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).
