Audubon

I don’t quite know what to make of Audubon’s title “My Style of Drawing Birds.” The title appears seemingly straightforward; simply put, there does not seem to be not much to it. Yet, there is something very possessive, loaded, and personal about the title. The audience must know that this is MY/Audubon’s (and no one else’s) Style of Drawing Birds. Audubon repeatedly makes the point that his style is distinct from other artists’ styles of depicting birds.

There is the sense that Audubon has spent such a large portion of his life studying and getting to know these creatures that for someone to recreate his style of drawing without really immersing oneself in nature is not the purpose of art.

Audubon explains “the gradual knowledge of the form and the habits of the birds of our country impressed me with the idea that each part of the family must possess a single degree of affinity distinguishable at sight from any one of them” (762). Audubon can draw birds and landscapes because he understands them, has learned about each species’ unique characteristics, and he knows how they function in nature. He “rambles” through nature every opportunity he was given . To create in any other way (as some artists are doing it seems) is cheating or plagiarizing. One could make the argument that naturalists are the best artists (just as Shelley states, poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world). Viewing nature though a more scientific lens is what makes his art what it is.

We are even left with Audubon, who takes an immense amount of pride in his work and is frustrated by those who wish to copy his style of drawing without giving him the credit (and rightfully so), as not having enough agency. For instance, he explains that “I have made some hope that wherever you see them, their similitude to my originals will prove to you at once they are Nought but piracies of My Style of Drawing Birds” (764). The language Audubon employs here is extremely scientific. The similitude will prove the others are fakes and “truth” will be revealed. This statement also encourages the public to engage with and view art.

I really enjoyed reading this piece on how Audubon created his art. He demonstrates how difficult the process was [insert the Dodo comment here], and how he is thankful that his father encouraged him. As we know when we read “Myself” his father seems to take on another persona entirely. The father urges his son to be more academically minded and study mathematics; he partially discourages him from spending his days hunting and hanging out with his friends, which brings up the problems/questions of representation.

The process took an immense amount of tweaking, meticulousness, a lot of wire, close examination of the (dead) specimens, etc. In order to make the birds more real, to copy nature as its moves, he first must have complete control over them in their deadened state. Yet, for Audubon, these dead specimen were still infused with life as “even the eye of the king fisher was as if full of life before me whenever I pressed its lids aside with a finger” (761). Most birds are nearly always in motion (unless maybe the heron), so there is a movement his artwork tries to capture (From looking more closely at the drawings online, you can almost anticipate what the birds are going to do next).

Ironically, it was by luck that Audubon discovered how much the application of chalk could improve his drawing of certain birds as he tried to cover up the water drop that accidently fell onto a portrait of his friend’s face (763). In fact, he doesn’t have complete agency over his work; rather it was by chance he made this discovery. This idea of agency seems to resonate with our earlier discussion of Semmelweis.

In regards to Myself, the structure is fragmented and episodic. At times, Audubon inserts the most seemingly insignificant details into the piece, but they must be in his “autobiography” for his sons to understand him better. The writing appears less scientific as his audience has shifted. (The question of audience also seems like an important one. At first, the autobiography appears to be addressed only to Audubon’s “dear sons” but then later he seems aware that this piece of writing will be read by an audience when he states that “let the reader, whoever he my be, think as he like . . . “ (778). What are we supposed to make, if anything, of this change in address?

The transitions were rather abrupt (like my transition from discussing “My Style of Drawings” and then moving onto” Myself.”) I liked on the fourth page when Audubon has come to the conclusion that he has revealed enough information about his father and “Now, I must return to myself.”

Although dialogue does not appear in the letter to his sons, his writing style and tone changes with every new episode in his life. When Audubon describes himself as a child, it’s as if he is writing from the perspective of a child. His mother seems to be influential when she “hides [her son’s] faults, boasted to every one of [his] useful merits, and . . .said frequently in [his] presence that [he] was the most handsomest boy in France” (768). Not surprisingly, shortly after Audubon goes on to list of all of the things he excels in or those things which he possessed a” considerable” talent for. He is certainly not modest here, but as he ages that fond opinion he asserts with such confidence begins to dissipate.

When he loses all of his possessions from debt, (and can finally become an artist) there is such a real quality about Audubon almost as if he is becoming as realist as the birds he spends so much time drawing. Thinking about Audubon’s writing as visual art, it has an aesthetic appeal to it; I would argue there is a aesthetic timelessness to his work. Does his actual artwork function the same way? Is this scientific artwork “beautiful?” Of course, the answer is yes, but how? Where does it rank and/or how does relate to other art of the time period?

The stages of Audubon’s life somehow need to be viewed and envisioned from afar. But it seems more interesting to me to think of Audubon (the autobiographer) as art? Audubon emphasizes that art is a process, and it would have been interesting to actually see the expression on Audubon’s face as he was writing each detail of his life (along the lines of Velazquez’ Las Meninas).