BECOME A BETTER ORCHID GROWER

AMERICAN
ORCHID
SOCIETY

BOTANICAL
ART
Potting
Orchids

Ecuadorian
Natives
 An Eye for Detail
Evaluatirg an Exhibition of Contemporary Botanical Art
BY DAVID HORAK
ABOVE Dracula tubeana by Carol Woodin,
New York, New York. "Orchids aren't just
another flower. Visually they can be
angular, muscular, exotic, strange and
beautiful," says Carol Woodin, whose
portrait of Dracula tubeana is certainly not
a static study. This painting, photographed
by Jeff McMullen, conveys a strong sense
of life. The flower spikes that extend out
Medusa-like from the plant to all parts of
tne page create a strong composition that
keeps the eye moving while successfully
paying homage to the image as a tool for
description, displaying the flowers and
buds from multiple angles and different
358 oBcHrDS t\4AY 2006 www.Aos.oRc
stages of development. Layers of
watercolor pigment applied in a drybrush
technique on vellum create a radiant glow
usually seen only in medieval illuminated
manuscripts. (24 x 22 inches; 60 x 55 cm).
OPPOSITE Vanilla planifolia by Monika
deVries Gohlke, Brooklyn, New York.
Utilizing the traditional medium of etching
and aquatint, the print ot Vanilla planifoliaby
Monika deVries Gohlke relies on traditional
drawing techniques with a different
purpose than to produce a technical
description. While botanically correct in
showing the flowers and rachis with fruit,
the succulent leaves and stem and the
delicacy of the roots, this is a study that
captures lhe sinuous quality of the plant
itself. The movement of the various oarts
as drawn seems to make it sway or dance
on the page. Using nothing but the
contrasls of light and dark shapes, simple
line and textures, she is able to convey the
sense of weight, substance and texture of
the vanilla. Color is almost perceptible. The
irony of the work is that she has caught a
specific evanescent moment in the short-
lived blooming of the vanilla, and locked it
firmly in time with the laborious and time-
consuming processes of intaglio
printmaking. (22 x 18 inches; 55 x 45 cm).
 ,i,!

itr

q- '' ...
\:;..
"\--
\_ __\-_ '\rl-"'.,.
\,
*\
''ztti@

'=S.,'.+"
va '*,tit:!' "

/[
,,".8*,
q;'
itl
,,,,,,
,Jt
V ',

:-ry^:.
,'7', /,i!1,4
' ;,t'
t"/ ,;::.i I

I
r.l--::_--.;\\

lvllJ
l%t1

www.Aos.oBc l\4AY 2006 oRcHlDS 359


il
i myself fol the last few days: "Is
I
1
(R
l-
\ exhibition coordinator for the ASBA
ABoVE Schomburgkia (syn. Laelia) lyonsii
by Bobbi Angell, Marlboro, Vermont. This
graphic image epitomizes the Spartan
clarity needed in a scientific botanical
rendering. Using pen and ink (probably
over an original pencil drawing), the artist
has deoicted the maximum amount of detail
of every important part of the plant and its
flowers, using nothing more than line and
simple traditional stippling techniques. The
organization of space not only allows for
every necessary feature to be displayed,
but is laid out with an artist's eye for formal
composition. Movement, texture, depth and
plant parts extending off the plane of ihe
paper make this an almost abstracl image
lhal transcends the sum of its parts. lt is
360 oRCHIDS IVIAY 2006 WWW.AOS.ORG
masterful either in the herbarium or the
gallery. (22 x 19 inches; 55 x 48 cm).
oPPoSITE Angraecum sesquipedale by
Linda Petchnick, Enumclaw, Washington.
This watercolor successfully conveys the
strength and physicality of this species.
Besides accomplishing the goal of
accurately portraying the plant, she has
taken advantage of the overlapping roots,
leaves and the spurs of the flowers to
create a complex composition that results
in depth and movement throughout the
page. The artist has effectively used the
foliage of the plant to provide a contrasting
background that emphasizes the flowers
and allows them to be the center of
attention. (24 x 18 inches: 60 x 45 cm).
ON AWEEKDAY MORNING IN EARLY
December last year, the coldest yet of
the coming winter season, I found
myself heading south out of New York
City on I-95, struggling to remember
where I had put the e-mail directions
fbr my destination: Longwood Gardens
in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. It was
just after sunrise, the inside of the car
had finally walmed up and I had just
escaped the brunt of the eally commuter
traffic craziness. Finally being able to
settle into the routine of the highway,
my thoughts switched to the same
nagging questionsI had been askin,e
botanical art in any way different from
any other art form?" "Is it somehow
less valid or serious than what is
usually considered mainstream Art?"
and the really flightening one, "Will I
recognize good work when I see it?"
These are not the usual concerns for
most orchid growers the first thing on
a winter morning, but I was on my way
to meet my companions for the day
-
Marguerite Buck, Peter Sculthorpe and
our steward, Carol Woodin to jury
-
the competitive exhibition "Longwood
Gardens Centennial Exhibition Orchids
in Contemporaly Botanical Art."
An orchidist, Buck serves on the
Board of Directors of the American
Society of Botanical Artists (ASBA)
and studies and collects botanical
alt. Sculthorpe is an accomplished
American landscape painter who
studied at the Pennsylvania Academy
of Fine Arts in Philadelphia, and has
exhibited throughout the United States
and internationally, working mainly in
oils and watercolors. Woodin is the
(organizers of the show) and a talented
and internationally exhibited botanical
painter herself. As I sped south
thlough New Jersey, a little back-
patting hubris made it easiel for me to
at least think I had the answer as to
why I had been honored with the
privilege of joining this group. Over the
last few years, I have been involved in
organizing exhibitions with orchids as
subject matter, resulting in my having
seen hundreds of images of orchids
depicted in contemporary botanical art.
Unfortunately, my confidence was
short lived and replaced by the fear that
I was included to provide technical
expertise so that I might be able to
answer questions about the accuracy
of what had been portrayed. But, I had
been asked and accepted.
 \
S\- J
-V'
!

