Plate 23 original (left) and recreation (right)
Plate 24 original (left) and recreation (right)
My chosen images are plates 23 and 24 from Sir William Jardine’s 1835 publication of “The Naturalist’s Library: Entomology”. The originals are prints from engravings done by his brother-in-law, William Lizars, and were created to document bugs in a time before digital cameras. Jardine did other series to similarly document birds, fish, and mammals. These images stood out to me because of their attention to detail not only within the bugs themselves but also on the backgrounds. Keeping in mind the potential for stylistic choices made by Lizars during the engraving process, I looked into the bugs represented on my chosen plates. What I found was quite interesting— some of these Latin names returned few to no results, such as with the aphana submaculata on plate 24, which only returned results related to plate 24 rather than the insect itself. This reminds me of discussions we have had in class about differences between representations of bodies (and, in this case, bugs) across time and makes me wonder where that disconnect happened. It made completing this project all that much more interesting as I completed my own plates. I do not know how to make engravings, so I opted for the more modern method of tracing and printing using tracing paper. My process was to print mirrored, blown-up versions of the originals by taking a trip to Fondren Library, spend some time figuring out the logistics of tracing and transferring my pieces onto the wooden planks I used as my chosen medium, and finally, making use of tools like acrylic paint to add detail and style to imitate the originals as closely as possible. I am quite pleased with the results and enjoyed the introspective process that paralleled the creative procedures.
Provided Questions and Field Notes:
What is this image for?
The original images are part of a series that document various bugs. These were meant to capture the essence of these bugs during a time in which cameras could not be used for this purpose.
Where is the image coming from? What do we know of its source? Its audience?
These two plates are from Sir William Jardine’s “The Naturalist’s Library” series on entomology. It was published in 1835. Sir William Jardine was a naturalist so I would assume that the audiences were other naturalists or anyone curious to see what these different bugs looked like.
Can we identify all the materials needed to make it?
Because these prints were published in 1835, we can assume the color of the parchment is at least partially due to age. The images are hand-colored plates produced from engravings. I will be using wooden planks to imitate the parchment color and watered-down acrylic paint to hopefully create a similar stained effect.
Are there multiple varieties of tools used to make it?
The originals are printed plates using engravings, so yes. One would have to carve an engraving, stamp it, and color it to be authentic. I will be using more modern tools including tracing paper, painter’s tape, a sharpie, a pencil, acrylic paint, and a plastic paintbrush.
What is the stability of a material over time?
I would imagine the original parchment is pretty delicate at this point, but I know my wooden replicas will last a while. I quite like the results of my exploration, too, and will be using my recreations as decorations in my apartment upon completion of this project.
What tools are necessary?
For me, the most necessary tools are tracing paper, painter’s tape to hold the tracing paper down, a pencil, and a medium to transfer the design onto (in my case, the wooden board). The rest of the tools I used were purely to improve upon the aesthetics of my recreation, but I could have done a quality project using the bare minimum.
What are the best ways to replicate the effects of inaccessible tools?
As noted above, I am imitating the coloration of the original by using a wooden board and am creating makeshift watercolor/ink by diluting acrylic paint. Instead of creating an engraving, I’m using tracing paper to replicate the image.
How do technological changes impact our interpretation/expectation of the image? (e.g., engraving, woodcut, silver chromate)
I am sure the images looked different two hundred years ago when they were first created. We are probably seeing different colors than the originals, whether because of the passage of time or because the digital copies we’re working off of could have been taken in lighting that makes them appear different than they are in real life. In terms of technological changes to what mediums are available, my ability to use cheap craft store acrylic paint does decrease the expectation of having perfectly accurate colors. As you see in my final results, the colors are far brighter and less natural-looking than the ones in the originals.
FIELD NOTE 1 OF 3
Date: 2/13/2022
People Involved: Myself (Julie Street) and two kind strangers
Location: Fondren Library
Reconstruction conditions: It was cold outside, but at least the library was quiet and nearly empty
Time and duration of reconstruction: 9:45-10:30am
Equipment and tools used:
Fondren desktop computer, Fondren color printer, 11×17 sheet of paper, a broken Rice ID
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
The library, just like outside, was slightly chilly. Having just returned from running errands off-campus, I drove my car onto campus and pressed the call button at the nearest parking lot to inquire whether parking was free on the weekends or not. It was not, but the parking attendant was kind and allowed me to park at the garage where the parking office is located while I ran to the library to print the images I was going to reconstruct. Once I reached Fondren, I tried to swipe in using my Rice ID but could not because it had been demagnetized. I need to go get that fixed tomorrow. Another kind stranger let me in and let me use her ID to swipe past the turnstiles, which made me feel happy. Once inside, I felt frustrated because of the incredibly slow library computers but was satisfied once I had completed my task.
Prior knowledge that you have:
I knew going into the library that I would need to do a few things. First, I needed to log into one of the Fondren computers. Next, I needed to log into my Canvas account so I could access the class thread in which I had posted the images I wanted to reconstruct. Third, I knew I needed to open Microsoft Word, paste the images in, adjust the size of the paper to match the paper I was printing the images on, and to flip the images on the vertical axis so my tracings would mirror back to the image’s original appearance.
Reflection on your practice:
Other than the library computers running excruciatingly slowly, all went according to plan and I walked out of Fondren with one 11×17 piece of paper with one of my images printed on one side and the other image printed on the other side, excited and ready to complete my reconstructions.
