Polysiphonia furcellata c. 1843 - 1853

Editor: This is Anna Atkins' "Polysiphonia furcellata," a cyanotype from the mid-19th century. It’s such a striking blue and the delicate details of the seaweed are really captivating. What is your take on this photogram? Curator: It’s crucial to understand the context: Atkins was producing scientific documentation. This wasn't fine art, per se, but a record using photographic processes. We need to ask about the labor: the collecting, the preparation of chemicals, the careful placement of the specimen, the exposure to light. These aren’t neutral processes, but ones involving choices, time, and resources. Editor: That makes a lot of sense. I guess I had just thought about the finished image, but not the work itself! How did cyanotypes impact art and science beyond this documentation? Curator: The very process collapses the divide between art and science. Cyanotype offered a relatively accessible method of reproduction. We should think about Atkins not just as an artist, but as a proto-scientist, using the means available to her. What materials was she able to get her hands on? Where did she get them from? That says a lot about this object. Editor: So, the material itself speaks to the science and also to society in general? It challenges this idea of art being divorced from everyday resources? Curator: Exactly! The "how" and "why" it was made is deeply entwined with the "what" it depicts, and its relationship with society. How does seeing this piece change your view on 19th century science or art practices? Editor: I guess it's less about the art itself, and more about how it reflects society and production at the time. I had never really considered it in such a critical and practical light, which is exciting. Curator: That interplay of science and access of materials helps frame an understanding that really enriches the piece.