Haeckel on film

Proteus is a film about the 19th century biologist and artist Ernest Haeckel. It's almost a few years old now, and has already worked its way through the blogosphere. But, given Dave's interest in Haeckel and the recent uptick in Haeckel-talk at the blogs, let me bring it up again.

i-ea1d12957313488d3d6e912973b2b5b8-Image2_HaeckelandAssistant.jpg

Haeckel and his assistant, 1866

(no, not a still from the making of Deadwood)

Slate had a beautiful slideshow of Haeckel's images a while back. The Panda's Thumb made note of it. Haeckel's famous for his amazing artistic abilities, and the unbelievable wealth of imagery he left us (well, and being tagged with first defining "ecology"). Panda's Thumb gave it a strange run-down, worrying over the mixture of art and science, holding those two as separate endeavors, and then trying to back out to explain that we can all still appreciate both halves, so long as we keep them apart. I shouldn't say strange, though -- they are certainly attuned to the uses of Haeckel and his drawings as part of Creationist "arguments." (Pharyngula's posts, linked above, about Haeckel and Creationism are similarly based on a concern for misuse of past biology for current anti-evolution arguments. So be it. They are all using historical references to help defend contemporary points. I don't have a particular interest in it, for now.)

Haeckel's art and science were not distinct activities. They were, indeed, born of the same pursuits. And that's okay.

i-db09d554b5cd7db41656d70cd1054353-Image3_RadiolarianColorPain.jpg

Ernst Haeckel, Radiolarian Color Painting, courtesy First Run/Icarus Films (and then Slate.com)

Nick Hopwood, he of the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge, had a really interesting article in Isis (the journal of the History of Science Society) last year: "Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud: Ernst Haeckel's Embryological Illustrations." (It's available on-line, for anyone who wants to read a thorough academic article in the midst of their blog surfing.) Haeckel was accused of fraud for his embryo illustrations. Hopwood's essay (and I'm excerpting the abstract here) "uses the [fraud] accusations to shed light on the novelty of Haeckel's visual argumentation and to explore how images come to count as proper representations or illegitimate schematics as they cross between the esoteric and exoteric circles of science."

The essay also "explains why, though Haeckel was soon accused, controversy ignited only seven years later, after he aligned a disciplinary struggle over embryology with a major confrontation between liberal nationalism and Catholicism--and why the contested pictures nevertheless survived."

Only reason I bring all of this up is that I saw Proteus just recently. And it, naturally, reminded me of all this stuff. And it was a pretty interesting documentary. Not about his embryo stuff, mind you, but about the immense number of contributions he made to our studies of marine life. So go check it out.

That makes this a commentary in a blog post about a film about a biologist who was an artist.

More like this

It is a truism that creationists such as Jonathan Wells can't get enough of Haeckel's embryos, pictures they see as conclusive evidence that evolutionary biology is a fraud foisted on innocents by liberal, godless, evilutionists. "Informed" commentators on the right such as Ann Coulter hew to that…
Casey Luskin, Disco. 'Tute spinner, has recently relaunched a fight over whether and how textbooks use embryological drawings from Ernst Haeckel's 19th century popular works. In his two posts (excerpting from a jumbled essay he wrote for a law review), he repeatedly claims that those drawings are…
I recently co-authored a paper that discussed the utility of history of science for science (Isis 99: 322-330). The abstract reads: This essay argues that science education can gain from close engagement with the history of science both in the training of prospective vocational scientists and in…
Casey Luskin touts the results of a Michigan poll showing that 76% of "Michiganonians" (huh?) agree with the following statement: "Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." My first thought was that this is a typically misleading poll…