#
 This article will -eive the reirder a
glirnpse at how a particulal' orchid art
show is selected and take a closer look
at some of the included works.
There seeu to be nearlY as Inany
definitions of botanical art and
illustration as there are people who
think of themselves as botanicirl artists'
They ale lltltost alwirys r.r ritten or
spoken as a collnected pair. but these
are two separate concepts thiit should
not be used itlterchan-qeably; they are
implicitly different.
Botanical art can be a broad and
inclusive concept that includes neally
any ilepiction specifically focused
on presenting plant subject matter
(with nrinirral nonbotanical' nonplant
content), in irnY Piirt or form' In
colnffron usage, though, this is much
more narrowly construed to describe
iirtworks strictly represetrtational
in nature, rendeled in any two-dimen-
sional nrediunr (usually exclusive of
photography) and largely dedicated to
an emphasis on the botanical subject
rather than a style. concept or overt
forrn of personirl expression' Any work
thirt focr.rses on depicting botiinical
subject matter realistically in any
medium pletty much qLralifies' This
rtrukes l'or u broad encotttpassinc "ft{'";::{
t.
conce pt.
Botanical illustl'ation' on the other
hand. can be somewhirt more com-
plicated. As the name suggests. an
image produced foremost to visually
desclibe a plant or flower needs to
fulfill certain basic requirements' H'
Wirlter Lack. in the Gurden Eclett:
Mttsterpiet'es o.f' Boturtittl Illus-
:1,,

trutiott (Tirschen' Koln. 200 l' Page l4)'

defines it quite clearly: "The purpose
of evet'y botanical illustration is to give
an exact picture of a plant ol of parts of
a plant. It is essential to capture the runfortunate that beauty or aesthetic self expression often I'esults in a

conccrns have ol'ten been secondary' satisfying aesthetic experience that

often short-lived and frirgile structure
of a plant so precisely that the observer
the
is able to identify and recognize
plant. "
Any botanical illustration must fil'st
and foremost accurately and firithfully
clescribe the truth of its subject
regtt'dless ol' rtlcdir'rrlt. conviction or
point of view. Botanical illustration is
iundamentally a tool based on the craft
of observation and accttrate depiction'
It has been colllmon for botanical
illustrations to be exactly this and
nothing more. neutral technical
descriptions devoid of artistic state-
nteltt or emotlon. TheY selve the
it
purpose. of course. but I think that
The challenge for the botanical artist
comes fror.n working within the specific
limitations of the craft. To quote
Willl'ed Blunt fl'onr Tlte Art ttl Bttttrtticttl
Illustrtrtiott (Charles Scribner's Sons'
New York. 1951. Pages 3-4): "The
botanical artist finds hin.rself at once
and irlways in a dilemma: Is he the
servant of Science. or of Art'l There
can. I think, be no doubt that he must
learn to serve both masters." Marny
contemporary botanical artists have
increasingly become more flexible in
their interpletation and application ol'
the tladitions and constraints. Working
with these limitations as a vehicle for
is
trarnscends the Lrtility of their craft.
The typical stereotype of detailed
lepresentationirl art and illustration is
that these works are nothing mot'e than
exercises in drafismanship (the skillfLrl
ability to draw or pIlint an exacting
likeness of a subject), and once yott
have marveled in the skill of the artist's
ability there is nothing left to learn or
appreciate. This is a problem for any
arl fot'tn that is skill- or claft-
dependent. and the Point needs to
be emphasized. It is imPortant to
understirnd that, just because a draw-
ing. paintin-e or other botanical
art is tnarvelously lnd acctrrately

