Card 48, Morpho Cypris, from the Butterflies series (N183) issued by Wm. S. Kimball & Co. 1888

Editor: So, here we have "Card 48, Morpho Cypris" from the Butterflies series, created around 1888 by Wm. S. Kimball & Co. It’s a print, and what strikes me immediately is the odd combination of portraiture and, well, a giant butterfly. It’s kind of whimsical, but the composition also feels very deliberate. How do you see this piece, with all its peculiar contrasts? Curator: It is within these contrasts, you rightly observe, that the work's semiotic power resides. Note the figure’s profile: a classic form. Then observe how this classicism is deliberately subverted by the imposition of wings-- themselves segmented planes of teal and white that mimic patterns observable in nature, yet rendered unnatural on the subject. The tension generated begs a vital question of you, as the observer: Does this superimposition elevate the figure to an allegorical form or reduce the subject to the decorative? Editor: I suppose it could be either, or perhaps both at the same time! It's hard to say. What I mean is, the figure seems human enough, but the butterfly wings make it, as you said, feel more decorative. The wings take up more of the image space, don't you think? The blues and whites are just visually louder. Curator: Precisely. This hierarchy, from ground to figure to adornment, implies a very particular encoding on the part of the original artist. Reflect now: is it the butterfly wings that make this "art", or could we make a stronger case that, irrespective of the wings, there are conscious artistic decisions being undertaken to depict and then visually situate this subject? Editor: I hadn't thought of it that way before. Seeing it just in terms of form and composition, it does feel more intentional, less random. Thanks for making me think more deeply about how the elements relate! Curator: Indeed. Analysis, predicated on inherent attributes of the piece, necessarily grants us stronger interpretive agency.