted. I started to slowly realize that subjectivity can seep in anywhere and it does not matter what trained judgement you have. Emotions, environment, and previous experiences will always play a role in how you approach anything in life.

Before you start, provide answers to the following:

• What is this image for?
  • This image was meant to provide illustrations to assist student-learning of anatomy. It was part of a collection of 14 hand-colored plates that were meant to read alongside Charles Bell’s textbook, The Anatomy of the Human Body.

• Where is the image coming from? What do we know of its source? Its audience?
  • This image comes from Engravings of the Brain which was a publication in 1824 written by Charles Bell. We know that Charles Bell was an “artistic anatomist”. He had his own surgery practice and taught anatomy. The intended audience for these images were students who were studying anatomy and they were intended to supplement their overall learning.

Materials & measurements

• Can we identify all the materials needed to make it?
  • The drawings are referred to as etchings and there is plenty of mention of Charles Bell being trained under the painter David Allen. To make this image, it seems that all that is needed is a solid fine tool (pen, pencil, fine paintbrush) and something to provide color (in this case paint).
• Are there multiple varieties of tools used to make it?
  • I think the image can be replicated in several ways as long as the tools used have color to show the difference in artery shape and shade. The original image however, only used paint.
• What is the stability of a material over time?
  • The original image should be long lasting, especially since it is also available on various platforms (i.e. I got the image from a website). In terms of the actual image, it was just a drawing and environment could very easily affect it. It was also made using paint which could also easily smear and affect the image.

Tools & equipment

• What tools are necessary?
  • Tools that can produce the colors of the veins are necessary. Use of finer tools is needed to because of the varying artery size.
• What are the best ways to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools?
  • If there is lack of color, use a single tool with different pressure can emulate the color changes in the original image. If there is lack of a fine tool, the image can be scaled up for reconstruction.
• How do technological changes impact our interpretation/expectation of the image? (e.g., engraving, woodcut, silver chromate)
  • Details can be lost in technological manipulations. There is less attention to tinier details that make the image what it is. Instead, there is more emphasis placed of the look of the image. If the image roughly looks like what it is supposed to be it is easily accepted as a successful reconstruction.

 

 

FIELD NOTE 1 OF 3

 

Date: 2/10/2022

People Involved: Just me

Location: Fondren Library Basement

 

Reconstruction conditions: The basement of the library was cold, lighting was a bit dim, and I could hear people at the table near me talking about their homework. I had noise-cancelling headphones in while listening to a Soul playlist I curated.

 

Time and duration of reconstruction: This reconstruction was done at around 2:30PM and lasted for 30 minutes.

 

Equipment and tools used:

iPad, Apple Pencil and Notability App.

Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:

 

I had not really considered the magnitude of the number of arteries/veins in the image before it was in front of me. There were a lot of little details that made the image a bit more daunting than it appeared when I chose it. I had good lighting on my iPad so tracing the details of the drawing was not difficult. I am a digital notetaker and use my iPad for nearly everything school related, so I am comfortable with it. In terms of how things smelt, there weren’t any smells that were too distinct, I had my mask on and was secluded.

 

Prior knowledge that you have:

I know that blood flows through the arteries, so I was inclined to only use red and black for this initial trace. I used red for every artery and then black for the outline of the head and other shadowing details.

Reflection on your practice:

This reconstruction did not take me very long. However, after I was done and looked at my finished image compared to the initial, I realized that I did not color in the arteries in the same way that they were detailed on the original drawing. It was not a great choice to go with only red and black for the trace because the arteries in the drawing are not only one shade of red. For me, drawing the small arteries near the top of the skull was particularly exhausting, I think that my tracing got lazier here and suffered. The arteries here also did not have any numbers directly labeling them the way the right and bottom portions so that lead me to render them less important to get just right.

Photos/video documenting process:

 

Questions that arise:

The iPad tracing was also easy to complete because I did not completely account for most of the different thicknesses in arteries.

 

• Will have a paper image that I have to trace directly from force me to pay attention to those details?

 

• Will a medium that I am not familiar with enhance or detract from my reconstruction? Will that image better replicate the original or not?

 

 

FIELD NOTE 2 OF 3

 

Date: 2/10/2022 and 2/11/2022

People Involved: Just me

Location: My Suite Common Room (Duncan 4B Suite)

 

Reconstruction conditions: I did this in my suite common space. Lighting in this suite is not very bright but we do have LED lights that supply light as well. The space is warm and open so anyone can walk in at any time. I was often interrupted by my suitemates to talk so the reconstruction might have taken longer than the time I calculated via the time lapse.

 

Time and duration of reconstruction: This reconstruction was done over two days. I started it on the night prior at about 11PM for an hour and finished in the afternoon of the next day for about an hour as well.

 

Equipment and tools used:

 

Tracing paper, tape, black and red gel pen.

 

Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:

I hate drawing. I took a drawing class my sophomore in high school and hated everything about it. The iPad tracing came with a lot of ease, but this did not. I was already going into it will a lot of frustration. I was used tracing paper (tissue paper) that I overlaid on a color-printed version of the image I was reconstructing. I started with outlining the head and did some initial tracing but noticed that the paper would move around. I went to tape both the tracing paper and image down. However, after I did that, I noticed that due to the paper moving around some of the arteries were not in place that the way they were in the image (shifted up or a little to the left). More frustration but I carried on. Then I got to the bottom central artery (which I found myself heavily fixating on when I first chose the image) BUT I couldn’t see the details of it through the tracing paper. A lot of the details were lost in the final image. This was partially the reason I also continued to trace the image the next afternoon, but not much changed even with the different lighting of the day.

