New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Old Art Offers Agriculture Info

Art museums are filled with centuries-old paintings with details of plants that today give us clues about evolution and breeding practices.

The Harvesters, by Peter Bruegel the Elder; 1565.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and Rogers Fund, 1919

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Pieter Bruegel’s iconic 1565 painting The Harvesters hangs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The work depicts peasants cutting stalks of wheat nearly as tall as they are.

“Nowadays, if you walk through a wheat field, you basically see that wheat is about knee-height. The short stature is essentially a consequence of breeding from the second half of the 20th century.”

University of Ghent biologist Ive De Smet.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Selective breeding favoredgenes for reduced height, because they came along with genes for increasing yields to feed a growing population. De Smet says wheat is just one example of how historical artwork can allow us to track the transformation of food crops over time. He teamed up with art historian David Vergauwen of Amarant to catalogue such artwork around the world.

“We have been mainly looking at things where we kind of can spot changes in shape, in color, in size.”

Friends since childhood, their interest in plants in artwork began with a visit to the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia—where they noticed an odd-looking watermelon in an early-17th-century painting by Flemish artist Frans Snyders. 

“So if you think of a watermelon, you cut it through, it should be dark red on the inside. But that one appeared to be pale and white.”

Biologist De Smet assumed the painter had done a poor job. But art historian Vergauwen had a different idea.

“He says, ‘No, this is one of the best painters ever from that era. So if he paints it like that, that’s the way it must have looked like.’”

Other paintings revealed that both red and white watermelons were cultivated during the 17th century. The color is determined by a gene that controls the pigment lycopene.

“There must have been some sort of mutation preventing the accumulation of that color. Now, with all the genetic knowledge that we have from various plant species, we can look in more detail how something comes about.”

For example, De Smet says carrots first started to be depicted as orange only in the 16th century, thanks to selective breeding for the beta-carotene pigment. And until the 18th century, European strawberries appear tiny in paintings—they then grew in size with the advent of crossbreeding with North American varieties.

The research is in the journal Trends in Plant Science. [David Vergauwen and Ive De Smet, Genomes on canvas: Artist’s perspective on evolution of plant-based foods]

Ultimately, the team hopes to create an online research database of historical plant artwork. They seek the contributions of art enthusiasts around the world via the social media hashtag #artgenetics. But, they caution, the source paintings need to be realistic.

“If you're going to use, for example, Picasso to try and understand how a pear looked in the early 20th century, you might be misled.”

Indeed, such an attempt could be fruitless.

—Susanne Bard

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Susanne Bard is a science writer and multimedia producer based on the West Coast. She has created content for Scientific American, Science magazine, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as for museums and zoos.

More by Susanne Bard

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe