Toorts before 1894

Editor: Here we have "Toorts," created before 1894 by an anonymous artist. It looks like a print of a photograph, maybe using ink on paper? I find it so intriguing how they captured such a delicate subject in what appears to be a very technical medium. What do you see in this piece? Curator: For me, this piece is fascinating when we consider its means of production. We're looking at a photograph, rendered as a print, of a plant specimen. Consider the labor involved: from the photographer, the printer, the collector of the plant itself. And it exists within the specific context of scientific illustration, a field undergoing significant transformation at this time. How does the printing process itself impact our perception of nature here? Editor: That's interesting! I hadn’t really thought about the amount of labor involved or how it fits into scientific illustration practices of the time. Do you think the imperfections, like the holes in the leaves, were intentional? Curator: Absolutely, the inclusion of these imperfections steers away from idealization. The 'defects' reflect a real specimen and are captured in great detail through the printing process. Consider that scientific illustration aimed to serve objectivity but, simultaneously, the means and limitations of printing introduce another subjective lens that's subject to material degradation or unintended material interventions. Is this object of 'art' or simply the spoils of some sort of commercial undertaking? What do we make of it either way? Editor: Wow, I never thought about it that way. So, seeing the artistic merit within the materials themselves is something that adds another layer of context here. Thanks! Curator: Indeed! Understanding art through the lens of materials and processes opens up new avenues for appreciating both its historical context and enduring appeal.