The problem of the definitive plant image
cleidi hearn
Representations of plants have long relied on the expectation that a single image can stand in for a living organism. The plant is treated as something that can be rendered once with accuracy and completeness. This assumption is visible in scientific illustrations, naturalist paintings and botanical manuals. The definitive image presents the plant as a stable form that can be catalogued, studied or collected. The idea appears neutral, yet it carries implications for how living subjects are encountered within art and knowledge systems.
The definitive plant image has roots in historical botany. Herbarium sheets and printed plates made plants portable within taxonomic and educational networks. The priority was clarity rather than variability. Many scientific plates included multiple views or dissections, yet these were arranged to support classification rather than to convey the temporal unfolding of plant life. Morphology was prioritised over time. Seasonal change, environmental stress and non ideal forms were seldom included. The result was an efficient system for knowledge transfer that simplified ecological and temporal conditions.
These scientific habits of seeing influenced broader cultural expectations. Academic painting traditions valued precision and decisive form. The ideal bloom or leaf became a reliable subject in still life and landscape. Plants were rarely framed as changing organisms with distinct temporalities. They became formal elements through which skill and taste could be demonstrated. The definitive image was not only descriptive, it shaped what counted as a plant worth depicting.
Twentieth century art complicated earlier assumptions about representation as abstraction, conceptual practices and process based work shifted attention toward material, perceptual and linguistic concerns. Plants appeared within these contexts, though often as motifs rather than as conceptual subjects. Exceptions include Agnes Denes’s Wheatfield in Manhattan in 1982 and the Harrison Studio’s ecological projects, which positioned plants within inquiries into land use, systems ecology and long term environmental change. These practices operated at the margins of the dominant narratives of modernist abstraction, minimalism and conceptualism, so the critical potential of botanical subjects was not widely featured during the period.
The contemporary moment introduces another shift. Digital tools generate accurate plant images with ease and abundance. Photography, scanning and synthetic imaging software can produce large quantities of correct images in seconds. Fidelity is no longer scarce. Under these conditions the definitive plant image becomes ubiquitous. It circulates widely without material engagement or extended looking. The pressure to produce accurate representation loses force because accuracy is already automated.
In this context the definitive plant image becomes a conceptual problem rather than a technical one. The issue is not whether plants can be depicted accurately. The issue is what accuracy leaves out. Plant life unfolds through time. Leaves age, roots adapt, stems bend toward changing light. A single image captures a moment and presents it as sufficient. The living subject is reduced to a single view that implies completion.
Some contemporary art practices approach botanical subjects through duration rather than finality. Instead of seeking a conclusive likeness, they work through multiplicity or repetition. A plant may be painted or documented many times across changing conditions. Each image functions as a trace of encounter rather than a definitive statement. Accuracy is not dismissed. Completion is. The plant remains open to further looking.
Material practices reinforce this orientation. Linen carries agricultural origins within its fibres. Pigment settles unevenly and records hesitation. The surface becomes an index of time rather than a smooth optical product. Multiplicity arises as each iteration encounters new material and environmental conditions. Each depiction interacts with the fibre differently. The plant appears differently across them because the encounter occurs in different moments. Variation becomes visible and the definitive image loses authority.
This orientation carries an ethical dimension grounded in non extractive looking. Without a single authoritative representation in place, the plant is less easily consumed as a static specimen. It remains complex and unresolved. Complexity here refers to temporal and material conditions rather than to symbolism or mystery. The image does not demand interpretation or emotional response. It simply withholds completion and allows time to remain present.
The problem of the definitive plant image is not a call for new styles or for more accurate portrayal. It is a recognition that living subjects resist closure. Plants cannot be reduced to a single frame without loss. Duration, variability and material behaviour exceed the definitive image. By acknowledging this, botanical depiction can move beyond representation and toward inquiry. The image becomes a site of relation rather than a conclusive record.