362 ORCHIDS I\4AY 2006 WWW.AOS.ORG

OPPOSITE Paphiopedilum hybrid by
Regina Milan, Grolon, Massachusetts. This
is one of two instances in which we chose
to include two works by the same artist of
the same subject, rendered in two different
media. While these have the aooearance of
honoring the tradition of performing a
graphite study prior to a finished painting,
there is no reason to actually believe that
one or lhe other was created first. Each is
able to stand as a finished work. This
graphite drawing creates a stately
presentation of its subject. The frontal
centered view, with the leaves and flower
pushing the margins of the page give this
an aggrandizing strength. The orchid is in
command of its space and it feels like a
portrait. One of the most common
problems with graphite drawings is the
tendency to be tentative in taking
advantage of the range of values
- darks
and lights that can be achieved without
- painting as in the drawing, but by turning
losing conlrol. Here the artist has
confidently made the most out of the
possibilities. Using contrast to best effect,
the sculptural shapes oi the leaves and
flower are clear and de{initive, but the
subtle veining of the pouch, the delicacy of
the hairs and warts on the petals, and the
wonderful reticulated patterns of the leaves
are perfectly captured. (22 x 18 inches;
55 x 45 Cml.
ABoVE Paphiopedilum Maudiae by Regina
Milan. Groton. Massachusetts. This
watercolor on vellum gives a feeling quite
difierent than Milan's graphite drawing
(opposite). The artist expresses the same
technical confidence and ability in this
the plant slightly it becomes less
accessible and gives it a greater sense of
being a study, that the viewer is more like a
witness or observer. The same sculotural
oualities and definition of detail are here as
in the drawing, but the remarkable
luminous quality of watercolor used on
vellum makes it appear to glow.
(26 x 20 inches; 65 x 50 cm).
WWW.AOS.ORG I\4AY 2006 ORCHIDS 363
 b
# i
I
,-d
ABOVE Brassia caudata with Cateroillar
by Emily Luks, Toronto, Ontario. This is a
whimsical and wonderfully graphic image.
It is a study in contrasts. The plant,
exactingly composed and meticulously
rendered in graphite, dominates the space
of the paper, effectively contrasting lights
and darks, the wispy delicacy of the flower
segments overlapping the sculptural
modeling of the plant and leaves. Strong
diagonal and horizontal movement across
the page are balanced by the delicacy and
verticality of the flowers. But the seeming
dominance of the plant is usurped by the
intensely green, diminutive, gouache image
of the cateroillar. which becomes a
grounding focal point. This pairing creates
both a visual and contextual complexitv.
364 ORCHIDS MAY 2006 WWW.AOS.ORG
Neither would be as interesting alone.
(20 x 21 inches; 50 x 52 cm).
oPPOSITE Anguloa virginalis by Dolores
R. Santoliquido, Brookfield, Connecticut.
This depiction of Anguloa virginalis is a
quiet but remarkably masterful illustration.
Combining colored pencil with acrylic
pigment washes on paper, it is classically
composed, informalive, accurate and
exceedingly detailed. But it effectively
transcends its purpose to convey the
grace and vitality that characterize these
plants' growth and flowering habit. The
details of the emerging leaves and
inflorescences are better served by
observation than comment. (28 x 28
inches; 70 x 70 cm). Grower: Hoosier
Orchid Company,
rendered, likeness does not mean that
it is good art. This same conflict is true
for disciplines such as photography,
printmaking or ceramics, all highly
dependent on process and technical
skill. This is the obstacle and challen-se
of every work produced by an artist.
regardless of subject matter, means or
medium: Does it transcend the sum of
its parts and continue to reveal its
secrets and wonders? Does it impalt
meaning every time it is viewed? It has
been said that the greatest works of art
are those that continue to reveal
themselves and inform the viewer over
the longest period of time.
Today's world of botanical art and
illustration occupies a curious place in
the larger framework of what is usually
thought of as contemporary art.
Starting about the middle of the
l9th century, coinciding with the
appearance of photography and the
revolution of the modernist "-ism"
movements, the concepts and def-
initions of what was pleviously
considered to be "real" art went
through a radical change. More than
any time in the past, today's botanical
j