I am excited about my chosen medium— I found some wooden planks at a craft store that I knew would be perfect. The color matches the parchment of the original images and I have never drawn or painted on wood before so I am looking forward to that.
Photos documenting the process:
These are the mirrored versions of the originals that I then printed on each side of a sheet of 11×17 paper:
Questions that arise:
At this point, I was still unsure how to properly trace and transfer my image onto my chosen medium. Additionally, I was curious whether having the images printed double-sided on that piece of paper (which I did to save money seeing as the color printer costs a dollar per sheet for the size of paper I was using) would mess up my ability to trace each image. In other words, would I be able to see the other image through the first one?
FIELD NOTE 2 OF 3
Date: 2/13/2022
People Involved: Myself (Julie)
Location: My apartment
Reconstruction conditions: Good, enjoyable
Time and duration of reconstruction: 12:30-2pm
Equipment and tools used:
11”x14” unfinished wood art panel, tracing paper, no.2 lead pencil, black sharpie, painter’s tape, acrylic paint, water, small plastic paintbrush. iPhone and timelapse.
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
I spent the first portion of time figuring out how to use my tracing paper, which I found a bit frustrating. Once I got it down, it was quite enjoyable. At around 1:30, I got hungry, but I did not want to ruin the groove I had gotten into, so I pushed through. The smell of the sharpie got quite overwhelming during the process of outlining on the wood, but the satisfaction of the feeling of pencil on wood and the sight of watered-down acrylic paint seeping into the surface made it worth it.
Prior knowledge that you have:
I knew I would need to use painter’s tape to secure my tracing paper both while I was tracing it and once it was time to transfer it onto the wood. I also knew I could mix acrylic paint with water to create a thinner paint that was closer to watercolor than it was to actual acrylic paint, which I knew would work well with the wood because it would simply stain it rather than actually paint it. You would still be able to see the natural wooden texture underneath.
Reflection on your practice:
Though figuring out how to use the tracing paper was frustrating and I went through a process of first trying to trace with sharpie, then deciding whether I wanted to stick with tracing paper or use tissue paper, and finally watching a video tutorial and then spot-testing a tracing paper transfer using a no.2 pencil. Once I had figured out the technique, things were smooth sailing. During my first reconstruction, I learned a few things that became useful once I started my second one. First, I realized I just needed to trace the overall shapes of the bugs and the general placements of the background plants rather than trying to get every detail. Most of the details did not show up through the tracing paper in the first place, so adding them after the fact worked better. Second, I found that there were some details done in sharpie or pencil that were better left off until I had finished painting.
Photos/video documenting the process:
The following timelapse video documents my initial attempt at tracing. I had used sharpie but did not realize that there was no way to transfer it onto the wood.
First Attempt at Tracing: First Close Reading
This next timelapse shows a successful trace and transfer which then let me finish my first reconstruction.
Successful Tracing / Painting: First Close Reading
The above shows the printed version of the original (left) and the outlines of the bugs traced onto tracing paper (right). The tracing paper is crinkled because I nearly threw it away before remembering to take a picture to document it.
The above image is the final product from the close reading of my first image.
Questions that arise:
Is it satisfactory for the recreations to not be 100% accurate detail-wise? Fine details were not easily traceable at the tracing paper stage, so my final imitations are approximations.
FIELD NOTE 3 OF 3
Date: 2/13/2022
People Involved: Myself (Julie)
Location: My apartment
Reconstruction conditions: Good. Confident this time.
Time and duration of reconstruction: 3:45-4:35pm
Equipment and tools used:
11”x14” unfinished wood art panel, tracing paper, no.2 lead pencil, black sharpie, painter’s tape, acrylic paint, water, small plastic paintbrush. iPhone and timelapse.
Subjective factors, e.g., how things smelled/looked/felt:
Having paused my reconstruction to work on a group project via Zoom for another class, I was tired. However, because of my experience with the earlier portion of my reconstruction efforts, I was feeling confident that this process would run smoothly this time. I had also taken a break after my meeting to eat a bowl of leftover soup to curb my hunger until dinnertime and so I did not have the distraction of an empty stomach this time.
Prior knowledge that you have:
My experience reconstructing my first image earlier taught me how to use tracing paper properly, so I went into this session equipped with that knowledge. Also, as mentioned in the reflection portion of my second field note entry, I figured out better ways of doing the painting and detailing portion of the reconstruction.
Reflection on your practice:
As expected, this reconstruction went smoothly, and I am very satisfied with how it turned out. My one complaint would be that the colors I used on the wings of my aphana submaculata are too vivid in comparison to the original, but I do think it looks nice regardless.
Photos/video documenting process:
The files were too large to be inserted as one continuous video, so the following two links document the process of tracing, transferring, and painting my second image.
Tracing and Transferring: Second Close Reading
Painting and Finishing Touches: Second Close Reading
The above image shows the printed version of the original (left) and the outline on tracing paper (right). The tracing paper is crinkled because I nearly threw it away before remembering to take a picture to document it.
Above is the final product of the close reading of my second image!
Questions that arise:
While doing this, I was wondering how much I was supposed to be thinking about the actual anatomy of the bugs I was replicating. I did, however, spend a lot of time thinking about how I was feeling during the process in anticipation of writing my field notes and that made this activity more introspective, reflective, and meaningful than it otherwise would have been.