The many forms and functions of taxidermy straddle the divides between art, science, and trophy
MELISSA C. WONG
In spite of the thousands of words ... recorded in our ponderous dictionaries, there are some that seem still to be needed, among them one to define the modern taxidermist ... whose work can only be considered as art because it certainly is not nature.” So wrote Frederic Lucas in 1927.
Lucas, who was a natural historian, a taxidermist, and the Director of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, struggled to assign artistic implication to taxidermy, a term which etymologically means ‘moving skin.’ The attempt to situate taxidermy in the realm of creativity is complicated by the conflicting roles involved in its creation and appreciation. The artistic nature of taxidermic preparation depends on the intent of an object’s creator. Moreover, a taxidermied object itself can be understood alternatively as art, trophy, or research specimen based on the context in which it has been placed.
The category of scientific taxidermy includes specimens made for both public displays and research collections. For the latter, preparation differs slightly; skins are often simply flattened, and there is no attempt to recreate the appearance of a living animal. Research collections also preserve the skeleton and a tissue sample, from which DNA can be extracted.
On the other hand, Hopi Hoekstra says, specimens prepared for public display offer opportunities for artistic expression. Created for museums, homes, and competitions, these objects require an armature to be built precisely following the measurements taken from the original animal.
According to Hoekstra, however, seemingly aesthetic components of taxidermy may in fact serve a scientific function. Apart from making a specimen look lifelike, taxidermists responsible for public museum displays also seek to emphasize an aspect of the animal’s biology. Therefore, carnivores bare their teeth not so they seem menacing, but rather because teeth are a distinguishing feature of this group of mammals.
For those who know little about taxidermy, however, the significance of a given object may lie outside that object itself. While the artistic value of a taxidermied specimen depends on its ultimate function, the meaning a viewer derives from a piece is influenced by its surroundings.
Ultimately, the myriad priorities of taxidermists and their creations complicate how the form itself may be seen as art. However, this very ambiguity illustrates the extent to which the mindset and surroundings of a viewer influence the effect of a given object. For taxidermy, the relationship between a specimen’s intrinsic artistic qualities and its advertised purpose determine how it is perceived on an individual basis.
MELISSA C. WONGIn spite of the thousands of words ... recorded in our ponderous dictionaries, there are some that seem still to be needed, among them one to define the modern taxidermist ... whose work can only be considered as art because it certainly is not nature.” So wrote Frederic Lucas in 1927.
Lucas, who was a natural historian, a taxidermist, and the Director of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, struggled to assign artistic implication to taxidermy, a term which etymologically means ‘moving skin.’ The attempt to situate taxidermy in the realm of creativity is complicated by the conflicting roles involved in its creation and appreciation. The artistic nature of taxidermic preparation depends on the intent of an object’s creator. Moreover, a taxidermied object itself can be understood alternatively as art, trophy, or research specimen based on the context in which it has been placed.
In an age of nature documentaries and zoos, museums still provide academics and members of the public alike with the opportunity to come face-to-face with animals they would otherwise never encounter.
The category of scientific taxidermy includes specimens made for both public displays and research collections. For the latter, preparation differs slightly; skins are often simply flattened, and there is no attempt to recreate the appearance of a living animal. Research collections also preserve the skeleton and a tissue sample, from which DNA can be extracted.
On the other hand, Hopi Hoekstra says, specimens prepared for public display offer opportunities for artistic expression. Created for museums, homes, and competitions, these objects require an armature to be built precisely following the measurements taken from the original animal.
According to Hoekstra, however, seemingly aesthetic components of taxidermy may in fact serve a scientific function. Apart from making a specimen look lifelike, taxidermists responsible for public museum displays also seek to emphasize an aspect of the animal’s biology. Therefore, carnivores bare their teeth not so they seem menacing, but rather because teeth are a distinguishing feature of this group of mammals.
For those who know little about taxidermy, however, the significance of a given object may lie outside that object itself. While the artistic value of a taxidermied specimen depends on its ultimate function, the meaning a viewer derives from a piece is influenced by its surroundings.
Ultimately, the myriad priorities of taxidermists and their creations complicate how the form itself may be seen as art. However, this very ambiguity illustrates the extent to which the mindset and surroundings of a viewer influence the effect of a given object. For taxidermy, the relationship between a specimen’s intrinsic artistic qualities and its advertised purpose determine how it is perceived on an individual basis.
By DENISE J. XU, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Published: Tuesday, March 29, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment