Darwin Day!

Today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin! I had long planned to do something special for VE on this day. But the last few weeks have left me with little time or energy. I feel genuinely guilty about it... like I've forgotten a friend's birthday or something! Don't worry, pal. I'll take you out to Applebee's next week to make up for it. Yes, you can even get the appetizer. Anyway, at least Google is celebrating properly!

Isn't that lovely?

Seed Magazine also has some cool stuff for the day, and click on the Blog for Darwin link on the right to see some blogs that didn't neglect their Darwin Day Duties like this one did.

This here is what it's all about:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Why don't art and science mix? (this time, anyway)

Hey cool, someone agrees with me! Jonathan Jones of the Guardian posted this article, "Why don't art and science mix?" yesterday about the Darwin's Canopy art competition I blogged about last June. His thoughts on the various entries were the same as mine, if not expressed much more strongly:

"The Darwin's Canopy commission was a chance for artists to engage with science. What a shame they turned their backs on this challenge... This commission was a great chance for artists to engage with the most important idea of the last two centuries, to find ways of illustrating - and championing - the theory of evolution at a time when irrational religious forces menace Darwin's common sense revolution. What a chance for art to show it can engage with science, and also wade into a fierce debate! The artists have run a mile from any such challenge. Few address evolution at all."

So very true! I also agreed that of all the entries, the NHM thankfully picked one of the non-abstract proposals. Jones says:

"The proposal chosen, by Kovats, is a respectful homage to Darwin's own drawing of the tree of evolution. But the exhibition is a dismal insight into the total lack of interest in science displayed by most contemporary British artists."

Of course, going back to the title of his article, I would have to say that art and science do mix, quite easily! But in this case, yes, most of the artists dropped the ball. They should have commissioned some scientific illustrators instead of 'fine artists,' perhaps.

AMI Meeting: Days 3 and 4

Well, so much for nightly reports. Friday night was alumni night, so that was shot, and then after getting home last night I was way too tired to update. So I'm going to very briefly summarize the last two days of the convention.

On Friday I took the exam to become a CMI (Certified Medical Illustrator). The exam was in three parts: anatomy (labeling and multiple choice), business questions, and a drawing section. Once I get my results, assuming I passed, I'll submit a portfolio in order to get those three letters after my name!

I finished the exam after four hours (five were allotted) and had time to go to the silent auction.
There I picked up an illustrated book of poems called Darwin is my Hero by Craig Gosling, who is my new hero. I met the man, he signed my book, and we had a nice (albeit short) chat about medical illustrators, atheism, and the Center for Inquiry. A thought occurred to me and I asked if he knew who was portraying Darwin on the following morning and he cryptically said he shouldn't say.

Friday night was also alumni night, and I joined the University of Toronto staff, alumni, and current students at a downtown bar. It's interesting how the dynamics change when you're no longer a students. My old profs are way cooler than I remembered.

I've missed tall buildings...

Day 4: Saturday

I missed the first talk on Saturday, and instead checked out of the hotel and dragged all of my stuff down to the parking garage, ate a couple donuts (with the stress of the exam gone my appetite suddenly seemed to quadruple), and waited for the 9:45 talk, "A Conversation with Charles Darwin." And it was indeed Craig Gosling, in full-character!
He seemed a bit confused a bit by the laser pointer. 'Darwin' talked about his voyage on the Beagle and the two illustrators he had known then, Augustus Earle and Conrad Martins. Earle was an American and a humanist, concerned over the plight of those under British colonial rule. His view of the world had a huge influence on Darwin. Darwin also emphasized the importance of thinking scientifically and skeptically, especially in our field of science illustration. He said that an illustrator must always search for truth, even if they don't like what they find, and be accurate in their representations, otherwise all they are left with is what he called "graphic fiction" or "illustrative myth."
Elizabeth and John Gould were other artists Darwin considered especially important, for the bird illustrations they produced of Darwin's ornithological collections from his travels.

