 |
| Steller's Jay- Cyanocitta stelleri |
|
At Explore Tahoe, I am currently
working on some sheets to complement a childrens' “Discovery Table”
and both add some dimension to the information already given and give
my coworkers and I some interpretive tools to help reach out to
visitors. In researching, I came across
two facts which I paired
with the above photo and connected like this:
“Is this Bird Blue?
While
a Steller’s Jay does have a beautiful blue coloring, the blue is
not actually a pigment or natural color of its feathers. If you
were to hold one of its feathers up in front of a bright light, it
would actually have more of a brown color. This is because the blue
is a “structural color” meaning that it’s caused by
microscopic patterns in the feather’s physical shape. These tiny
shapes help to absorb all but the most easily scattered,
low-wavelength light which happen to be blue and violet. These two
colors are then reflected back out. Our eyes are much more
sensitive to blue than violet, so the Jay appears blue to us!
This
is similar to the reason why Lake Tahoe has different shades of
blue. In the lake’s case, light is absorbed by tiny particles in
the water and the water molecules themselves. The deeper the water
is, the more light is absorbed as it travels through. The more
light which is absorbed, the darker the shade of blue that appears
to us.”
These are beautiful facts to me not
just for what they impart or for the elegance of one idea helping to
answer two loosely connected questions but for the many other questions they
can open up. We know what causes those feathers to appear blue to
us. How do they appear to a bird who can see farther into the
ultraviolet range? Why those colors there on the Jay's wings and not
on its head? Why these iridescent patterns at all but why in places
with such uniformity within species and such stunning diversity
across species? Why should they look pleasing to us as well? What
do these things mean to the birds themselves? They have been proven
to have an effect upon mating but why did they evolve in the first
place? Evolution as a theory can teach us how these patterns may
have evolved but as yet cannot incorporate quite why they have
evolved as opposed to other and simpler means to the same ends.
On the whole, nature doesn't do
simplicity. There are simple concepts and patterns within it that we
can grasp but its complexity is so great as to be almost
indescribable except as evidence of a greater order which we cannot
yet understand. This is what Wendell Berry describes as “a music
so vast that no one hears it except in fragments.” We can grasp
these small parts but must always keep in mind that they are just
that, parts of a larger order that we cannot as yet fully see.
The mind needs these mysteries. Just
as we can partially explain these patterns in bird plumage, we can
partially explain the intricacies of the brain as a series of
chemical impulses. This knowledge can have serious and beneficial
effects in finding treatments for mental disease and disorder but how
can it ever hope to account for how the mind and its already
dizzyingly complex array of emotional shades interacts with the
seemingly infinite complexity of the world around us and the other
minds around that to create such nuanced and relatively exact
communication as we see in works of art from the great on down to the
most simple. This is still the realm of the creative mind and can
still only be apprehended in parts by the artistic spirit. This is
part of the essential nature of art and creativity: To give us the
mental, spiritual, and emotional tools to be able to understand more
deeply the facets and obscure connections of the world around,
inside, and between us. We can analyze great works of art but it
would take lifetimes to understand precisely where it came from out
of the complex currents of history, society, personal history,
emotional intensity, abstract expression and so on. To say nothing
of the question of how exactly it is able to bridge that gap and
resonate with its audience in all of their own endless and
ever-changing complexity. And then to attempt to talk about these
things coming about from a base of simple chemical impulses. It
seems futile in one sense, but its very nature as overwhelmingly
boundless mystery is sustaining to that constantly hungry imagination
within us. We may not be able to explain the complexity of bird
plumage and our own form of art and dreams but we can dream pointedly
and endlessly about them. These huge mysteries create wellsprings of
questions which the mind can play at and which can carry us onward
into a deeper understanding and connection with ourselves and the
beautiful world around us.