The image that I chose to reconstruct is the Mantis Religiosa, or praying mantis, from The Naturalist’s Library: Entomology Vol. 1 written by James Duncan and Sir William Jardine. This image was drawn in order to document and inform readers about this insect and how this insect appears in nature, among a collection and catalogue of a variety of other insects. The image was accompanied by text which detailed the anatomy of the insect as well as where the insect was prevalent. After reading the text, I was able to notice details in the image that I had previously glossed over when looking at the image (such as a yellow spot bordered with black on the inner side of the coxae of the fore-legs). Along with the image of the mantis, Duncan and Jardine drew in an aesthetic natural background of grass and leaves. In my reconstructions, I wanted to trace the image in three different ways, all of them trying to accurately recreate what I saw while putting myself aside. First, I wanted to familiarize myself with the structure and anatomy of the praying mantis, so I wanted to trace in pencil on tissue paper where I would be able to make mistakes, erase any errors that I made, and troubleshoot for any potential sources of difficulty that I could fix in the next reconstruction. For this, I used an iPad and I found that tracing on a slick surface was extremely difficult. After tracing with pencil, I also noticed that I was unable to accurately trace the details of the praying mantis because the image that I was tracing was too small. I decided to enlarge the image and print it out so that I could trace from a paper. For my second reconstruction, I used a more permanent pen and colored pencils on tissue paper, and I was able to trace many of the details (although some of them I still had to free-hand from a reference). For my last reconstruction, I wanted to try tracing the praying mantis onto a natural object, much like how Duncan included the natural background in his drawing. I chose to trace using a dead leaf that I found on the ground and a marker. I wanted to observe the effects of different media on how my reconstruction was portrayed. Throughout the process, the technology that I had access to altered my image reconstruction as I used this technology to aid my tracing and see the more detailed parts of my image easier. In this way, I felt as though the technology enabled me to be more accurate to the original image, however, when I was taking the images to put on the blog, I found that the pictures that I took made the reconstructions seem different than in real life (my phone sometimes auto-edited the brightness and sharpness of the image).

 

 

 

Before you start, provide answers to the following:

• What is this image for?

This image is to document and inform readers about the Mantis Religiosa.

• Where is the image coming from? What do we know of its source? Its audience?

The image is coming from The Naturalist’s Library: Entomology Vol. 1 meant to catalogue a variety of insects. This book was written by James Duncan and Sir William Jardine, and it seems to be directed towards scientists who are interested in insect anatomy, but I feel as though the general public would appreciate the beautiful imagery and information in this book.

Materials & measurements

• Can we identify all the materials needed to make it?

Yes. I would need paper, pencils, pens, and colored pencils.

• Are there multiple varieties of tools used to make it?

I don’t think that there are multiple varieties of tools used to make it, but I feel as though the type of pen/pencil that is used would change the image drastically.

• What is the stability of a material over time?

Since this was originally in a book, I feel as though books tend to get weathered and damaged over time and use. I think that there are many renditions of this book or the book is probably republished more recently with the images “touched up”. The material that I will use (tissue paper and leaves) will get damaged over time and probably decompose or get wrinkled if not taken care of/preserved properly.

Tools & equipment

• What tools are necessary?

Some tools that would be necessary are digital tools to enlarge the image, to aid in tracing, and to print out the image to trace on. Some other tools would be the pens, pencils, and colored pencils used to trace. Finally, the medium to trace on would be necessary (I am thinking tissue paper and leaves).

• What are the best ways to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools?

The best ways to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools would be to do research into the final product of what the tools create and try to think creatively about how to resemble that. I do not think that any tools for this reconstruction are inaccessible though.

• How do technological changes impact our interpretation/expectation of the image? (e.g., engraving, woodcut, silver chromate)

The medium drastically alters our interpretation of an image, and I feel as though technological changes impact how the image is recreated. For example, I can use my iPad to trace the image, and I am able to digitally resize and unblur the image and print it out larger in order to be able to trace every detail. However, since my reconstruction is a tracing of something based off of dissections, I feel as though that added layer of distance from the original subject leads to added and inherent subjectivity, even though the author’s most probable intention is to portray the Mantis Religiosa as “truth to nature” as possible.

