Why do we like it? Quite easy to explain: we think
that it is fascinating how somebody managed to translate the tiny transparent
tardigrade into a tangible object - and, at a reasonable price.
Of course one might still criticize the result. For example the razor-sharp
claws of Hypsibius dujardini - look definitely softer than in reality.
But we can imagine that those claws might be terribly difficult to cast in artificial
resin. And it must be admitted that the overall impression of transparency,
in particular of the green stomach-intestine region, is quite impressive.
Light microscopic photography will never reach a similar threedimensional appeal.
It is not so much a question of stacking focus levels but moreover a problem
of perspective. Under the light microscope you will mostly end up with a top view (dorsal view)
of the tardigrade, front or side views are difficult to achieve.
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) cannot compete as well. Agreed,
most SEM images do show an impressive threedimensional depth. But, at a price:
those SEM tardigrades look like grey dust cleaner bags. All the transpareny has gone,
not even the eyes are visible any more, simply because the electron beam cannot penetrate into the tardigrade skin.
Of course the Ebay tardigrade is small, definitely smaller than e.g. Damian Hirst's famous shark.
But, when looking at it soberly, Damian Hirst's shark is simply a dead animal shown in a 1:1 scale,
whereas the Ebay tardigrade is a quite realistic translation of a microscopic marvel into an tangible object.
And without the necessity to kill a tardigrade. Perfect.
Moreover it is quite cheap when compared to the estimated 8 to 12 Mio. bucks paid for the art shark.
One positive aspect of the art shark is the inbuilt criticism towards zoological animal specimen preservation
as declared by the artist (so we feel some sympathy for the shark artist and his product as well).
|