 

Prior knowledge that you have:

Like I mentioned before I know that arteries carry blood. They carry oxygenated blood so it makes sense that they would be depicted as red instead of blue. However, in my iPad sketch I noticed more of a range of color, so I tried to illustrate some of these differences using the black pen in some of the artery differences. However, I don’t think it captured the difference in the way I wanted.

 

Reflection on your practice:

 

I could not accurately trace this image at all. For some of the arteries, I would guess their shapes and thicknesses. I did this because from the prior sketches and from referring to the original, I knew some of the places where the arteries were located. I also omitted a lot of details because I simply could not see them. For a better tracing, I need a material that is transparent as possible. Otherwise, nothing will be accurate.

 

Photos/video documenting process:

 

 

Questions that arise:

 

• If I had a more positive outlook to the tracing paper experience, would it have turned out better? To what extent did my emotions play into the reconstruction?

 

 

FIELD NOTE 3 OF 3

 

Date: 2/12/2022

People Involved: Just me

Location: My Suite Single at Duncan College

 

Reconstruction conditions: Was done on the window of my single. My window lets a decent amount of natural light and I usually keep my room illuminated with this light alone. My bed is lofted up the window, so I did this reconstruction sitting on my bed while listening to the Euphoria soundtrack.

 

Time and duration of reconstruction: This reconstruction took 4 hours. It was done from 1-5PM. I had volunteered in the morning so was trying to take advantage of all the daylight I could to accurately trace the image.

 

Equipment and tools used:

 

Paper, Colored pencils (red, brown, black) and black pen

 

Used my laptop to flip the original image so that when I finished mirror tracing, it would be in the correct orientation)

 

Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:

 

I felt very artistic doing this. The paper held up to the window gave a tracing image that was very similar to the one I got on the iPad. I could see color differences, different artery sizes and almost every single detail. I also used colored pencils provided to me by my suitemate so I felt more inclined to play to the colors of the original image and get everything as close as a I could to the original. I was to see the stroke directions of a lot of the shading/painting of the original image as well and tried to replicate as I went. My foot fell asleep multiple times, I was very exhausted during the process because I had to sit in some comfortable positions to be seen by the time lapse video and to reach the window from my lofted bed. However, these conditions did not make me as frustrated as the tracing paper experience did.

 

 

Prior knowledge that you have:

 

Knowing that this image is used for anatomy classes, I know from my own experience in anatomy how critical the correct analysis of different parts is. Knowing this, I was inclined to make this reconstruction better than my previous to capture that quality of it, to reconstruct and image that could be used for educational purpose.

 

 

Reflection on your practice:

 

I was proud of this image (mostly because when I take the image of the window, it looks like I drew it entirely by hand which is cool). I was also able to see the colors(!). Therefore, I eventually ended up using brown in the reconstruction as well because it perfectly mixed with the red and replicated the color of the darker veins I was trying to recreate. The image was almost too crisp though, I would often lose my place and ended up taking the image off and on the wall to make sure that I had traced every detail.

 

Photos/video documenting process:

 

 

Questions that arise:

 

I felt more comfortable and happier when recreating this image this time around, I wonder if being in the comfort of my room (my safe space) contributed to that?

 

The presence of my suite (people I am close with) gave me my worst reconstruction experience but when I was in my room (still in the same suite), it was more positive. Did the presence of people play a role in my reconstruction as well?

 

 

Big Questions:

 

What kinds of larger social, historical, methodological questions can you ask from this process?

 

Can objectivity be achieved via technology? What does it take for a human to be completely objective? (What are the variables that need to be manipulated?) From my experience, knowledge of the image/trained judgement did not make a difference. Feeling frustrated with the process of reconstruction played the largest role in my reconstruction. Hand drawing all the arteries was also painful. It seems like there are too many variables to control.

 

How did your questions change over time? How do you expect to answer your questions?

 

My questions became more centered on how my environment was playing a role on my reconstructions. Although, the tracing paper experience reminded me of my negative time in my drawing class each trace was similar in terms of what I was doing. I was tracing the same image but the only thing really changing was my surroundings. I think the answers to my questions are found in understanding the relationship between the emotions, environment, our perceptions and how we manipulate our senses.

 

Which set of readings do you draw on as inspiration to frame your potential answers?

I was inspired by the Mechanical Objectivity reading and the presented types of objectivity (truth to nature, mechanical, trained judgement). I have realized that all of these try to eliminate human manipulation which not much account for environmental manipulation. The world is constantly imprinting on us and changing the way we interact with it.

 

How do you engage with narratives about sensation, cognition, neuroscience, neurology, psychology, disability, and the emotions? How do you situate these narratives within histories of science and epistemology?

 

Like I mentioned above, I do not think we can understand perception and sensation without emotion. Emotion influences what we pay attention to, the first impressions we have and how we think about ourselves. Disability becomes debilitating when negative outlook is given to it. When we are upset by something that does fit the normal, we cast it out. When frustrated with a reconstruction, I fail to commit full effort to it. Science is not normally mixed with emotion. Science is thought of as being objective because it is supposed to give an unbiased view of how the world works but subjectivity is unavoidable.