Ruthven or Harper? Should you see the feathers or count the wings?
How to simplify? What’s essential; what’s not? How many details to include? These are questions both lawyers and painters ask themselves. How many questions should I ask this witness? How many facts should I put in this brief? What are the main points for the client? the judge? Should I paint in all the feathers or only a few to suggest others. How much to include; what to discard? Selectivity is key in art and law (and blogs!). Selectivity is an artful judgment call.

The works of two remarkable wildlife artists from Cincinnati, Charley Harper (1922-2007) and John Ruthven (1927-  ), demonstrate the point. Recently, Ruthven and Harper birds have been enlarged into murals, painted by a non-profit named ArtWorks on the sides of downtown Cincinnati buildings.

Here’s the Harper mural:

And here’s the Ruthven mural:

A Harper bird is simplified to its essential, nearly abstract, form. A Ruthven bird is detailed in the tradition of John James Audubon (1785-1851), the French-American painter, naturalist and ornithologist.

About his minimalist viewpoint, Charley Harper said: “ I don’t see the feathers in the wings, I just count the wings.” As lawyers, choosing minimalism or factualism, or something in between, is a judgment call. What will work best to accomplish what you and your client want? Facing a blank canvas rather than blank legal pad, a painter also has to decide whether to see the feathers or count the wings.

Search this Blog

Media Contact

Recent Posts

Jump to Page

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.