After that was the Futures Forum, where each year a panel discusses the future of the field of medical illustration. Hot points right now include down-pricing of stock art and selling over the internet, as well as the Orphan Works act and the whole mess with changes to copyright policy. Then we had another fantastic lunch at the Bistro. All of the food the entire week was just fantastic. I felt terribly spoiled.

Next, the Vesalius Trust winners gave their presentations. They made the wise choice of making it a plenary this year instead of a concurrent talk, so that everyone could attend. My classmate Diana Kryski presented her master's research project. Then two of my former professors had a talk on designing information for healthcare, and I went to a very informative and rather entertaining one on anatomical mistakes in anatomy atlases. Not many audiences would erupt into laughter when an incorrect illustration of the human heart appears on the projected screen. I love the AMI.

I decided to skip the BBQ and the talks on Sunday and head home before it got dark. It was only a two hour drive but it absolutely exhausted me. Or maybe it was the four days of so much activity and very little sleep.

This has gotten a bit long, but I have a lot more to say about Gosling's book and presentation, but those I'll save for another post.

Darwin's Canopy: Update

The results are in on the Darwin's Canopy art installation, and London's Natural History Museum has chosen Tania Kovat's "Tree":

From the New Scientist: Tania Kovats' TREE has been chosen. It will consist of a cross-section of a 200-year-old oak tree, cut lengthways and running along the full length of the ceiling. It was inspired by Darwin's "tree of life" diagram.

Awesome! That was one of my picks! I'm just relieved they didn't go with one of the more abstract entries. The judges were unanimous in this decision and according to the NHM site, work has already begun on the installation, which is to be unveiled on February 12th, 2009, Darwin's 200th birthday.

More on the artist from NHM:

Tania Kovats is a British artist who works primarily in sculpture and in the exploration of landscape. She is currently exploring Darwin’s voyage while in South America.

'The starting point for this proposal, known as Tree, was Darwin’s iconic branching tree drawing, the first representation of his theory of evolution.'

Tania Kovat’s recent work includes the Museum of the White Horse. Visit the Museum of the White Horse website.

Darwin's Canopy: Art inspired by evolution

The Natural History Museum of London has announced the 10 finalists on the short list for a permanent display called Darwin's Canopy, which will be unveiled on Feb 12th, 2009, Darwin's 200th birthday. You can see a slide-show of the proposals at the New Scientist, here.

I found the majority of the ideas a bit strange and abstract for my taste (can I say "artsy-fartsy"?), but here are three that I really like.

The first is by Tania Kovats, which features the classic branching tree as a representation of natural selection causing speciation.
It appears from the sketch as though it will take up the entirety of the hall's ceiling, and thus have a good impact on those museum visitors who take the time to look up. And the tree is an iconic enough image that I think most viewers would know what it is intended to represent.

This next installation, proposed by Alison Turnbull, is really the only in in my opinion which properly conveys Darwin's idea about natural selection, though I wonder how visible it would be if they used actual moths on ceilings that look rather high, at least in the photographs I've seen of the hall.

'This work, Biston betularia aka The Peppered Moth, was prompted by the numerous and precise references to colour in Darwin's account of the voyage of the Beagle.'

Lastly, I like this idea by Rachel Witeread, a sculptor who has the idea of having a series of panels with the imprinted footprints of humans and animals.
This one is nice because the human element is included in a naturally fair way, as just another set of footprints among those of the other animals.

Personally, I hope they go with the moths. Some of the other ideas are just too artistically abstract. For example, Richard Wentworth's proposal involves mounting lots of small round mirrors of different sizes to the ceiling:

'The ceiling is dedicated in equal measure to Darwin’s peripheral vision, his capacity for negotiating distractions and his ability to make his own luck.'

Mirrors? This one bothers me, because I find it impossible to imagine the average visitor of the museum looking up, seeing lots of little round mirrors, and instantly being reminded of Darwin's peripheral vision and capacity for negotiating distraction. I also happen to have an extremely strong aversion to snooty-sounding artist statements. Sorry, Richard Wentworth.

