Wildlife art
and illustration: some experiments in Auroville, India
M. Eric Ramanujam 1& S. Joss Brooks 2
1 Principal Investigator (Faunistics),2 Director,
Pitchandikulam Bioresource
Centre/Pitchandikulam Forest Consultants, Auroville, Tamil Nadu 605101, India
Email: 1 ericramanujam@yahoo.co.in
(corresponding author), 2 joss@auroville.org.in
Date
of publication (online): 26 April 2011
Date
of publication (print): 26 April 2011
ISSN
0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)
Editor: Stephen D. Nash
Manuscript
details:
Ms # o2673
Received 12
January 2011
Final received
02 March 2011
Finally
accepted 17 March 2011
Citation: Ramanujam, M.E. & S.J. Brooks (2011).
Wildlife art and illustration: some experiments in Auroville, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(4): 1702–1710.
Copyright: © M. Eric Ramanujam & S. Joss Brooks 2011. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT
allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Author
Details: M. Eric Ramanujam has been a wildlife
illustrator for nearly two decades. Since 1997 he has been involved in full
time conservation and has undertaken wildlife surveys in the Kaliveli region
and Adyar wetland complex. His main sphere of interest is the natural history
of the Indian Eagle Owl Bubo bengalensis. He heads the design and art studios
in Pitchandikulam. S. Joss Brooks established Pitchandikulam,
a forest community in Auroville, and was one of the pioneers of re-establishing
the indigenous coastal vegetation of this region. He is the lead consultant to
the prestigious Government of Tamil Nadu’s Tholkappia Poonga eco-restoration
project in Adyar, Chennai.
Author
Contribution: MER prepared the
manuscript with inputs from JB.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Chennai Rivers Restoration
Trust (CRRT) for their permission to use images of artworks commissioned by
them for the Tholkappia Poonga. We are also thankful to Nilgiri Biosphere
Reserve Park for also allowing us to use images of commissioned works.
Abstract: The various media
experimented with and some experiences have been discussed. The difference between traditional
animal art (where religious and anecdotal insinuation, decoration and function
are the onus) and wildlife art (where exactness to the natural form is the
catchword) has been reiterated. The present schools of wildlife art (American and European) have been
touched upon and so has the theory of our fascination for wildlife art.
Keywords: Conservation education, illustration, imagery, sensitisation,
visual media, wildlife art.
India has a significant history of art,
and animal motifs have always been part of its culture: from the time of the
Mohenjendaro and Harappa civilizations (Grigson 1977; Pati & Parpola 1987–1999),
through the times of the ancient kingdoms (Walter 1958; Anselm & Hermann
1965; Asher & Spink 1989), to the medieval and Mughal period (Beach 1987,
1992; McKibben 1994), and even to this day. But animal motifs were and are
still predominantly used for decorative and functional purposes, often with a religious
or anecdotal insinuation. Such
imagery, however impressive or awe-inspiring, cannot be termed ‘wildlife art’
in the true sense of the term. Wildlife art, as understood in the modern (and scientific and
naturalistic) sense, and propagated by the likes of Ralph Thompson, Sir Peter
Scott, Robert Bateman, Arthur Singer, David Shepherd and other stalwarts of the
genre, is where the artist has sought and captured an exactness of proportion,
form and detail. The striking
divide between animal art for decorative and other purposes, and wildlife art
is obvious within the Mughal School (1526–1857) itself. While Jalaludin Muhammed Akbar
(1542–1605) was interested in historical and mythological events,
Jehangir introduced portrait studies of fauna (Khanam
2009). In this sense, Nur-ud-din Salim Jehangir (1569–1627) can be
considered to be the patron of the first wildlife artists in India, and as he
himself was proficient with brush and pen, can be credited with being among the
first wildlife artists in the country. As is a feature of the Mughal School, these portraits lacked depth, but
the exactitude of proportion, line and colour showed a keen sense of
observation and naturalistic rendering, a feature of wildlife art.
Painting was a passion at the Mughal
court and the first Europeans to seek trading favours in India brought
paintings from their countries as presents or as items of trade.
From the 1780s, India became a major
attraction for a stream of painters from England. With them arrived the art of illusionist oil painting and
naturalistic watercolours and, in association, the techniques of aquatint
engraving and lithography (Guha-Thakurta 1992, 2003). These paintings
introduced Indian painters to perspective, foreshortening, depth, and light and
shade. Thus painters gradually
changed their concepts and compositions in response to foreign influence and
imperial taste (Beach 1987). By
the time of the British rule, realism was the feature of art in the ‘educated
circles’ of those times. During a
period when photography was non-existent or rudimentary or non-applicable to
biological studies, illustration was the only medium for representation. Great
heights were scaled by wildlife artists during that period (eg., Gould 1832) and many of their works and reproductions are
sought after collector’s items today. Scientific illustration too employed many artists and draftsmen and
their work can be seen in many books of that time (eg. Day 1889) and the trend
continued well into the next century (eg. Pocock 1939, 1941). And then came the period of illustrated
field guides when many artists of Indian origin like J.P. Irani, Carl D’Silva,
Maya Ramaswami and Arnab Roy (Ali 2002; Grimmet et al. 1998; Shawl et al.