 

 

FIELD NOTE 1 OF 3

 

Date: 2/2/2022

People Involved: Cassidy (me), Nickolas (boyfriend)

Location: The Nook Cafe

 

Reconstruction conditions: It is noisy due to it being in a café. I can hear people conversing, trendy music playing throughout the room, and I am talking to my boyfriend while I am tracing. I am also listening to my own music through headphones so as to block out some of the noise from the café, but it is all mixing together.

Time and duration of reconstruction:

 

36 minutes from 9 pm- 9:36 pm

 

Equipment and tools used:

 

• iPad (to have the image on to trace)
• Mechanical pencil (BIC Velocity HB #2 0.7 mm lead)
• Tissue paper (provided in class)

 

 

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

As I began to trace, I could smell the scent of coffee beans and a slight bathroom scent since the table that I was sitting at was near the bathrooms. The bathroom scent was mixed strongly with an air freshener and kind of gave me a headache while I was working. I decided to trace using an iPad to have the image on, but the screen kept moving as I was touching the screen and tracing on the tissue paper which was frustrating at first. I found out how to turn on the “Guided Access” setting, and the screen stayed still after that. I had turned the brightness on my iPad up all the way in order to be able to see the image through the tissue paper, but it was still extremely difficult for me to see the detailed lines such as the segmentation, so I had to add the details as accurately as possible after tracing as much as I could see. Since I was using pencil for the first reconstruction, I was able to erase whenever I made a mistake. I found that it was a lot harder than I expected to follow the lines as it become tedious for me to trace every minute detail, especially on the wings of the praying mantis. Also, I drank a lot of coffee, and my head was a little shaky. Whenever I erased, the eraser left a smudge on the tissue paper. Halfway through, my boyfriend came over to check on my progress and played with my hair which relaxed me. I noticed that my tracing became more confident the more relaxed I was. The temperature in the café was honestly kind of cold, and I was wearing a short-sleeve shirt, but I didn’t notice the cold until the end of the reconstruction as I was really focused. Retrospectively, I was grateful for the cold temperature as my hand did not get sweaty (which it usually does). It felt a little weird to trace on an iPad since the screen is so slick, and there wasn’t much friction (I didn’t feel fully in control of each pencil movement).

 

 

 

Prior knowledge that you have:

 

I did not have any prior knowledge about the praying mantis besides knowing that this insect is a carnivore. I always associated praying mantises with martial arts or Kung Fu. I also had prior knowledge about “objectivity” and “mechanical objectivity” which we discussed in class.

 

 

Reflection on your practice:

 

I think I am happy with the result of my first reconstruction. I came into this first tracing with the goal of familiarizing myself with the subject, and I am glad I used pencil to be able to erase and make mistakes without fear or stress. I feel as though I rushed through this tracing however and could have paid more attention to capturing every detail when I was tracing, rather than putting in the detail after by looking at the image. With the next reconstruction, I want to use pen/marker on tissue paper to observe the differences as well as color in my final product to make it more akin to the original image. I also want to trace from a printed page of the image rather than from my iPad because I feel as though my iPad surface was too slick to have control over each line I drew. One interesting thing that I did by instinct when I was taking the picture of my final product was that I almost automatically clicked the “edit” feature on the picture to be able to have my phone darken the lines that I drew. However, I refrained due to my desire to be as “objective” as possible or at least to minimize the amount of subjectivity that I have introduced in my reconstruction. Another observation that I noted was that the more relaxed I was, the more confident my tracing was and the clearer my lines were. I thought that this would be a stressful endeavor since I am very bad at art/drawing, but I found this to be a very enjoyable experience.

 

 

 

 

 

Photos/video documenting process:

 

Questions that arise:

How will I be able to make sure I stay as “objective” as possible when tracing the minute details instead of just free handing it based off of the image?

 

Why did I instinctively try to edit the image I took of my reconstruction?

 

How does my mental state impact the quality/accuracy of the reconstruction I produce? Does this count as subjective influence on my attempt to objectively recreate this image?

 

Will the medium I choose to trace with significantly alter the final product? What is lost/gained with mechanical objectivity such as a photo? What is lost/gained with a drawing/painting?

 

Should I also trace the background in the original image? What is gained from that? Why did Duncan include the background even though the image of the insect was probably modeled after dissected/preserved insects?