Another, and I have to say rather creepy, idea is by Christine Borland and is a sculptural piece of a large tree based on Darwin's original tree of life sketch, but with the addition of human limbs with coin slots, (coin slots?):

'The public are invited to insert coins into the branches of the tree and its human limbs, in the tradition of wishing trees.'

This makes me wish I'd had the chance to propose an idea. These two works just won't help the viewer to understand that they represent evolution, and they don't reflect Darwin's ideas in any concrete way.

The moths, in contrast, bring instantly to mind the idea of slow genetic change over many generations. "Look! See how they go from light to dark? They evolved a darker color to adapt to their changing environment." But anyway, now that you know how I feel, check out the 10 finalists for yourself. And if you're lucky enough to live close, go check out the exhibition. It will be on display until September 14th.

Finally, my thoughts on Artist's Statements, as summed up in a classic Calvin and Hobbes comic:

Interactive Cladograms!

Even before people knew of the theory of evolution, we have categorized the living things around us into groups, and groups within groups, and so on. For thousands of years we've understood that all hoofed animals were different from wolves and dogs and other canids, but that together these were mammals that had characteristics different from another group called 'birds,' and that mammals and birds were more similar to each other than to another group that included bugs and spiders.

Once evolution was in the picture, the reasons these groupings exist in the first place became crystal clear: each group contains a common ancestor which 'branched off' in speciation events. A tree-shape is indeed the best visual way to represent this, and has been from the start. This was Darwin's first tree from his notebook:(neat, eh?)

By the way, his handwriting is hard to read, so:

"I think (sketch) Case must be that one generation then should be as many living as now. To do this and to have many species in same genus (as is) requires extinction."

Trees can be ridiculously simple to ridiculously complex (see previous post). But if you want a tree to be a useful database of life in its entirety, there's really only one way to go, and that is a clade that is interactive, with the ability to zoom in on levels of detail from the base of the tree and its major branches to the very ends where individual species exist.

Here are a few very great examples, in no particular order:

Wikispecies - Like Wikipedia, this wiki is an open directory that anyone can contribute too. While this doesn't look like a tree, it indeed is, and navigation up and down the branches is quick and easy (so long as you know where you're going, that is). The great thing about the individual pages is the "taxonavigation" at your fingertips: every grouping from species up is visible and clickable. I should mention that Wikipedia has scientific classification lists as well, but not nearly to the amount of detail as Wikispecies, though they do have more factual information.

UCMP Web Lift to Taxa - This extremely comprehensive tree is the one we used as part of my favorite undergraduate biology course: Systematic Zoology. It's a bit hard to navigate, unfortunately. As you zoom in on the tree, look for the "Systematics" button to move down the branches. Navigation lacks a way to move back down the branch, but the good thing about this site compared to the others is the abundance of pages describing the larger groups (rather than only having individual pages for species at the end of each branches, they have an entire page describing the phylum cnidaria, for example.)

The Tree of Life Web Project - This awesome page is the result of some five hundred contributing scientists. Its organization is similar to that of Wikispecies, but like the UCMP page, it also includes actual trees on each page, much appreciated by visual people such as myself. Aside from that, I also have to say it's just designed better in general and is nicer-looking than the others.

Wolfram Demonstrations Tree of Life Project - I can't comment on this one because I have not downloaded it yet, but the demonstration looks neat and really gives you an idea of what interactive trees could look like in the future. The idea of clicking on branches to move up and down the tree rather than text links is terribly exciting to me.

So where is all of this going? Will we see the day when every species is documented and compiled in a database like this? It will always have to be changing. Placements of groups on the tree of life change, and disputes exist between scientists. Sometimes clades determined by genetic data disagree with those based on phenotype. But the dynamic nature of these interactive databases even allows for the discrepancies to be communicated.

I look back at the sketched tree drawn by Charles Darwin, and I have to wonder what he would think about all of this.