This is not nostalgia—
it’s continuity.
Private collection · Glass-covered specimen boxes · Observation across time
A record made by hand. A memory returned through technology.
In the 1980s, I worked with the Cuban entomologist Fernando de Zayas, drawing beetles through a microscope for his Entomofauna Cubana publications.
Using black ink and dip pens, I translated each specimen into a precise visual record. Every line had to describe structure—not style. Decades later, I returned to those drawings with Adobe Firefly and Photoshop. The contemporary reconstructions do not replace the original observations; they begin with them. This project brings scientific evidence, memory, and new technology into dialogue while keeping authorship and provenance visible.
Observation first.
Reconstruction second.
Each pairing begins with an original ink drawing made from direct microscopic observation. The reconstruction remains accountable to that primary evidence.
The drawing remains the evidence.
Observation comes first
The original illustrations began with a specimen, a microscope, and sustained attention. Contemporary technology enters only after that human act of seeing.
Technology can restore without replacing
Here, AI works as a restitutive instrument. It helps recover texture, volume, and possible coloration from information already present in the drawing. The source and authorship remain visible.
Accuracy still requires judgment
A convincing image is not necessarily a truthful one. Knowledge of anatomy, structure, and scientific illustration is what allows the artist to evaluate—and sometimes reject—the machine’s proposal.
Memory becomes visible again
These reconstructions return me to what I saw through the microscope decades ago. They connect an earlier discipline of hand and eye with the tools of the present.
This is not nostalgia. It is continuity: the trained eye, the hand, and the archive remain the source. Technology enters later—as another lens through which to see what was already there.