Slate has an interesting slide show about Ernst Haeckel’s life and work. The commentary touches on the most controversial aspects of Haeckel’s legacy (doctored embryo drawings, racism, etc), but with the aid of some truly stunning pictures, it does a good job at offering a balanced look at this amazingly gifted scientist and artist.
Interestingly, a movie based largely on Haeckel’s story is about to come out. Too bad the casting was done long ago, because judging from the photograph in Slate’s second slide (reproduced here, Haeckel on the left), with a wig and a fake beard Dembski would have been a shoo-in for Haeckel’s part.
14 Comments
Shirley Knott · 18 August 2005
But adding additional fake anything to Dembski would likely result in a total implosion.
Is there anything whatsover about him which is honest and genuine?
hugs,
Shirley Knott
Andrea Bottaro · 18 August 2005
Well, Dembski has been impersonating a scientist pretty much full-time for over a decade, so he has much more experience with the character that any professional actor out there...
;-)
Dan Phelps · 18 August 2005
Too bad the movie/DVD is so expensive. Any chance it will be available at a reasonable price someday?
Kele · 18 August 2005
With a price like that, how do they get any sales? Or am I just ignorant in that a lot of movies are priced like this and people buy them?
Sir_Toejam · 18 August 2005
I think somewhere along the line, everything worth buying was priced out of the range of anyone trying to make a living as a scientist.
:)
Pedro Ferrousgate · 18 August 2005
Sir_Toejam · 18 August 2005
How do you know he isn't.
and don't call me surely...
Shirley Knott · 19 August 2005
No, dearie, I'm thinking he's pretending not to be an idiot.
And a singularly inept performance it is, too.
hugs,
Shirley Knott
"I'm not saying he's dishonest, but his wife has to call the dog to come in for dinner"
Katarina · 19 August 2005
The slide show is a brilliant summary. I found interesting the defense of Heackel's tree illustration. Doesn't have to have a hierarchial interpretation. Because certain species or races made it to the top of the tree, that doesn't prove they are better, only that they evolved separately. Whatever traits may be modified, it is hard to tell whether those traits make them superior.
steve · 19 August 2005
No bathroom wall, so i'm putting this here. Good update on Pastafarianism:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/pastafarianism_flyin.html
Louis II de Bourbon · 19 August 2005
I actually saw the film "Proteus" at the Atlanta film festival last year with the director in attendance. It was visually stunning. I'd recommend it even if you don't care one way or another about Haeckel himself. I would say that the film is a work of art first and a documentary a distant second.
Lukas · 20 August 2005
If you are interested in Haeckel several of his works can be found at Kurt Stüber's Online Library:
http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/stueber_library.html
particularly beatiful are: "Kunstformen der Natur" http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/haeckel/kunstformen/natur.html
and "Die Radiolarien" http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/haeckel/radiolarien/index.html
Andrea Bottaro · 20 August 2005
Lukas:
Thanks - those are beautiful!
Sir_Toejam · 21 August 2005
I bought a copy of Artforms in Nature a couple years back. Is it out of print now? i couldn't seem to find it for sale anymore.
If you want to use Haeckel's artwork yourself, this site has png versions that are quite useful:
http://draves.org/pix/kdn/