I dare say that there are some out there who think I am being too harsh on the Art Service Industry, yet in other disciplines it would be unthinkable for those who evaluate in any way shape or form not to draw attention to inconsistency. In the more technical areas that would go without saying. How will the art service perform in the more technical area of the arts. I’m afraid there may be a disappointment ahead for those who think that the latitude displayed in the evaluation of painting is not indicative of the weak mental rigger in general.
The written work by Leonardo ‘Trattarto Della Pittura’ contains an observation on perspective the manuscript to where this can be found is MSMS E 16V. The evaluator in question is Carlo Pedreti professor emeritus of art history at the University of California someone who is held in such high regard that amongst his many honours and awards of presidentship of this and that, gold medals and honorary degrees is the highest recognition that the United States of American government can bestow a congressional citation. It would be difficult to express how highly revered he is in the art world, let us see how justified this veneration is.
Although it is difficult for people today to comprehend, the early artists of the Renaissance or Proto Renaissance did not understand perspective. If we look at works by Giotto or Duccio or Fra Filippo Lippi etc. even artists as late as Mantegna their perspective is so disconcertingly askew, I con not help thinking, if it looks so wrong and I hope it did look wrong to them, then why not just work out what perspective was. I like many have never had a perspective lesson in my life neither at school or art college. One can not help thinking why they found it so difficult after all paintings found in Pompeii exhibited better perspective and some work in the Vatican caves exhibited perfect perspective also rules has already been formulated for perspective by Alhazen in the 11c. . However, the Renaissance rules were set down by Alberti and are known as Alberti perspective although Brunelleschi had produced similar results sometime earlier. The upshot of this perspective is in fact an intercepting screen across the visual cone or visual pyramid as Alberti calls it. Put simply, to draw the view onto a window. Brunelleschi method essentially sounds different but is in fact Identical. He produced a painting on a panel with a hole in the centre. Antonio Manetti in his book ‘ The life of Brunelleschi’ describes the process in which a mirror is placed in front of the painting and the painter looks from the back of the panel through the hole at the reflection of the painting. The mirror is moved in and out of the visual cone enabling the painting to fit the view precisely ensuring the painting fits the view precisely. Although you may no doubt recognise the similarity the real relevance will become apparent in due course. For the problem with this type of translation is that it produces anamorphism imagine extending the length of the window i.e. widening the angle of view and the distortion will become more apparent. This is the type of illusion in the painting The Ambassadors by Holbein of a skull which is elongated but can be seen in its proper form by viewing it from a very acute angle. A more practical example would be the very convincing pavement paintings of holes in the ground etc.
The written work by Leonardo ‘Trattarto Della Pittura’ contains an observation on perspective the manuscript to where this can be found is MSMS E 16V. The evaluator in question is Carlo Pedreti professor emeritus of art history at the University of California someone who is held in such high regard that amongst his many honours and awards of presidentship of this and that, gold medals and honorary degrees is the highest recognition that the United States of American government can bestow a congressional citation. It would be difficult to express how highly revered he is in the art world, let us see how justified this veneration is.
Although it is difficult for people today to comprehend, the early artists of the Renaissance or Proto Renaissance did not understand perspective. If we look at works by Giotto or Duccio or Fra Filippo Lippi etc. even artists as late as Mantegna their perspective is so disconcertingly askew, I con not help thinking, if it looks so wrong and I hope it did look wrong to them, then why not just work out what perspective was. I like many have never had a perspective lesson in my life neither at school or art college. One can not help thinking why they found it so difficult after all paintings found in Pompeii exhibited better perspective and some work in the Vatican caves exhibited perfect perspective also rules has already been formulated for perspective by Alhazen in the 11c. . However, the Renaissance rules were set down by Alberti and are known as Alberti perspective although Brunelleschi had produced similar results sometime earlier. The upshot of this perspective is in fact an intercepting screen across the visual cone or visual pyramid as Alberti calls it. Put simply, to draw the view onto a window. Brunelleschi method essentially sounds different but is in fact Identical. He produced a painting on a panel with a hole in the centre. Antonio Manetti in his book ‘ The life of Brunelleschi’ describes the process in which a mirror is placed in front of the painting and the painter looks from the back of the panel through the hole at the reflection of the painting. The mirror is moved in and out of the visual cone enabling the painting to fit the view precisely ensuring the painting fits the view precisely. Although you may no doubt recognise the similarity the real relevance will become apparent in due course. For the problem with this type of translation is that it produces anamorphism imagine extending the length of the window i.e. widening the angle of view and the distortion will become more apparent. This is the type of illusion in the painting The Ambassadors by Holbein of a skull which is elongated but can be seen in its proper form by viewing it from a very acute angle. A more practical example would be the very convincing pavement paintings of holes in the ground etc.
Below is the same image viewed from the wrong side
It maybe worth injecting a note of caution here by saying, do not jump to the conclusion that because these holes etc. look so convincing that this form of 2D representation is satisfactory.
This is an extreme if brilliant distortion producing the illusion.
Leonardo explains it perfectly:
No comments:
Post a Comment