Last week during our Sustainable Systems class, we were able to go see the Anna Atkins exhibition. It was interesting to see works of art preserved for such a long period of time. In looking at Anna’s work I think there is an emphasis on being able to not only observe features of nature but to be able to replicate it in her work. As someone who does taxidermy, I understand the importance of being able to replicate something as accurately as I can, so agin, I think the relationship between observing naturally occurring things and accurately replicating them is very important.
From what we learned in the exhibition, Anna came from a well-off family. As the curator of the exhibition said, “this is around the time where the term scientist wasn’t invented yet,” and therefore Anna’s father was viewed as just experimenting and doing his hobbies as a side job simply because he had the wealth to sustain that lifestyle. Anna adopted her father’s curiosity as he was very kind and teaching her the field of science and she ended up becoming famous for her ways of preserving plants later in life.
As stated in the first question, I’m someone that actually collects and preserves an aspect of life that was once there. Preservation is one of most important things we can do as a species because, as we all know too well, “good things don’t last.” It’s our duty to be able to appreciate and enjoy the world around us. That’s why I place value on one’s ability to preserve an item and record it. Once that item or animal is gone from the world, no one will ever know it existed. Collecting and preserving specimens is a way to preserve the untold stories that people otherwise would not know.
When looking at Anna’s work, the Cyanotypes barely looked aged, and I think that’s because of how the pigmentation is affected by light. The curator did say that they are a lot more durable than people give them credit for. I think the fact that they are almost two centuries old is incredible, and the fact that a photograph can last that long is amazing. Personally if I had no context of the exhibition I would almost think that it was modern work. I think that the work held together very well and they truly did stand the test of time.
The specific field that Anna was involved in was mainly botany, and with that there is a lot of data and cataloging the needs to be done. She did not have the timing and luxury to individually frame her pieces. As there are so many species to be seen mostly her method of documentation was to make it into a form of book. In most of the copies seen at the exhibition, she did not really have extreme or loud cover. It was very elegant and mainly plain and simple. At the end of the day, I believe the presentation of her work came down to her field. There were many plants to be recorded, and as she became more and more experienced there was even more to study and document. I believe that is why the format of her work became more dense overtime.
I think that Atkins did not really see her work is art and more as scientific research, so usually, from what the curator said about the exhibition, she didn’t really sign her work. There was also not much need for credibility as the work she was doing was not yet recognized as science. Anna’s work is was really unique because she knew the creator of the technique herself, and no one knew how to replicate the technique like she could. Since she knew him personally, she was able to get that very stylized blue snd white preservation that we know today. Another thing that made her unique at the time is that a lot of artists were just doing landscapes or portraits, making her work extremely different.
Something interesting that I would personally want to document would be handprints. Taking someone’s handprint and coating it with ink and getting it on the nice white surface would be an interesting way to see the progression of mankind throughout the years while holding the preservation of life as we know it. Each handprint would be unique to the owner and can’t be replicated due to the complexity and individuality of everyone’s finger and handprints. In this way, all of the hands would look relatively the same but it would be extremely different in the details. These would be done on a clean white Bristol paper with the name title and date of the person or subject taken. I would also apply this to animals and collect the paw print on multiple different species. I think this would be an interesting concept as a documentation of what was once there. I would apply this to both humans and animals of all kinds and with the style of how the images would be replicated it could easily be done.