\
{
,i

) i_ ,,
\\,
I with any and all flaws, or to correct
l diseased leaves, dull or damaged
ABOVE Vanda Manuvadee by Dianne
McElwain, Cincinnati, Ohio. This is an
unusually captivating painting that is clearly
comoosed but has a cool nonchalance at
the same time. While unprepossessing, it is
highly detailed and the visual organization
has a strong structure. The plant is leaning
so as to fill the picture frame and there are
fundamentally three separate visual
activities, somewhat by default, that are
separate yet work together: the graphic,
weblike network of roots, the volume and
strong linear movement of the green mass
of the plant's foliage and the compressed
complexity of the mass of purple flowers.
Each of these has different visual textures
and rhythms that interact with the negative
space around them in different ways so
that the composition is quite simple but the
result complex and engaging. (35 x 27
inches; 88 x 68 cm).
366 OBCHIDS MAY 2006 WWW.AOS.OBG
,'K
-{- -\*^_.
\ to tly to depict the plant as it is seen
oPPoSITE Phalaenopsis hybrid by
Damodar Gurjar, Jaipir, India. This painting
is an example of a botanical concept
coming out of a non-Western visual
tradition. Here, it is often frowned upon to
work on anything other than a white or
slightly off-white ground (base color).
Painted in gouache, a water-based opaque
medium, the dark blue ground works well
at bringing out the flower color yet the
interior yellow border acts as a window
that effectively contains the image on the
page and prevents it from being
overwhelmed by the contrast between the
blue and yellow. The delicacy of the
brushstrokes is both painterly and precise,
reminiscent of the long tradition of Indian
miniatures. Leaves are included, but from a
different plant, giving the work the feeling ol
being an intimate and passionately
conceived snapshot or vignette.
(10 x 12 inches; 25 x 30 cm).
artists and illustlators often find
themselves considered outsiders
whose work is dismissed and dis-
paraged by contemporary art culture.
This abandonment by the mainstream
art world has often made it difficult for
any artists working within the con-
straints of strict representation to find
venues to exhibit and sell their work.
This situation was in palt responsible
for the founding of the American
Society of Botanical Artists (ASBA),
the organizers of this exhibition, which
now boasts more than 1.200 members
worldwide.
Some things remain constant and
require the same decisions from artists
today as at any time in the past. Much
of what has always guided anyone
depicting natulal subjects comes in
the forrn of a basic philosophical
confrontation. For hundreds of years,
a prevailing sentiment was that what
God had created was pelfect and could
not be improved upon, and one did not
need to look beyond nature for
inspilation, subject matter or truth;
many interpreted this concept as one
"should not" look beyond nature. The
flip side of this debate is the idea that
art can perfect nature. It can make the
sky green or the ocean purple if
desired. For botanical artists, this is a
fundamental confrontation.
Historically, as well as today, artists
have had to make the decision whether
flowers. Why not fix the damaged petal
or replace the missing flowers at the
bottom of an inflorescence? Each artist
has always had to decide the degree to
which he or she was comfortable with
the truth of the depiction. Henry
Moon. the author of the Reic'h-
enbachia plates, prided himself on not
heightening the colors of the flowers
as he thought did some of his
contemporaries. These are fundamen-
tal questions that artists still ask
themselves.
Regardless of spiritual or ideo-
logical beliefs, al'tists then and now
have sought to capture and convey the
experience of the beauty they witness
in their subjects. The challenge is, of
course, whether you can ever recreate
your own experience and feelings by
striving to produce an exact image of
your inspiration. Probably not, but
drawing inspiration from a subject and
trying to let it speak for itself with a
minimum of personal expression has
been the goal of many botanical artists,
especially in illustrations. But all art is
inherently interpretation. The beauty
of an exhibition of original art like the
Longwood show is that while all of the
artists share many points of view, no
two works look alike. For instance, by
taking a look at the nuances of how
different individuals use watercolor
you can reveal much about a person's
intent. Some are decidedly graphic,
depending on the structure of drawing,
while others use watercolor in a dry-
brush method so that the effect is
additive, crisp and controlled, while yet
others work wet on wet so that the color
transitions are fluid and subtle; you
become aware that this is an aqueous
medium that can flow on the page. For
some artists, composition is all-
important, for others, it is the sense of
light and luminosity and for still others,
depth and a sense of volume are
paramount. No matter how pure the
intent, these qualities routinely occur
in all works to some degree and are part
of the evidence of the artist's hand and
point of view. To quote Picasso, "We
all know that art is not truth. Art is a lie
that makes us realize the truth."
Some might think a photograph
would suffice. The cultural and
utilitarian need for botanical illustration
might not seem as necessary today as
in the time prior to photography, but
for many scientific works it cannot be
replaced. The ability of an illustration
to get past the limitations of a subject
or a situation and interpret reality often
makes it superior to a photograph. Art
is not limited by shadows or by flowers
inconveniently facing the wrong way
or extraneous distractions like insects.
Culturally and aesthetically, this is
a living tradition that many con-
temporary botanical artists are com-
mitted to preserving by producing
exceedingly accomplished and vibrant
work, giving nothing up to that which
has preceded it. Not only is it possible
to see (and own) real hand-produced
botanical art, but in many cases some
of the finest works ever produced.
While the techniques and tech-
nology of drawing and watercolor have
not significantly changed in the last
couple hundred years, the processes
used to reproduce them as multiples in
editioned and serial publications
continued to evolve. It is useful to
keep in mind that nearly all of the
botanical art available to us in books
and editioned folios are prints derived
from an original such as a watercolor
painting or drawing. Obviously many
of these prints are beautiful and in the
best cases masterful, evocative works,
but they are different. Originals almost
always display more of the sense of the
artist and their intent than a
reproduction.
That is a generalized statement
because many historic prints required
that the artist, or at times a technician,
needed to hand color or touch up the
printed image in order to compensate
for technical limitations of the process
and achieve the desired effect. At
times, this was quite extensive and
probably intentional as the original
engraving or litho image served almost
as a template or point of departure
followed by the hand completion of
the image; something akin to a
sophisticated coloring book approach.
Much of the historic orisinal art is
WWW.AOS.ORG l\ilAY 2006 ORCHIDS 367

