It's amazing how differently representational photography and drawn art relating to objects and life forms can be, isn't it? I find that botanical drawings of flora, those beautiful bird books with their gorgeous painted pictures of our avian friends, and anatomical drawings like your stunningly-rendered heart are easier to digest than photographs of the same. For these more generic things, drawn art is great.
But drawn art doesn't cater for the very specific, 'right here, right now' need for illustrating, say, a precise location at a given moment, or a news story, or a 'this is what I'm looking at - can you see what I mean?' For that we need photographs.
I've really enjoyed reading this post, and I'm going to be thinking about it for a while!
Thanks so much Rebecca 💜 You’ve given me more to think of, too, re: the ease of digesting the drawn versus the photographed. Underscores again the idea that “the medium is the message”.
I liked the B&W photo of the subway. Very futuristic. I was also thinking of my anatomy textbooks, all hand drawn illustrations. Photos of the real thing just don’t have the detail because they’re cadavers.
Thanks James! I’d only worked with a brain donation before in neuropsych, and remember the translation I tried to do from the drawings to the mound of tissue in front of me. It seemed like a big learning curve, but you must get used to it once you go back and forth from text to real life more and more?
We in radiology are looking at shades of grey, so a colour illustration is of little benefit. However, for overall anatomy such as muscle groups and the circulatory system, colour illustrations are invaluable.
Oh wow, Bryn, great post!
It's amazing how differently representational photography and drawn art relating to objects and life forms can be, isn't it? I find that botanical drawings of flora, those beautiful bird books with their gorgeous painted pictures of our avian friends, and anatomical drawings like your stunningly-rendered heart are easier to digest than photographs of the same. For these more generic things, drawn art is great.
But drawn art doesn't cater for the very specific, 'right here, right now' need for illustrating, say, a precise location at a given moment, or a news story, or a 'this is what I'm looking at - can you see what I mean?' For that we need photographs.
I've really enjoyed reading this post, and I'm going to be thinking about it for a while!
Thanks so much Rebecca 💜 You’ve given me more to think of, too, re: the ease of digesting the drawn versus the photographed. Underscores again the idea that “the medium is the message”.
The "medium's ability to tell a story", as you've put it, is such an interesting factor, isn't it? 😀 Thanks again for such a fascinating post!
Oh, I love your heart drawing! It's beautiful.
Thanks Jillian 😃❤️
I liked the B&W photo of the subway. Very futuristic. I was also thinking of my anatomy textbooks, all hand drawn illustrations. Photos of the real thing just don’t have the detail because they’re cadavers.
Thanks James! I’d only worked with a brain donation before in neuropsych, and remember the translation I tried to do from the drawings to the mound of tissue in front of me. It seemed like a big learning curve, but you must get used to it once you go back and forth from text to real life more and more?
We in radiology are looking at shades of grey, so a colour illustration is of little benefit. However, for overall anatomy such as muscle groups and the circulatory system, colour illustrations are invaluable.