Picturing Science: Museum Scientists and Imaging Technologies

Abstract

Hung in what would otherwise be considered a hallway bypass between the Hall of African Mammals and the African Peoples Gallery is the exhibit Picturing Science: Museum Scientists and Imaging Technologies. The 20 sets of images included in the exhibit all resulted from ongoing research projects at the American Museum of Natural History and have been produced through advanced imaging technologies. The relationship between science and art presented here does not breach any conventional popular views. The notion that “science happens here” need not be explained once inside the hallowed halls of the Museum. That this science can also be aesthetically pleasing appears to be a revelation for the curators and a tool with which they hope to entice the general audience into a dialogue with science. The exhibit is composed of various components that work to contextualize these images as either scientific or artistic. Thus while it implicitly, and on occasion explicitly, separates out art and science as independent pursuits, the resulting overall effect of the exhibit almost succeeds in locating these images in both spheres. Each image, or set of images, is presented as part of the work of a specific museum scientist and includes a description of the imagemaking process. In each case, the visual image is depicted as solving (resolving) a specific scientific question/problem. A developing tear in one of the famous taxidermied African elephants from the aforementioned Hall is explained through an x-ray of the elephant’s head. The creation of photomontage aids in the identification of various species through advanced imaging of specific anatomies. These images are to be understood as part of the scientific work of the Museum and not as products unto themselves. While the captions for the exhibited images work to contextualize them as scientific, the gallery is designed to legitimize them as art. To this effect, the exhibit adheres to the conventions of gallery art, including mounting and color, in a nod to Warhol and other pop artists. The deep maroon gallery walls and blindingly artificial colors used in the images hark to the 1980s and an era of early computer graphics. The coloration of the images is very rarely addressed. The images are all mounted with corresponding information panels that uniformly provide a description along with three categorical identifiers: the researcher, the topic—intriguingly labeled as either “discovering or understanding”—and the technology used to produce the image. Each of these categories defines the images within the context of scientific work. Noticeably, none of the images are dated, giving the impression that this is current and cutting edge. These panels have been designed not unlike a computer app and almost invite the observer to click on each of the categories for further information. Although they are static text panels, they appear as if they could be digital and, therefore, interactive. For all the information on the scientific processes at work, there is an absence of information on the aesthetic design of each image. Just as the colors go unexplained, so too do issues related to scale, perspective or repetition. The emphasis on these images as tools of scientific research seems to imply that these components are incidental to the process. This contributes to the overarching message that science editor-in-chief Michael Punt . managing editor Bryony Dalefield associate editors Martha Blassnigg, Hannah Drayson, Dene Grigar, John Vines A full selection of reviews is published monthly on the LR web site: . leonardo reviews