Lets Talk about Botanical Sensu strictissimo or maybe stricto, or lato, or even amplo!

Dear Elaine

Many thanks for your kind words. I am quite new to botanical art and therefore I appreciate a lot the opennes of ABBA to create this space for the newcomers. I enjoyed a lot the exhibition!!

This is fabulous Jenny. I do think the blog post was thought provoking as was your reply, Hopefully the exhibition has shown a good cross section of material across a wide range f organisms.

Your work on illustrating the natural history of the Andean Forests is an amazing project and in line with our ethos of trying to promote the understanding and protection of native species. EA

I liked the analysis of the meanings of the different terms that are used to define the work we present. It really made me wonder where my work lies, but I could not come with a definite answer. I feel what I do is in between illustration and art. So, I am trying to become a botanical “illustratist”!!

For instance, I like to depict accurately my subjects and yet the drawing will no be enough for a scientific level description of the subject (sensu stricto), as it lacks some particular details for instance dissecting reproduction organs (which are key for identification) or lacks some phenological stages.

I think what I do has a strong component of art and art is a powerful tool to inspire. In my case I am working on illustrating native flora from Andean forests not only because I find the subjects delightful, but also because I would like to catch the attention of people towards the beauty and importance of taking care of this natural ecosystem. I think that botanical art can bring a particular attention to the subjects beyond what photographs could do, precisely because even when the objective is to “illustrate” specific details, also the interpretation and emotion of the person creating the work is somehow embedded in the final piece. Perhaps the best phrase that comes to my mind that describes this process is one of the first abilities we have to learn for drawing nature: “To draw what you see”, so at the end what we show is nature in this case botany through our eyes.

So going back where we started….Botanical in my case, I think it is applied sensu lato. As forABBA, perhaps it could be a platform to share a wide spectrum of work that fulfils different objectives, e.g. from a scientific point of view to study natural history or to inspire through art our love of vascular and non-vascular plants, fungi and liquens (so quite amplo).

what a lot of work went into that article, thank you.

I would hope that any illustration I make of a plant is accurate enough for the species to be identified from my depiction and this would be my criteria for ABBA to publish any piece of work. I think categorising members work as Botanical Illustration, Botanical art or Flower painting might be rather divisive. Personally I would limit published work to drawing and or painting.

Thank you for an enjoyable and thought-provoking article. As another relative newcomer to the subject I have started with the view that both ‘illustrations’ and ‘art’ need to be scientifically accurate but that a botanical illustration shows the full range of features needed to identify a plant, whereas botanical art need not do so. However, that got me thinking about how you might describe a group of images which cover different features of a plant but which, when taken together as a series, cover the full range of features. Has botanical art become botanical illustration!

On the topic of suitable subjects, although algae as far as I am aware, were not included in the early herbals, they have certainly received the attention of some eminent botanists including William Jackson Hooker and Robert Kaye Greville. I particularly like this quote from a review of some of Grevilles’ work on marine algae “by whose devotional attachment, close attention, and invaluable labours, much steady light has been thrown upon this abstruse part of Botany”. Marine algae probably remain an abstruse part of Botany so including them in the genre of botanical art and illustration is another great opportunity to make them less puzzling.

This is a stimulating article covering many aspects of the botanical world to consider and discuss. The definitions that we have previously thought we understood are slightly undermined by the new possible 'definitions' of the words so offering different interpretations. Whilst considering these is it worth considering other forms of botanical 'art/illustration' and well as the more traditional forms?

Would we as a Society be prepare to consider art forms such asdetailed photography, digital art, paper collage or even 3D forms? Is any form of 'Illustration' (defined in the widest sense) acceptable as long as it is accurately portrayed.

I appreciate that this is different approach to Mary's view and probably many others but perhaps it does need to be reviewed.

First, I really enjoyed the in depth look at the terms. It was very well researched and equally well written. Thanks! As for the questions you pose, for me work labeled as botanical, whether illustration or art, should be true to the botany of the subject. Whether strict illustration or more aesthetic art (although I find aesthetic qualities in both), the painting should depict the subject correctly. I find this is not always true in pieces one would label flower or floral paintings (or still life - another term to consider) where often 'liberties' may be taken to improve color complementation, to offer what one 'expects' to see, or to skip the bits that do not enhance the painting. For me, then, I would hope to find the more accurate practices of botanical illustration and botanical art on the ABBA site, with inclusion of botany and ecology discussion as well.

As a relative newcomer to this type of art I’ve tried to develop my own answer to this question to try to ‘classify’ the Art I create and decide where to focus my studies.

So far I feel that Botanical illustration is the scientific representation of a plant, or elements of a plant (leaf, flower, root system), with annotation, that enables a subject to be identified.

I feel that botanical art is very similar, but without the annotation, whereby a subject can still be identified and the art is a ’true’ representation of the subject but with more focus on the aesthetic.

Flower painting can be more expressive and show elements of the subject, maybe more exaggerated or changed to match the aesthetic of the overall piece.

Its a really interesting and emotive subject though, a great conversation to have.

For me, I’d like to see ABBA share/inform about botanical art and botanical illustration with more of a focus on the botany of the subjects, but not necessarily limited to plants/trees. Fungi and the Algae’s are also very interesting and challenging subjects to recreate too.

And thank you to Alan for the blog post, really thought provoking.