The Viper-mouth (Silurus cataphractus) Possibly 1731 - 1743

Editor: Here we have Mark Catesby's "The Viper-mouth," also known as "Silurus cataphractus," a watercolor and print piece dating back to the early 18th century. The bottom fish, in particular, with its exposed fangs, looks pretty ferocious. What strikes you when you look at this? Curator: What jumps out at me is how Catesby is positioning himself, and therefore his audience, in relation to the natural world. These aren't simply objective depictions; they’re products of a colonial gaze, reflecting a desire to classify and possess knowledge about the 'New World.' How do you think these images might have been used to further certain power structures or narratives? Editor: I never thought about that, it just seemed like an artist representing wildlife. So you are saying the picture carries embedded historical assumptions? Curator: Precisely! Think about who had access to these images. It’s likely European elites who would use this visual inventory to legitimize exploitation of land and resources. The very act of naming and illustrating these creatures is an act of claiming. Catesby’s scientific realism flattens the possibility that indigenous people understood and interacted with this 'wilderness' long before European colonization. What narratives are erased, or at least sidelined, by this supposedly objective representation? Editor: That's a powerful point. It makes me wonder about the other side of the story, the untold connections of the fish in its habitat. Thank you, I learned a lot from your interpretation. Curator: It goes to show the importance of examining even seemingly neutral depictions critically. Appreciating historical contexts empowers us to question existing hegemonies, so that is good.