The idealized representation of geological strata is one of the most striking aspects of late fifteenth-century Italian pictorial landscapes. Yet medieval learned “meteorology”, which also included today’s geology and mineralogy, largely ignored this highly visible feature of the Earth’s surface. In this paper, I argue that the investigation of Earth strata (or “skins”, as they were called) was indeed an empirical skill, practiced by artisans involved with mining and civilian or hydraulic engineering. The knowledge of different “soils”, of their properties, and of their vertical differentiation was a practical tool, employed by water prospectors to locate water sources or by builders to design the foundations of edifices. The common understanding that the crust of the Earth was composed of “page-like skins”, made then its way into paintings whose authors belonged to the same cultural and social environment (and were sometimes the same person). Literary masterpieces of the Italian humanism, like Leon Battista Alberti’s On the Art of Building, attest that this knowledge did not remain confined to trade expertise and to oral and vernacular communication. Leonardo da Vinci’s discussion of Earth strata has often been touted as an example of unique genius ahead of his time. On the contrary, I suggest that the Tuscan artist built upon a decades-long tradition of artisanal knowledge and practices, which he framed within a theoretical template mostly derived from Aristotelian meteorology.

The seventeenth century witnessed a surge of studies that deal with the interior, history and make-up of planet Earth. In the realms of theology, (biblical) history, mining, geography, alchemy or the study of fossils, natural philosophers and other specialists were exploring the different histories of the Earths creation, development and make-up. Over the course of roughly a century, the understanding of ‘Earth’ changed radically – not only in terms of ideas, but also in terms of representation. Many of the works that dealt with the subject include rich and complex illustrations. Moreover, the status of visual knowledge notably changed in this period, as did the way in which visual knowledge was produced and constituted. In the case of the earth, the epistemological nature of visual material is even more complex: one of the great problems these authors were facing was the fact that they are discussing (and representing) something that cannot be seen, but has instead to be imagined. The use of visual material both shows the changes in visual epistemology in this period, as well as the intricate relationship between image and idea. This paper will study the role of visual material seventeenth and eighteenth century (1650-1750) studies on the history and nature of the earth. With special attention for the role that visual material plays in constituting and facilitating changing conceptions of ‘earth’, it focuses both on key players such as Leibniz and Descartes as well as the publishers and illustrators that shaped these works.

The present paper looks at the research work developed in the early twentieth century by the histologist Abel L. Salazar (1889-1946) to explore the role of visual representations in the production of scientific knowledge. Medical doctor, professor, scientist and visual artist, Abel Salazar is a multifaceted figure of the Portuguese cultural setting of his time. Resorting extensively on the so-called tannin-iron staining method in the study of mammalian tissue slices, Salazar´s writings also include the procedure of microscopic drawing. These texts are an expression of the methodological concern that is well present in his research work. Building upon published texts (papers and textbooks), as well as archival sources, my analysis focuses on his effort in reflecting on the process of drawing in the record of microscopy observations and in the training of the researcher as observer. I will argue that staining and drawing are closely linked tools in his work, both present at the level of knowledge production, and, more broadly, that drawing may have an important epistemic role in the scientific practice.

My presentation investigates two key concepts that both in historical and museological research need more analysis on – virtual travel and immersion – and their relationships with the 17th century English natural history collections, commonly known as cabinets of curiosity. Virtual travel is a concept far older than one would think meaning basically being “as good as” actual travel. Immersion, on the other hand, is a term from modern day research on virtuality, meaning e.g. the feeling of getting “sucked” into the world of a video game. My argument is, that in this era with relatively little information about faraway places, and the lack of more “advanced” technologies for recreational virtual travel, experiencing these early scientific collections would have been extremely sensual and immersive, to a degree we cannot fully relate to today. The reasons for feeling the need to replace travel were not straightforward, but they shed light on the complicated relationship the premodern people had on travelling, empiricism, and seeing with one's own eyes altogether. Because these collections were in the center of both the scientific (e.g. medicinal), and entertainment cultures of Early Modern Europe, their immersive qualities resulted in the continuous increase in the demand and consumption of exotic objects and products impacting the global networks of trade and science. This presentation is based on my dissertation, which explores themes such as the interplay between materiality, sensory experience, and geographical imagination.