 

 

FIELD NOTE 2 OF 3

 

Date: 2/5/2022

People Involved: Cassidy (me)

Location: The Nook Cafe

 

Reconstruction conditions: I decided to come back to the café today, and it is much quieter than last time (slight voices can be heard, but I decided to listen to a “happy vibes” playlist that drowned all noise out). I also have a comfier, more secluded seat than before. The smell of coffee is still strong, and I decided to drink a chamomile tea while doing the reconstruction. I am warm from the tea and my fluffy jacket, and I just ate a sandwich.

 

Time and duration of reconstruction:

53 minutes from 6:42-7:35 pm

 

Equipment and tools used:

• Black marker pen (Stabilo Pen 68)
• Green and brown colored pencils (Creatology 24 pc)
• Printed out blown-up image of Mantis Religiosa (8.5 x 11)
• Tissue paper (provided in class)

 

 

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

I bought a marker pen just for this reconstruction since I did not have a precise marker pen besides a larger Sharpie at home, so when I first opened the new pen, I smelled the fresh ink. I also kept smudging the ink over my hand as I was tracing, so my hand was covered in black stains after I was done. I used the same tissue paper as before, just a different section, so it was a little crumpled and wrinkled from my previous uses and storage in my backpack. I traced directly with the marker pen, so I was nervous about making mistakes, especially as I got further into my tracing where a mistake would mean having to potentially restart everything. Since I was nervous, I went slower, my hand began to shake, and my markings were wobbly at some parts. The sleeves of my oversized jacket also kept brushing against the tissue paper, moving the paper or getting in the way of my tracing at times. The image that I was tracing was much bigger than last time, so I felt my hand cramping as I tried to make longer lines without picking up the pen. When it came time to color my image, I couldn’t find a colored pencil that matched the color of the original image, so I chose the closest one (in my opinion). Coloring in the image was satisfying because it made the reconstruction feel more akin to the original image as the bare markings of the outline of the praying mantis seemed empty and uncanny.

 

 

Prior knowledge that you have:

 

As I mentioned in my previous field note, I did not really know anything about praying mantises, but I recently remembered that when I was little, my mom mentioned that encountering a praying mantis was good luck. As I was drawing, I was reminded of this, and it made my reconstruction experience nostalgic. From the experience of my previous reconstruction, I had the prior knowledge of the difficulties of tracing on a slick surface, so I printed out the image onto printer paper rather than using an iPad. Additionally, I learned previously that tracing the small details was difficult, so I enlarged the image to facilitate being able to see and trace the details.

 

 

 

Reflection on your practice:

This reconstruction took longer than my previous reconstruction even though I did not spend time erasing and perfecting my drawing. I believe this is because I was drawing directly in marker, thus if I made a mistake, I would have to incorporate it in the drawing somehow or would have to start over, making my pen movements more intentional and slower. Since I was tracing in marker, I was nervous and on edge throughout the process, especially when I tried to trace the small details.  While I was working, I noticed that it felt awkward to start from a blank piece of paper and trace the beginning sections of the praying mantis. Once I had some lines down (probably around the time I finished outlining the head and the thorax), it felt more natural to be tracing and completing the reconstruction. I really liked tracing using the printed-out image as there was more friction and I was free to move around more. Additionally, enlarging the image made it easier to trace the details more accurately rather than free-hand and fill them in as I had done previously. For some reason, before I colored in my reconstruction, I thought that the previous pencil drawing had looked more like the original because I felt as though the marker lines were too dark, thick, and unnatural on this reconstruction. However, once I colored in the tracing, I felt as though this reconstruction was more accurate (maybe because adding the color made the image more aesthetic which I subconsciously perceive as “correct” or maybe because the color is another layer of visual cue that identifies an object). Throughout the entire reconstruction, I intentionally tried to “eliminate the self”, but my mind kept wandering and the subjective factors that I mentioned above kept influencing my work. After the initial tracing, I went back and added in details that I had missed, but I felt as though I was adding details that weren’t in the original image in order to make the image look more aesthetic/realistic in my eyes.

 

 

 

Photos/video documenting process:

 

 

Questions that arise:

 

Did I manipulate the image in order to create aesthetics in my reconstruction even though I was actively trying to “eliminate the self” in this reconstruction? If so, why would I do this?