ABoVE Encyclia tam7ensis bY Joan
Frain, Exton, Pennsylvania. This watercolor
employs a somewhat unconventlonal
compositional approach to depict this
Florida native. The plant is placed at the
top of the page with the leaves and
pseudobulbs partially cropped so that the
emphasis is on the inflorescences
cascading down, the flowers seeming to
delicately fall like confetti from above. lt
effectively captures the charm and appeal
of this orchid. (34 x 23 inches; 85 x 58 cm)
oPPoSITE Paphiopedilum Raphael by
Jean Emmons, Vashon lsland, Washington.
This is yet another powerful example of
how eifectively watercolor on vellum can
368 ORCHIDS MAY 2006 WWW.AOS.OBG
unarvailable to us but the reproductions
can give insight into the artists'
approach: paintelly ot'with mole
emphasis on drawin-9, strongly com-
posed or static, economical or dynarnic
in composition. Many of these things
are quite obvious and others onlY
discernible but as I rnentioned previouslr
reproductions are flndamentally a thing
unto themselves.
No matter how manY times I have
heald the phrase "jurying an exhi-
bition." it always nakes me think of
how lefined it sortnds. conjuring ttp
images of slowly walking down long
sun-drenched galleries carefully con-
sidering framed works of art lining the
walls, with many "Htnmn.rs" and "Oh.
that's rather interesting ...." Un-
fortunately, that fantasy beals little
resernblance to leality.
In this instance. we wel'e led to a
srr-rall basement classroorn bereft of
much light, to confront carousels of
slides and transparencies. As is typical
for this kind of event. a call for entries
was published requesting slide sub-
missions of ori-ginal artwork for
v possible inclusion in the show. While
it would be ideal to select fron.r the
\ original art itself. the practical reality
is that sending the actual works would
be irnpossibly buldensome and a
logistical nightmare. In this case, it was
our responsibility to take 178 individual
\/ entries submitted from around the
,/t
world. and pare these down to a numbet'
'-*--/ \ that would both reflect a hi-ch collective
id
i}
standard and could favorably be shown
in the available exhibit space. For the
organizer and the jurors there are
always fears: too few quality sttb-
be used to capture the radtance of a living
missions to legitirnize a show. or the
plant and flower. She has used a tradiiional
opposite. too many works of such a
approach of showing the inflorescence cut high caliber with too little space.
and repositioned on the page rather than necessitatin-9 the need to eliminate
as a whole in order to afiord the larger some that mi-ght be truly worthy. In our
scale and resulting greater detail that case. afier seeing the proposed exhibit
can be gained. The composition is space and discussing options. it was
straightforward, relying primarily on the thought that the maximum tar-qet
remarkable luminosity and detail that number that could ettbctively be shown
Emmons is able to achieve to carry tne was somewhere around 45' perhaps a
visual weight. She has captured in paint
few more. With this type of show' the
axiom "less is more" holds true. It is
the sense of light and the saturated but
better to err on the side of a more
transparent color qualities of this vinicolor
spacious exhibit of qualitY that
Paphiopedilum that every orchid judge respects the individual works than one
aspires to try to elicit in words. that diminishes both the art and the
(18 x 15 inches; 45 x 38 cm). experience of the viewers by crammin-s
ln too many.
There are various ways to go about
making the actual selections, but the
challenge is in using a process that is
hr
fi*u q