2009), to name a few, came to prominence.
Today, in spite of formidable advances
in photography and cinematography, art and illustration still hold their ground
because its appeal is widespread and almost universal, with vast potential for
use in conservation education (Nash 2009). The art and science of wildlife imagery has been
experimented with by many, if not all, reputed conservation organizations and
the outputs have been found to be quite encouraging. The reasons, still a subject
of intense debate, may be imbued in us, as the first symbols of humankind were
animals, the first paint was probably animal blood, and for thousands of years
the human experience of the world was charted using animal signs (Berger
1980). Wilson (1984) pioneered ‘biophilia’
– a need we feel for the presence of other creatures around us, essential
for the continued health of our own species. Add to this the evolutionary biologist’s point of view that
there is an innate compulsion encoded in our genes – akin to our tendency
to engage in conflict and altruism, and that ‘feelings’ of ‘dislike’, ‘fear’, ‘compassion’
and ‘love’ are part of our genetic makeup (Dawkins 1976; Goodall 1999) –
and we have a case why imagery is so crucial to progressive thought. Whatever the reason, today we continue
to represent and share our experiences of wildlife through imagery, and with
the availability of a variety of different media, everyone can express their
interpretation in a personal way. Wildlife art seeks not only to generate an appreciation of and
enthusiasm for the natural world, but also advance the interest, education and
concern of the public in the conservation of wildlife.
The experiments at Pitchandikulam in
Auroville International Township carry on the tradition where naturalism,
exactitude and dissemination of information are the catchwords. Pitchandikulam
was established in 1973 and since then it has been experimenting with imagery
to sensitize people to the need to conserve native biodiversity, especially the
coastal forests, popularly referred to as the Tropical Dry Evergreen Forest
(TDEF for short) and its denizens. It has experimented with various media. Some
of the materials and methods employed so far are discussed below.
Painting on Kadapa stone slabs: Kadapa stone, also known as Cuddapah
stone (from the original Telugu, Gadapa) and Kadapa Black or Madras Black (the
latter two trade names), is basically a black limestone intruding into other
rocks (quadrites, dolmites and shale). While the pure black rock slabs are polished and used in interiors, the
impure slabs which contain other rock types show a
variety of colours and textures in the unpolished form. It is these unpolished stone slabs that
are used in painting. The
challenge of painting on stone is to use the natural colours and textures to
advantage (Images 1–3). This
demands clear cut composition of the theme to be
portrayed and minimal painting of backgrounds. In fact, the crux lies in the background painting (or degree
of the lack of it) as backgrounds should enhance the
natural colours and textures, not suppress them.
Painting on boulders: The onus here is to use the shape of
the stone to form the natural contours of the animal (Image 4).
Stone sculpture: Unlike the puristic stone carvings, the
art forms produced so far have combined carving with painting to bring out
form, texture and natural colours of the creatures depicted. Carvings on stones (Images 5–6, 8–10)
have been produced as art forms in their own right or combined with other media
to suit a purpose (for example, granite pillars combined with painted wooden
planks were found most suitable for directional signage (Image 7)).
Ferro cement sculpture: Scaled up versions of animals were
found to be eye-catching and popular (Images 11–13). The onus here is on strength and
durability since most, if not all, sculptures were designed to occupy public
spaces where they are accessible to the public. Life size models have also been produced. It was found more satisfying to
represent fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds rather than mammals because fur
does not translate easily to this medium.
Mosaic: Wildlife art is a forum of imagery
that will hold one’s interest and validate the passion for wildlife but
occasionally it has the potential to push us out of our comfort zone. One such medium that borders on the
abstract is mosaic. But unlike the majority of mosaics depicting animals the
experiments here have a strong element of realism particularly where form,
proportion and colour are concerned. The advantage of mosaic over painting is that it is permanent, though
detail cannot be incorporated. Nevertheless, such semi-abstract visual solutions can be useful in
conveying graphic information (Images 14–16).
Poster Art: It is said that a picture speaks a
thousand words, and though photography can capture a moment, art can share an
entire experience and is a unique way of seeing and sharing the world (<www.
bbcwildlifemagazine.com/artist2009.esp>). Poster art, perforce being visually striking and designed to
attract attention, was found to be one of the best tools for conservation
education (Image 17). The genre of
poster art produced was a combination of research poster and classroom poster
as the need was to produce a simple ‘one image’ format that could sensitise
people to the biotic wealth of the region as well as being scientifically
accurate. Poster art from the time
of Toulouse-Lautrec and Cheret had depended on colour, but black and white images
were also used – for example, the poster publicizing the Exposition
Universelle of 1905 at Liege. Both
colour and black and white (ink) have been experimented with and the results
found quite satisfactory.
