Anatomie van de botten in de voet

Curator: What strikes me first is how detached this rendering of the foot seems. Not just anatomically, but emotionally. It's like a specimen. Editor: Yes, Sybolt Berghuis' "Anatomie van de botten in de voet," created around 1869, is certainly clinical in its execution. The watercolor and ink on toned paper give it an antique feel, as if peering into a historical medical text. It also makes me consider the social contexts of scientific illustration during this period; access to knowledge like this wasn't universal, was it? Who would have used such a rendering? Curator: Exactly, and I think that is part of why it’s compelling! While the overall subject matter feels inherently physical, it really is the lettering in the composition, the symbols really, that guide how you read and interpret it. Take the lettering, like the ‘M’, ‘L’ and ‘S’ and then how they are mirrored… Do you think these linguistic annotations help or distract from understanding it? Editor: Distract, absolutely. As someone approaching it today, they don’t exactly illuminate much on first glance, which I think pushes you further into considering questions around labor. A visual depiction of foot anatomy at this scale removes it from the laboring, walking body itself. Curator: The removal is certainly part of it, isn’t it? I’d almost consider the visual approach quite surgical; each plane and angle is broken down through what appears to be light pencil work into a series of geometrical problems that seek a specific answer, in this instance the mechanics of movement! Editor: It's quite different from, say, a romantic landscape painting, which invited viewers into imagined spaces. Here, you're kept at a distance, confronted with the dissected, analyzed form. I see this in a larger narrative of scientific and technological advancement and also about the medical industrial complex… Where is the humanity? Curator: I agree that this image pushes us towards an interrogation, not an easy solution. Editor: Yes, and I think in recognizing that ambiguity and tension that Berghuis manages to keep that critical dialogue going today, across history.