,iii
, 1', f of the olchid r.nust appear on the front
' L4\
^.i.
jir
,4f
k .l
s paintin-e orchids ale doin-9.
tl
1i
\rt il ,.":.ii'
.4r'
\ur';p---
,y'
.fi"
ABoVE Disa uniflora by Dolores
Santoliquido, Brookfield, Connecticut.
This is another example of Santoliquido's
extraordinary technique being used to
capture the essence of her subject. By
combining the precision of colored pencil
with the fluid possibilities of acrylic paint
she is able to illustrate perfectly the
intensity of colors in the Dlsa flowers while
also faithfully executing their details and
the subtle transitions in color. This is a
great example of an illustration that can be
used for identification but also be enjoyed
merely for its beauty. (32 x 28 inches; 80 x
70 cm). Plants shown (left to right): Dlsa
uniflora ('Golden Spray' x'Golden Glow'),
D. uniflora and D. uniflora'Sara', AM/AOS.
Grower: James Pluskota.
oPPoSITE Phalaenopsis Brother Tom
Coffey'Charlotte', CCE/AOS, by Angela
Mirro, Brooklyn, New York. This is truly a
remarkable painting of an equally
remarkable plant. Every flower, leaf and
root are meticulously rendered, which is no
370 ORCHTDS MAY 2006
",|
\1
11,
tl'rf
:.r
' '{r \ ;'.f---
,\,{),.8/ \ ..t.
I ' r', , .r/'- ,-r"/
,tt,,g( -: :":7*"
i .'::.- .:l/'
R. small feat. Small errors or an awkward
composition could easily dampen the
overall effect and undo the staggering
amount of time that has been invested.
Besides the sheer magnitude of the
endeavor, things such as the textural and
color differences of the roots, leaves,
stems and flowers and the refinement of
the composition work to make this so
effective. The broad expanses of yellow-
green and contrasting dark-green in the
leaves, might have become visuallY
routine, but they are interrupted just
enough by the seething jumble of roots to
stimulate visual interest. This whole acts as
a perfect balance to the upward-arching
inflorescences and their riot of red-orange-
punctuated yellow flowers. Whether it is the
accuracy of the depiction, the artist's quiet
masterful display of technique, or her
manipulation of light, volume and depth,
this is a beautiful and a visually sustaining
painting. (36 x 33 inches; 90 x 83 cm).
Grower: Tom and Lutu Coffey.
WWW.AOS.ORG
fair to the aftists but fespects the
experience and opinions of the jurors
and. above all. is practical. It wonld be
hoped that the best works would
natLrrally stand out to all of us, but.
because each of us came from ditterent
backgrounds. we mi-qht respond to any
given work quite differently.
Even though this was a show with
specific expectations. we decided not
to be bound by too stringently applied
objective criteria. It wars a given that
the works must be realistically and
botanically accurate. However, everyone
agreed that rninin.rizin-e other Iirnitations.
such as requirin-e works to depict the
entire plant with roots. or that the name
-
at least until we had seen the subr.uissions
would rnake fbl a more diverse and
-insightful look at what botanical artists
This might seem like a simple
decision. butit set the tone fbr the rest
of the process and the ultimate
appearance of the exhibit. The more
strin-sently we iipplied a strict def-
inition. the more homo-eeneous the
overall look to the show. This is neither
positive nor negative. but I think we
all felt that we had been charged with
selectin-q the best work from an
aesthetic point of view father than
policing conforr.r.rity. A checklist
apploach to jud-ein-e beauty is an
efficient way to get urediocre lesults.
We agreed to start with an initial
ballot usin-u a simple format that has
been ernployed in othef ASBA
exhibitions: a one through five (low to
hi-eh) scoring standard applied to each
wolk by each juror. Each slide was
plojected for as long as necessary for
each judge to give consideration, to
score and to make notes without any
group discussion. Not until the end
were the artists' names l'evealed. Due
to the large number of entries and our
limited time. we decided to eliminate
works whose total scores were below
the the minirnum number necessary to
achieve our target. This was a
necessary concessiorr to practicality
that quickly brought us closer to our
goal. The drawback is that this can be
individually frustratin-q as individual
jurors may stron-gly favor a particular
work that others did not find so
cornpelling. Flom this point on. all
remainin,e works were reviewed and
discussed by the three of us to make
the final selections.
This is where the process alwavs
 .l
b
'r t*

