This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American
Botanical art has some conventions that have helped the practice remain accurate and disciplined: portions of the plants painted in isolation on white backgrounds; often 1:1 in size with the real plant; typically in watercolour for the range of colours (Opera Pink, anyone?) and known factors in preservation.
After seeing these works-in-progress by Mieke Roth, I find myself wondering why more of it doesn't look like this:
You can also view this one on SketchFab, in Roth's 3D portfolio.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
About the works, Mieke told me
There is only one thing, but that is me being a perfectionist: the illustration (Ceropegia sandersonii) as is isn’t correct yet. I did a lot of work on the flower itself and that one I made sure to be correct, and on the materials and such, but the twig and stem it is on are not entirely correct. Those I did more on how I wanted it to “feel”. And regarding the black background: I actually find it very effective with botanical renders. And the funny thing is that most of the time I do prefer white backgrounds!
I feel quiet, sacred wonder seeing these organic forms floating and illuminated in blackness. Like stained glass in a darkened cathedral. I love it. As soon as I saw these in her Twitter feed, I knew I had to share them here on Symbiartic.
- -
Links:
miekeroth.com - Website Portfolio
animalinside.eu - 3D animal anatomy
SketchFab - See Roth's 3D portfolio
@miekeroth on Twitter - one of the most active #sciart Twitter users
You may also enjoy: