The Art Service Industry, part 2

Although vision is part of that perception, visually this symbol has very little resemblance to mummy. Gombrich in his book 'Art and Illusion' asks the question "a problem which has haunted the minds of art historians for many generations..........will the paintings we accept as true to life look as unconvincing to future generations as Egyptian paintings looked to us?" What Gombrich fails to understand here, and it seems fellow art historians, is that the Egyptians were illustrating perception.
This is not a progression, as Gombrich suggests where painting improves with time, this is pre disentangling vision from perception. I hope the minds of art historians are hence forth released from this haunting (I excluded those who were so much further up the artistic ladder than Gombrich that they were never so haunted) So the reader is left in no doubt of Sir Ernest Gombrich's status in the art world I list his honours and credits below:
Gombrich, Sir Ernest (Hans Josef) (1) Knighted 1972. (2) CBE 1966. (3)FBA 1960. (4) FSA 1961. (5) PhD (Vienna). (6) MA Oxon & Cantab. (7) Director of the Warburg Institute & Professor of the History of the Classic Tradition in the University of London 1959-76. (8) Research Asst. Warburg Inst., 1936-39. (9) Research Fellow, 1946-48. (10) Lectr, 1948-54. (11) Reader, 1954-56. (12) Special Lectr, 1956-59, Warburg Inst., Univ. of London. (13) Durning-Lawrence Prof. of the History of Art, London Univ. University Coll, 1956-59. (14) Slade Prof. of Fine Art in the University of Oxford, 1950-53. (15)Visiting Prof. of Fine Art, Harvard Univ. 1959. (16) Slade Prof. of Fine Art, Cambridge Univ. 1961-63. (17) Lethaby Prof. RCA. 1967-68. (18) Andrew D. White Prof-at-Large, Cornell, 1970-77. (19) A Trustee of the British Museum, 1974-79. (20) Mem., Museums and Galleries (formerly Standing Comm. on Museums & Galleries),1975-82. (21) Hon. Fellow, Jesus Coll., Cambridge, 1963. (22) FRSL. 1969. (23) Foreign Hon. Mem., American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1964. (24) for. Mem., Amer. Philosophical Soc., 1968 (25) Corresponding Member: Accademia della Scienze d Torino, 1962. (26) Royal Acad. of Arts and Sciences, Uppsala, 1970. (27) Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, 1973. (28) Bayerische Akad. der Wissenschaften, 1979. (29) Royal Swedish Acad. of Sciences, 1981. (30) Hon. FRIBA, 1971. (31) Hon. Fellow: Royal Acad. of Arts, 1982. (32) Bezalel Acad. of Arts & Design, 1983. (33) Hon. DLitt: Belfast, 1963, London 1976. (34) Hon. LLD St Andrews, 1965. (35) Hon LittD: Leeds, 1965, Cambridge, 1970, Manchester, 1974. (36) Hon., DLitt: Oxford, 1969; Harvard, 1976. (37) Hon. Dr. Lit. Hum; Chicago, 1975; Pennsylvania, 1977; DU Essex, 1977. (38) Hon. DHL Brandeis. 1981. (39) Hon Dr RCA, 1984. (40) W.H.Smith Literary Award, 1964. (41) Erasmus Prize, 1975. (42) Hegel Prize, 1976. (43) Medal of New York Univ., for Distinguished \Visitors, 1970. (44) Ehrenkreuz fur Wissenschaft und Kunst, 1st cl., Austria, 1975. (45) Medal of College de France, 1977. (46) Orden Pour le Merite fur Wissenschaften und Kunste, 1977. (47) Ehrenzeichen fur Wissenschaft und Knust, Austria. 1984.

What we perceive can give us shorthand we know as symbols and introduces a value judgement: what is the most important aspect of this subject? When the subject is a person, this value judgement shifts up a gear, the physiological impact of the face of this subject takes precedence over feet or knees, the eyes on this face out rank any other feature. When these features are translated into 2D their precedence is ranked by size. In reality eyes are give or take, about the size of finger nails, yet if we look at the Byzantine example we can see that they are relatively enormous. This dysmorphia continues into the Proto Renaissance, tiny hands and big heads are all too apparent in works as late as Giotto. Medically speaking this type of image could be called a physiological homunculus. Why civilisations should react like a child is a mystery, but whether by a child or a civilisation this sort of work can not really be considered art. Even during the early period when the problem began to be addressed the proto Renaissance artists such as Cimabue 1240 - 1302, Duccio 1255 - 1318 and Giotto 1267 - 1337 I would have a great deal of difficulty calling this work 'art'. The Renaissance can really be considered the science of vision, it is interesting that civilisations which produced the symbolic representations prior to the science of vision, such as Japan with the Hokusai wave approach, don’t have a word for art.