lr.w
rl i
it&

ig
{r/

ir p 'i.i

'tl'd
T( /&1r.
/\F
&, It .\i
tl
ir-
1,t! tll
v n
-\b

vl
\ u*'[
J
I tt
fF $p'
.&t -r{

.w-
.\y \ !:Y I,
f { $

I
l€' -r- v4
'r ('
. !;"
r6t/ tlt

*ll s
I
lg

g le :t!

1&
t,
becomes fun and more interesting.
Regardless of the quality, it would have
been disappointing and misleading if
the entire show had been selected
based only on a numerical score. Each
of us had used the point score to reflect
our own responses to what we had
seen, but the reasons we arrived at a
particular score were not necessarily
the same. The most favored works
stood out with little disagreement. But,
because each of us could comment and
discuss each work individually,
personal observations and questions
became much more challenging and
engaging; issues of technique, how
successful the wolk was and so on
the fun stuff. Our personal points -of
view clearly reflected differing
experiences, attitudes and preferences,
but this was to be expected. Discussion
and an intuitive response based on
experience were more insightful than
raw point score totals could convey.
One of the engaging things about
this part of the selection process is the
opportunity to include works for
reasons beyond their individual merits.
These might effectively illustrate a Brooklt'n, Nev, York 11225 (e-mcril
particular approach to working or an
372 ORCHIDS MAY 2006 WWW,AOS.ORG
otherwise interesting comparison with
other works. Decisions can be used to
move past the routine of jurying (in
other words, deciding whether works
merely qualify for inclusion) and into the
realm of curating, where every work
interacts with the others in the show to
educate or enrich the experiences of the
audience as well as those of the jurors.
After sitting in the dark staring at a
slide screen for eight hours we found
that we had finally succeeded in
composing the show and could finally
relax. A while later. lost in the dark on a
small highway in eastern Pennsylvania,
I thought that we had succeeded with
our task; I was pleased for those who
had been accepted and disappointed
for those who could not be included.
Davicl Horak received ltis MA itt
ceramics and art llistor\r at the
Universitv of lowa and his MFA irt
cersntics at Alfretl Universit-v" in New
York. He is curator of the Orcltid
Collection and tlte Robert W. Wilson
Aquatic House at the Brooklyrt Botanic
Garden. 1000 Washingtort At'enue,
davidhorak@ bbg.org).
ABoVE Phalaenopsis l-sin by Hillary
Parker, Camden, Maine. This disarmingly
powerful watercolor study of an
inflorescence in the last stages of its show
is really quite an unexpected, but special,
surprise. Submitted to this competition in
the midst of so many other works
displayed at their peak of bloom and
vibrancy, it seems like an unworthy
subject, depicted almost with pity or scorn.
Emerging from the lower left side of the
page it is suspended over the stark white
background with its sole remaining turgid
{lower at the end, shown in profile,
stretching out in show. Decidedly
allegorical in ieeling, this side view
presentation reveals a sequence of spent
flowers with the second-to-last flower, fully
frontal and centered on the page, in the
midst of collapse. (22 x 24 inches;
55 x 60 cm).
 Notes on Botanical Art and Illustration
FOLLOWING are some thoughts under
specific headings that came to me about
the commonalities and differences in
approach that I noticed as we reviewed
the submissions to the show and in the
months since. I also took a fresh look at
some historical works and, of course,
lound much common ground with the
present. Some of these are quite obvious,
others a little arbitrary, and most overlap.
These should not be thought of as
categories that the artists think about.
They would, rightly, probably object to
these as characterizations. These are
intended to be points of departure for
viewers to think about as they look at a
work. They might help the average
viewer begin to understand what is
happening in front of them. The
important thing is to try to see what is
happening in a picture besides the mere
presence of a subject and its rendition.
Scientific Study This is most otien
characterized by the artist's attempting
to include every aspect of a plant and its
structure all on one page. There may be
multiple views from different angles and
closeups of the various vegetative and
tloral parts either depicted life size in all
aspects or manipulated in scale so that
minute features are magnified to be easily
understood while large overviews are
minimized. In most cases, the entire page
is used to show as much information as
possible. Technical illustrations are
intended as functional tools used to define
and document the subjects. While not
overtly aesthetic in intent or purpose,
when produced by a sensitive artist, they
can often transcend their purpose and be
both beautiful and graphic.
lcon A full frontal, lay-it-all-out-on-
the-line centered presentation. Usually,
the plant with flowers is depicted from
the top of the complete inflorescence
down to the tips of the roots. Flowers
