Blog #3

All forms of knowledge rely on some sort of visual or translatable context so that the information can be defined and reiterated other people. Studies done in science must be defined in a way that everyone can understand, or at least observe. Since the beginning of scientific discovery another discipline has always been linked to it, that being art. Art may not be regarded as an important element of scientific exploration, but it is the primary means of engagement for between the scientist, and those interested in the subject matter. Scientific observations have also allowed for a transcendence of information and observation throughout history, it provides a portal into realities of the past, and helps us maintain an accurate record of life, as we know it.

Perhaps the most infamous observer of science and nature is Charles Darwin, the biologist and naturalist who lived in the 19th century. He visualized and supported the theory of evolution through his illustrations of animal life, in fact it was his discoveries that led the general population to believe that evolution was a fact, by 1870. Darwin wrote On the Origins of Species, a book illustrating the proof of evolution, through Darwin's observations of animal life, specifically on the Galapagos Islands. Here he observed all life forms, from finches to leaves to shells, and made incredibly well rendered and realistically detailed drawings of each observed animal. Much of Darwin's success should be accredited to his artistic ability, had his drawings been amateurish, they would not have been received seriously. Darwin came before the invention of photography, so it was imperative that any drawings of life rendered just as well as a photograph could have. It was also imperative that the drawings be detailed because in Darwin's theory of evolution, he hypothesized that evolution was evident in the subtle differences in characteristics of each species of an animal. For example, the beak of one sparrow being slightly more curved than another. It is in these subtleties that Darwin's theory is evident. It is fair to say that if Darwin were an inept artist, the theory of evolution may not have been as well received, or accepted at all.

I believe that utilizing drawing as his main tool of translation, Darwin must've experienced a far more intimate and analytical observation of these species, which lent to a more in depth analysis of his studies. Each drawing is highly detailed, and must've taken a lot of diligence in observing the species, and precision when rendering it. These are notable skills that any life painter should acquire; the ability to watch and ponder a subject and render it either from memory or in direct observation of it in its natural setting. This is a talent that gives this form of art more credit, because it is not as static and accessible as rendering from an image. Darwin was able to give his subjects the life and accuracy that their interpretations deserved. Because of his talent people were more eager to accept his research and to that we can owe our acceptance of the theory of evolution.