Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science Brian Baigrie, editor Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996, xxiv + 389 pp., $80.00, $24.95 paper [Book Review]

Dialogue 38 (3):664- (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Picturing Knowledge is a collection of papers on scientific illustration written by historians and philosophers of science. While the philosophers of science tend to focus on the question whether illustrations are more than helpful aids to symbolic proofs and linguistic explications, the historians are interested in the presuppositions attaching to particular modes of representation—the decision what to depict and how to depict it. David Knight discusses the conventions determined what were appropriate and relevant illustrations for textbooks of chemistry. He calls attention to their increasing depersonalization, as pictures of the alchemical laboratory with its furnace and flasks, and then of elegantly clad, unmussed aristocrats gave way to pictures of molecules. Robert J. O’Hara shows how metaphysical assumptions about the organization of nature, in particular the assumption that there existed a system of visible analogies and correspondences across groups of plants and animals, persisted from Linnaeus’s time even into post-Darwinian biology. Stephanie Moser argues that artists’ depictions of australopithecine hominids in semi-popular illustrated magazines of the 1940s and 1950s first reflected, but then entrenched, a view of their mode of life featuring nuclear families, wooden clubs, and homey caves, subsequently rejected as improbable. Other historians investigate the history and problems of scientific representation itself. Bert Hall provides a brief survey of botanical, anatomical, and mechanical illustration, and considers the competing demands of elegance and informativeness. Martin Kemp considers the very different requirements of anatomical and astronomical depictions. Anatomical illustration lends itself to what he calls a “rhetoric of reality” aimed at convincing the viewer that the illustration is what he would see inside an actual human body, while astronomical illustration is unconcerned with the appearances of the heavens, and is a translation of measurements into a scheme representing what cannot literally be seen.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,369

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Picturing Knowledge. [REVIEW]Catherine Wilson - 1999 - Dialogue 38 (3):664-666.
Draughtsmen, botanists and nature: constructing eighteenth-century botanical illustrations.Kärin Nickelsen - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (1):1-25.
Picturing Plants: An Analytical History of Botanical Illustration.Gill Saunders - 1996 - Journal of the History of Biology 29 (3):468-470.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-25

Downloads
52 (#421,487)

6 months
17 (#178,148)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Catherine Wilson
CUNY Graduate Center

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references