are often facing straight forward. In many
cases, there is more than a little breathing
room around the image. Typically, the
plant is so balanced and contained within
the margins of the page that the depiction
is nearly bilaterally symmetrical. Details
are often exquisitely crisp, with a
profound sense of the intense contrast
between the starkly composed subject
and the uninterrupted white background.
This type of presentation is anything but
passive, allowing nothing but an
unemotional focus on the subiect.
Portrait Somewhat similar to the
above. but the flowers or even the plant
might be turned slightly to show more
depth. The space that it occupies on the
paper may take uP most of what is
available, pushing the edges, but it is still
largely contained. There may be more of
a sense of movement in the posture and
presentation of the plant so that, while
meticulously accurate in its rendering,
more of the artist's sense of
interpretation may come through as well
as a sense of the plant as an entity' The
artist may be conveying more about how
he or she responds to the plant than even
he or she might be aware.
Casual StudY This is a common
approach with a variety of solutions.
Here the plant may be shown onlY in
part, sometimes just the inflorescence,
but generally with most or all of the
plant. Parts of the plant may be cut off
by the edges of the PaPer or left
unfinished. There might be multiple
views of the flowers from front. sides
and back. The position of the subject on
the page may be a little less symmetrical
or be turned at an unexpected angle;
leaves or flower parts may be cut off by
the edges. The composition as a whole
may seem uncomposed and spontaneous'
yet the overriding sense is that it is
balanced, that it works. Often these
works can convey a sense of casualness.
Words like "poetic" pop into mind. Of
course. by contrast. in some instances.
there is a tremendous amount of
movement in the finished work, with the
subject composed into nearly every part
of the picture plane and strong diagonal
forms moving in opposition to each
other. At times, these images feel like
artifacts; some Parts might be left
partially unfinished but are then usually
contrasted by highly detailed major
sections, just to let you know that what
you are seeing is not a mistake, but a and interesting technique that helps
conscious decision.
Tour de Force While nearlY all
botanical works on some level aspire to
show the subject as exquisitelY as
possible and with the greatest expresslon
of the artist's abilities, there can be no
mistaking the truly grand gesture, the no-
holding-back ultimate technical and
compositional challenge. This is a work
that is challenged with detail. This is
typically a masterful presentation of a
specimen plant with multiple growths,
flowers or inflorescences shown from
diflerent angles with the maximum
impact. Often it is shown in the context
of where it is growing on a branch, mount
or in a pot. Conversely, this kind of work
can also be an attempt to focus on a
single aspect of a plant such as a flower
but focused on rendering the maximum
detail or subtlety of coloration, pattern
and texture. While either of these efforts
can have an amazing payoff because of
the scope of the subject, they also have
the most risk. These are usuallY
complicated highly time-consuming
attempts complicated by many flowers
and growths. The increased amount of
detail to be depicted with a consistent
overall sense of accuracy makes for an
almost exponential possibility of failure
if any part falls short.
Allegory These works fulfill all the
usual expectations of accuracy, detail and
truth to the subject, but there is an
overriding sense that there is a story at
play. Many artists show us the flaws in
the plants as well as the beauty. But, in
some cases, the contrast transcends mere
faithfulness to the plant. Different stages
of growth might be depicted to convey a
sense of time or of passing: the vitality
and optimism of the earliest growths or
collapsing, withering flowers. This is a
case where the highly detailed nature of
the work can heighten the effect.
Environment and AtmosPhere The
simplest versions are those paintings or
drawings where the plant is depicted in
situ, showing it blooming in a natural
context; perhaps on a limb or tree trunk
with mosses or small plants also shown.
Another effective version is the detailed
study of a plant isolated in the
foreground with habitat suggested behind,
and at a distance rendered as a simple
drawing or monochromatically with a
sepialike shadowy quality. A practical
provide more contrast and separate white
or light-colored flowers from a white
background is to either tint the paper
slightly overall or to locally paint the
area behind the plant as if it were fading
into shadow. The darker area provides an
effective contrast, but another result is
that it consistently intensifies the sense
of depth and space while imparting a
tangible atmosphere. This technique was
used effectively by Henry Moon in the
Reichenbachia plates. David Horak.
-
www.Aos.oRc MAY 2006 oRCHIDS 373