The work at Pitchandikulam has leaned a
lot toward the American School of wildlife art. Both the European School (which relies more on field work
and spontaneity) and the American School (which is more studio oriented and
technical) have their advantages, although the American has the upper hand
today because the fashion is ‘ultra realism’ due to the ‘Wyeth syndrome’.
Field culture or
studio culture? The
conundrum is very poignantly reflected by the art critic Brown (2000) who
described the great David Shepherd’s work (European School) in the following
way: “It is Shepherd’s shortcomings that make him interesting
…….. the point of which his technical and
artistic abilities fail him” on one hand, and “There is something exciting
about the artist’s extreme overconfidence and unabashed sentiment, and, in
spite of working within a tradition of such art, something frightfully
authentic”. Pitchandikulam would like to take issues to the next level, viz.,
to achieve the fine balance between field and studio cultures, but that is
easier said than done. This does not mean that we are about to try to replicate
Shepherd’s methodologies – to quote Durrell (1990) “Before I met him for
the first time I was told that I was bound to get on with him as we were as mad
as each other. When we met, I
grant you there were certain similarities but I still maintain that David has
the edge over me, for I would not be so idiotic to go palette in hand, trailing
a BBC crew, in an effort to paint an original portrait of an elephant in the
wild. I forget how many times they
were charged in this ridiculous and dangerous process but I know Chris Parsons
who produced it, came back from Africa with grey streaks in his hair and a
haunted look in his eyes”.
REFERENCES
Ali, S. (2002). The Book of Indian Birds.20th Edition. Bombay Natural History Society and
Oxford University Press, 326pp.
Anselm, J. & G. Hermann
(1965). Mallapuram and the World of
South Indian Art.
Scherpe Verlag, Krefelt, xxxpp.
Asher,
F. & W. Spink (1989). Maurya Figural Sculpture Reconsidered. Ars
Orientalis 19: 1–25.
Beach, M.C. (1987). Early
Mughal Painting. Harvard University Press, 164 pp.
Beach, M.C. (1992). Mughal
and Rajput Painting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Berger, J. (1980). “Why Look At Animals”. “About
Looking”. Readers and Writers Publishing Cooperative, London.
Brown,
N. (2000).David Shepherd. Frieze
Magazine 51: 26.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene.Oxford University Press, NY, 384 pp.
Day, F. (1889). The
Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Fishes. 2 vols. Taylor & Francis,
London. 544
& 509 pp.
Durrell, G. (1990). The Ark’s Anniversary. Collins, London, 179pp.
Goodall, J. (1999). Reason for Hope – a
spiritual journey. Soko Publications
Ltd. & Phillip Berman, 282pp.
Gould, J. (1832). A Century of Birds from the
Himalayan Mountains. Letterpress by N.A.
Vigors.
Grigson, C. (1977). Some Thoughts on Unicorns and Other
Cattle Depicted at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. South Asian Archaeology.Eds: Allehin, B. and F.R. Allchin. Cambridge University Press, pp.166–169.
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T.
Inskipp (1998). Birds
of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University
Press, Delhi, 888pp.
Guha-Thakurta,
T. (1992). The Making of a New “Indian”
Art: Art, Aesthetics, and Nationalism in Bengal, c. 1850–1920. Cambridge
University Press.
Guha-Thakurta,
T. (2003). The Period of Colonisation and
Nationalism, c., 1757–1947.Asher, F.M. (ed.). Art in India: Prehistory to the Present, pp. 109–128.
Khanam, Z. (2009). Birds and Animals in Mughal
Miniature Painting. Eastern Book Corporation,
xvi+164pp+71pl.
McKibben, W.J. (1994). The Monumental
Pillars of Firuz Shah Tughluq. Ars Orientalis 24: 105–118.
Nash, S.D. (2009). Some thoughts and
reflections on the use of illustration in Biodiversity Education Campaigns. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 1:
119–125.
Pati,
J.J. & A. Parpola (1987–1999). Corpus of Indian Seals and
Inscriptions. 2 vols. Suomalaineu Tiedeakatemia,
Helsinki.
Pocock, R.I. (1939). The
Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia—Vol I.
Primates and Carnivora (in part), Families Felidae and Viverridae. Taylor &
Francis, London, 463pp.
Pocock, R.I. (1941). The
Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia—Vol II. Carnivora (continued from Vol I), Suborders Aeluroidea (part) and
Arctoidea. Taylor & Francis, London, 503pp.
Shawl,
T., J. Takpa, P. Tashi & Y. Panchaksharam (2009). Field Guide to the Mammals of
Ladakh. WWF-India and Dept. of Wildlife Protection, Govt. of Jammu and
Kashmir, India.
Walter, S. (1958). On the Development
of Early Buddhist Art in India. Art
Bulletin 40: 95–104.
Wilson, E.O. (1984). “Biophilia”. Harvard University
Press, Massachusetts.