Fantastic discussion today and thank you to all our attendees. A special thank you to Martin for such an interesting and thought provoking talk. We look forward to the next topic.
So.... log in as a Member and pop your thoughts down here.
Enjoyed the talk. thanks very much. A quick word on the red algae (as they are mentioned above!) I believe the latest thinking is that in evolutionary terms they are part of the Plantae. Brown algae are another matter. Regardless it was also lovely to see such range of paintings in the exhibition.
Thank you Martin for putting together and presenting a very stimulating talk. It was lovely to see some of the work from the exhibition being used to illustrate the talk and used to draw attention to different aspects of paintings that we may not have previously observed. I will look at botanical art in a new way now. Lots of points were raised to discuss and this is a couple that I wanted to comment on.
I like the idea of botanical illustration being the starting point for botanical art and I think that is important as it ensures that a plant is accurately portrayed. But I do get a bit frustrated that botanical art has to be considered within the bounds of scientific classification. As botanical artists do we need to be restricted by the rigours of science. Botanical art is a celebration of plants and personally I feel should include things that support their existence. Fungi and lichen were vital in helping plants establish on land and even now fungi are so important to plant life. What about parasitic plants, red algae, where do they sit? Then of course there are the pollinators..... I know it’s a mine field but I think, as Martin said, as long as they are not the main focus of the painting it can work.
I take on board Martin’s point that the painting of a single leaf may be considered more art then botanical art. However, I feel that a lot of people starting out in the area find painting a whole plant quite daunting. Getting to grips with the paint and the colour is challenging in itself let alone the plant. To study a leaf with all its intricacies I think is a great way to start. ABBA’s ethos is to encourage and support all abilities so personally I would like to see them included in exhibitions.
I do not think that you can have 'botanical art' without it being linked to science. Yes I do think we need to be 'restricted by the rigours of science' otherwise it becomes flower painting. A totally different genre all together. that doesn't mean we can have isolated items from a plant but these do need to show rigour even if in a subtle way as was the case with the seed pod.
Unsure as to whether or not I fit into Martyn’s “fuzzy” area or whether I can still regard my work as botanical illustration. My paintings tend to be a mixture of flowers, buds, leaves and seedheads of a variety of plants instead of the purist single plant, roots and all as learnt during Diploma days. Glad of an opinion on this, talk was very interesting as I mentioned earlier to Elaine. - Janet
Thank you Sue I haven't read about this as fully as you but I do love the idea that we included all aspects of phycology.
Enjoyed the talk. thanks very much. A quick word on the red algae (as they are mentioned above!) I believe the latest thinking is that in evolutionary terms they are part of the Plantae. Brown algae are another matter. Regardless it was also lovely to see such range of paintings in the exhibition.
Thank you Martin for putting together and presenting a very stimulating talk. It was lovely to see some of the work from the exhibition being used to illustrate the talk and used to draw attention to different aspects of paintings that we may not have previously observed. I will look at botanical art in a new way now. Lots of points were raised to discuss and this is a couple that I wanted to comment on.
I like the idea of botanical illustration being the starting point for botanical art and I think that is important as it ensures that a plant is accurately portrayed. But I do get a bit frustrated that botanical art has to be considered within the bounds of scientific classification. As botanical artists do we need to be restricted by the rigours of science. Botanical art is a celebration of plants and personally I feel should include things that support their existence. Fungi and lichen were vital in helping plants establish on land and even now fungi are so important to plant life. What about parasitic plants, red algae, where do they sit? Then of course there are the pollinators..... I know it’s a mine field but I think, as Martin said, as long as they are not the main focus of the painting it can work.
I take on board Martin’s point that the painting of a single leaf may be considered more art then botanical art. However, I feel that a lot of people starting out in the area find painting a whole plant quite daunting. Getting to grips with the paint and the colour is challenging in itself let alone the plant. To study a leaf with all its intricacies I think is a great way to start. ABBA’s ethos is to encourage and support all abilities so personally I would like to see them included in exhibitions.
Unsure as to whether or not I fit into Martyn’s “fuzzy” area or whether I can still regard my work as botanical illustration. My paintings tend to be a mixture of flowers, buds, leaves and seedheads of a variety of plants instead of the purist single plant, roots and all as learnt during Diploma days. Glad of an opinion on this, talk was very interesting as I mentioned earlier to Elaine. - Janet
Thank you so much for a wonderful presentation which left me with lots to think about.
It was also great to see the beautiful exhibits from Purely Botanical used to demonstrate points in the discussion.