3 ms·
There's a good reason for it. Although you can see the hindwings on most (but not all) butterfly species when they're resting, this isn't the case with most m
by DonaldFisk 3y ago
There's a good reason for it. Although you can see the hindwings on most (but not all) butterfly species when they're resting, this isn't the case with most moths. So, in collections of lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), entomologists adopted the practice of spreading the wings so that you can see both pairs clearly. It might not be natural but it's more helpful for identification purposes.
- Jensson 3y agoIt is like having a collection of human photos were they all T-pose. Makes identification easy, but not very beautiful or natural.
- DonaldFisk 3y agoYes, it's a bit like those paintings of galloping horses made before the invention of short exposure photography showed how horses really look when they gallop. I suppose it's down to laziness - people could go out and take photographs of butterflies feeding at flowers, but no, they just copy a picture from a field guide and hope most people don't notice.
- jojobas 3y agoMaybe it's conditioning or whatever, but I find butterflies more beautiful when dead. Maybe it's about more symmetry and balance so not just conditioning.
- Jensson 3y agoIt doesn't look like a living animal that way. It is a nice icon or image, but not a nice picture of an animal. Although maybe that is the point, insects are gross so humans maybe prefer the non animal like picture of it. Many don't like the actual body of a butterfly, they just want the colorful wings so drawing it in a way that makes you not see it as an animal could be better for that reason.
- jojobas 3y ago>It doesn't look like a living animal that way. Did you think that before you learned about this pinning convention? I didn't, and don't.
- Jensson 3y agoYou do feel the difference even if you don't think about it. Art is all about details we don't think about but it really feels much better when the details are there. Did I think about the lack of shading details in graphics 15 years ago? No, not at all really. But if I look at graphics today it looks so much better, our brains really notices all those unnatural details even if you can't point them out. I never felt butterfly images looked particularly good, just looked like pasted in stills. Until I read this article several years ago I didn't know why all the butterfly images looked bad, but now I do. When I look at videos of butterflies they do look like animals that move around, they don't have perfect angles and wings flaps around in different directions so you don't always have symmetry etc, it is a massive difference. Note, the difference isn't that the particular pose is "dead pose" or whatever they say in the article. The problem is that they use the exact same pose for every butterfly all the time with a perfect angle, that makes your brain identify them as fake stills. You don't need any particular skills for your brain to see that, you just aren't really aware of it. When I see drawings of other animals and insects I don't see the same thing, they are drawn in all sorts of poses and positions and the artists make sure the angles aren't perfect to make them feel natural, but apparently artists don't treat butterflies like they treat other animals instead they seem to be drawn and animated like falling leaves.