ArtPlantae Today

What’s the value of an image?

Is a picture really worth a thousand words?

Today we value the use of illustrations to convey scientific information. But in early 19th-century Britain, the use of pictures in science education was a hot topic of debate. In her article Botany on a Plate: Pleasure and the Power of Pictures in Promoting Early Nineteenth-Century Scientific Knowledge, Anne Secord reviews the debate in detail. Secord’s research focused on botanists specifically and their use of illustrations because early botanists recognized the importance of providing pleasure (appealing imagery) to their audience while imparting scientific knowledge. Secord’s research brings attention to “the role of pleasure in intellectual pursuits.”

In the 1800s, the “Diffusers of Knowledge” (i.e., experts in any given field) networked with only one objective in mind — to encourage people with an interest in nature to begin formalized study so they can become experts. The recruiters for botany took advantage of the public’s interest in color botanical plates to establish their own following of “admirers.” Botanists knew that to be successful at turning admirers into future botanists, they needed to maintain a balance between making botany an attractive science and keeping it a serious discipline. As a naturalist in 1838 proclaimed:

I conceive that the presentation of an allurement to the study of any science, is both a justifiable and a legitimate mode of procedure.

The use of illustrations as a teaching tool was a controversial topic back then because there were two schools of thought. One school felt it was perfectly legitimate to use illustrations that appealed to their audience. They recognized the need to engage their audience in conversation and the need to form a relationship with their audience. The other school, however, disagreed with this approach. They felt that by using illustrations and paintings to appeal to amateur naturalists, botanists were not really addressing the discipline of botany. According to the botanists in this second group, botany is best learned by studying written descriptions of plants and by studying actual specimens, not by looking at pictures. They felt color plates were “harmful” and merely provided “easy access” to the discipline instead of “sound knowledge” and “rational instruction.”

Let’s revisit the 1838 debate about the use of illustrations to teach natural history. Here’s a question for you…

Literature Cited:

Secord, Anne. 2002. Botany on a plate: Pleasure and the power of pictures in promoting early nineteenth-century scientific knowledge. ISIS. 93:28-57

Related:

• Get a copy of Botany on a Plate

Read Full Post »