 

Would my reconstruction be drastically different if I had prior knowledge about the praying mantis or entomology in general? Would it be better or worse if I had prior knowledge that impacted my work? (thinking about Bell’s anatomical depictions as representative practices where there is almost a requirement of systematic knowledge of the whole context in order to produce a convincing, accurate, and useful display)

 

Why was the image unappealing to my eyes before it was colored in?

 

 

FIELD NOTE 3 OF 3

 

Date: 2/9/2022

People Involved: Cassidy (me), Nickolas (boyfriend)

Location: McMurtry Suite

 

Reconstruction conditions:

I did this reconstruction in the McMurtry suite, which was empty except for my boyfriend, Nickolas, who was with me during the reconstruction. I could occasionally hear toilets flushing from the suite bathrooms, but I was listening to white noise through headphones most of the time which blocked out all noise. The lighting was bright and warm, but I was feeling a little tired and sluggish after eating dinner.

 

Time and duration of reconstruction:

 

1 hour and 36 minutes from 7:22-8:58 pm

 

Equipment and tools used:

• Printed out blown-up image of Mantis Religiosa (8.5 x 11)
• iPad
• Dead leaf found outside of Jones
• Black permanent marker (Artist’s Loft Fine Point)

 

 

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

 

When doing this reconstruction, one of the first things that I took note of was the interesting texture of the leaf I was tracing on. The leaf was hard and touched my skin at random intervals rather than all at once due to its grooved nature. Even though the leaf was hard, it was brittle, so my pen movements had to be very delicate and deliberate. I was also tracing using my iPad again, so the contrast between the smoothness of the iPad glass and the roughness of the leaf on my hand was noticeable. As I was tracing, the marker would bleed and follow the grooves of the leaf rather than sink into the medium, so I had to almost scrape at it and it was difficult to make fine lines. While moving the leaf to trace from different angles, the leaf would make a crunchy noise. In the suite, it smelled like microwave food and the inside of a refrigerator. I would also occasionally peer out of the window and watch people walking outside whenever I would need a break from looking at all of the lines. My hands were also shaky due to chugging coffee during dinner, and this exacerbated the difficulty of tracing on a grooved surface.

 

 

Prior knowledge that you have:

 

My prior reconstructions have familiarized myself with the general shape of the praying mantis and the details. I also knew how stressful it was to trace in marker/pen from my previous reconstruction, so I was more prepared for this tracing. I also remembered to freeze my iPad screen as I did with my first reconstruction. I knew that I needed a bigger image in order to trace every detail, but I was constrained by the size of the leaf, so I went in knowing that I would need to free-hand some of the details.

 

 

 

Reflection on your practice:

During this reconstruction, I felt more familiar with the shape and outline of the praying mantis due to the other reconstructions that I have done. However, the different medium of the leaf made the reconstruction a novel experience. I chose to use the leaves outside of Jones because they were large enough to draw on and they had a similar pattern to the pattern of the wings of the praying mantis. I found the repeated, intricate patterns in nature to be interesting and beautiful. However, when I got to the leaves, I felt bad plucking and killing a leaf (especially after we had the discussion about plants and cognition), so I looked on the ground for dead, dried leaves to use. I wanted to reconstruct the praying mantis on a natural object in order to see if there was a difference in the way that the mantis is portrayed on nature rather than on a blank sheet of tissue paper. This is similar to Duncan drawing the praying mantis among scenery, even though the praying mantis itself was probably based off of dead or dissected insects, rather than modeled in a natural setting. During this reconstruction, I was extremely frustrated because I had to redo this one many times. The size of the leaf constrained me, so I was unable to trace many of the details, and the stains and veins of the leaf created too many visual stimuli to the point where I was confused about where each line was coming from or what the original image even was. The leaf also picked up the ink differently so it felt as though each pen motion had to anticipate how the leaf would absorb/not absorb the ink. Overall, I felt as though tracing on a leaf was a completely different experience, and I am not sure what the effect of tracing on a natural object was on the final reconstruction. I am still processing the ramifications of doing so.

 

 

Photos/video documenting process:

 

 

Questions that arise:

 

Does the medium that is used change the reconstruction completely? If so, in what ways? What changed when I traced onto a natural object?

 

How do the pictures that I took of my reconstruction impact how my reconstruction is perceived on this blog?

 

I noticed that I only traced at night for each reconstruction. Would my reconstructions be different depending on the time of day? If I think of my sensations as process, how did my other sensations play roles in my reconstructions?