Read on Twitter
This is going to be kind of a rant. Bear with me.
As you know I do personal projects on a regular basis. Almost all of these projects are (gross) anatomy related. While doing these I noticed something. But first let me tell you how I work on these projects 1/21
As you know I do personal projects on a regular basis. Almost all of these projects are (gross) anatomy related. While doing these I noticed something. But first let me tell you how I work on these projects 1/21
All of these projects are animals that are within my reach. So I normally don’t try to do bonobo or rhinoceros anatomy for example, at least no internal anatomy and not for a personal project. The reason for this is because I want to be able to look at a specimen itself. 2/21
So I use one or two specimens, mostly of animals that are readily available for us as food or for our animals as food. That is how I choose the rat, the octopus and the snail for example (still working on that one). 3/21
Since I want the 3d models to be accurate, I also use as much scientific papers I can get my hands on. I use photos I google as reference. And I look at illustrations and models other people made. 4/21
And that’s where I keep noticing one strange thing: not only are most illustrations copies of other illustrations, even when they are not copies, they are seriously lacking in detail. 5/21
Most of the time I’m really not able to make something if I don’t have an actual specimen. I understand things can’t be too complex all the time, but what is it with copying other peoples stuff and keep putting things in the wrong place. Let's look at an octopus for example. 6/21
If you google “octopus anatomy” a lot of the images are illustrations. And they all look a bit like this: the biggest or most distinct organs are named, but they float a bit in the cavity of the mantle. 7/21
No idea how they relate to each other, what the connections are and how on earth they don’t fall out. 8/21
Same goes for the exoskeleton of insects and other arthropods. These skeletons are distinct features of a species and a specialist could be able to determine which species just by looking at a part of the exoskeleton. Or at least narrow it down to family. 9/21
But if you look at illustrations, you only see an outside glance of the exoskeleton, never a detailed illustration of the joints of the legs, how the mouth pieces fit together or how the attachment of the wings are build. 10/21
And I really wonder why. Even in scientific papers these features are not drawn. That’s not all: even 3d scans of small specimens made for scientific collections are lacking in detail. While those are made with the sole purpose of being a study subject. 11/21
Anyhow. As a result I find myself always looking for the actual specimen to work from. I’m not just an illustrator or 3d modeler, I am a scientific visualizer and I think that the title should stand for something. Quality and accuracy. 12/21
If I do the anatomy of an animal I don’t just want them to look cool (but they do), but I want to know why and how everything fits together. And yes, that takes longer than most illustrations I see. 13/21
But.. are those illustrations merely for decoration or do they serve a purpose? Even for children's books I wouldn't accept wrong illustrations for the purpose of simplicity. There are ways to make an accurate and still simplified visualization 14/21
I consider my work of equal value of a scientist studying their subject. I do the same. And I expect the same level of result, the only difference is that my work is visual. 15/21
Looking at the history of scientific illustration, I know that in earlier centuries my colleagues did reach the level of quality and accuracy I strive for. And some of my current colleagues do. But I see too much copy-paste and sloppy work. 16/21
I really don’t want to diminish the work of other people, but I really wonder why we overwhelmingly see the cheap and fast work everywhere instead of the work of people like me, who consider it their job to deliver quality. 17/21
I think it is as much the “fault” of artists as it is of the people who buy our work. Quality isn’t cheap but if we don’t show what is possible, the people who buy our work don’t know real quality exists, what it can do and keep asking for stuff that isn’t worth showing. 18/21
So I ask my fellow scientific visualizers, illustrators, 3d modelers: don’t settle for less than quality. Do the work, study your subject. And I ask potential clients the same: don’t settle for less than quality. 19/21
Know it’s out there, but we, scientific visualizers need to earn a living. If we don’t get the opportunity to make something worth your research or course or other outlet, we most of the time aren’t able to show it. 20/21
Meanwhile I will go on with making cool, accurate anatomy and such. And I keep getting better and faster in what I do. I’m not cheap but I do ask a fair price worth the project. And I love doing “new” anatomy and working along researchers to get something really cool done! 21/21
P.S. I can imagine somebody will get offended by this rand. But seriously: am I the only one who thinks this? Yes, I work in a niche field, but in other areas of the sciences we do demand quality. Why not in visualization?
