Scientific figures give research ideas a visual form through choices of abstraction, composition, and emphasis. Generative AI offers new ways to realize these choices, raising questions about explanatory clarity and purposeful visual expression. We examine these questions through a visual retrospective of 371 motivation and framework figures from 200 papers. The corpus comprises a quota-based main sample of 160 papers spanning four temporal periods and a separate purposive style-contrast sample of 40 papers. A single multimodal judge evaluates six dimensions of communication and design, with three repeated judgments per figure. We attempt source-constrained revisions of all 371 figures, of which 369 pass the recorded fidelity checks. Original-figure ratings show no uniform decline across periods. Revisions increase mean clarity ratings by 0.428 points and decrease aesthetic coherence ratings by 0.111 points on a five-point scale. Gains in the six-dimension average are larger for main-sample motivation figures than for frameworks. Case analyses show that added explanation can clarify comparisons while leaving typographic hierarchy and visual economy unresolved. These model-based findings support researcher-led design, with AI assisting exploration and authors retaining responsibility for explanatory purpose, composition, and scientific relationships. The accompanying atlas and evaluation records are available at https://ntu-ai4x.github.io/Rethinking_Figures/index_en.html.
🌊
