| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
 |
|
Keimpe wrote: | Sorry, but I didn't find your "three men standing next to each other" a convincing example of perspective |
I also found it very 'flat' and distant. Rather like a medieval manuscript. In contrast, Michaelangelo's sketch is anything but aloof, it vibrates with vigour even though it's almost clinical in its attention to anatomical detail (and in this period how advanced was knowledge of the way the body works?)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | However it has yet to be explained why, once society in general is used to these novelties, artists no longer have to resort to the artifical aids. |
Once we see how a two-dimensional rendering of three dimensions elongates and skews when viewed from different angles, our brains develop a richer understanding of the relationships between the second and third dimension. In a sense, we no longer need to draw a three dimensional image in two. We learn how to draw a two-dimensional representation of three dimensions in two dimensions.
The early artists had no examples of two-dimensional renderings of three dimensions. They could not therefore learn to mimic two dimensional representations of three. They had to cross the boundary between two worlds.
But everyone since has only had to learn to mimic the examples.
Let me put it this way.
When I produce a perspective sketch, I am really producing a sketch-of-a-perspective-sketch. It is an invented sketch-of-a-perspective-sketch, for sure. But what I have done is to imagine the perspective sketch in my mind and then reproduce it on the page.
The early Renaissance artists could not imagine in their minds what a perspective sketch would look like -- because they had never seen such a thing! They could only imagine the real world. Learning how to produce that in two dimensions was a real achievement.
Except...they didn't achieve it did they. No. It was already done One Thousand, Four Hundred years earlier. And yet not one example survived? Not one example of the elaborate perspective paintings of First Century Rome survived to inspire Renaissance artists?
How is it that the painters of the dark age completely forgot how to paint with realism? Forgot for a thousand years.
This is not believable.
| why can't we grasp the art historical nettle and say, "The trouble with Byzantine art is it's childish ie complete crap." I'm fed up with everyone going round saying how wonderful it is. And that goes for all primitive art as well. |
I completely agree. When we refuse to acknowledge qualitative improvement over time, we actually demean the artists of the past. Pre-Renaissance art simply is not as good. It isn't. The best that can be said is that some examples are masterworks of their time. When a child of three learns his multiplication tables we shout, "Genius!" When a man of thirty-three does the same...we don't.
But what would we shout were we to discover that this year's best-reviewed novel or most popular musical were authored by three-year-old children? That is what we witness on the walls of Pompeii. The evolution of artistic techniques implicit within the received chronology simply does not allow for what we are observing. The inhabitants of 49 AD ought not to have been capable of producing work of this quality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
wireloop wrote: | My point is, is that anybody (between 400 and 800 AD) who 'crafted' an image of a man, animal, etc.. could be ACCUSED of constructing an idol for worship. |
My requests:
Provide one example of one person who suffered persecution for drawings or paintings made between 400 and 800 AD.
Explain why artwork was made in spite of this supposed climate of fear.
Explain why no ecclesiastical document exists in which the specific ban on perspective artwork is suddenly lifted.
Explain why perspective appears to evolve in second-millennium Italy, despite the fact that artists (according to you) already knew how to do it -- they were just pretending not to in order not to be persecuted by the Church.
Explain why latter-day artists living in a country already decorated by ancient perspective paintings believed themselves to be inventors of the mathematical ratios necessary for accurate perspective.
Explain why the church, which supposedly feared paganism and associated perspective drawing, became the biggest patron of perspective art.
Look up "perspective" on Wikipedia and learn what it is before you answer any of these questions.
| And by the 13th century (because Satan got his foot in the door through iconography) the skill of perspective was perfected and broadened to included most anything that the eye could behold. |
But they already had perfect, geometric perspective in Pompeii! In 49 A.D. The skill did not need to be "perfected". The geometric principles were already in use in Italy (to decorate private homes no less) a thousand years prior to the Renaissance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wireloop
In: Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Explain why perspective appears to evolve in second-mellenium Italy, despite the fact that artists (according to you) already knew how to do it -- they were just pretending not to in order not to be persecuted by the Church. |
Ish, perspective (and most other) artwork was essentially forgotten by 500 AD due to lack of interest/pressure. Only around 900 AD do we begin to see some sort of baby-step re-emergence WITHIN THE CHURCH. This is not as puzzling as you make it out to be.
| Explain why the church, which supposedly feared paganism and associated perspective drawing, became the biggest patron of perspective art......Explain why no ecclesiastic document exists in which the specific ban on perspective artwork is suddenly lifted. |
'Tis the evolution of society. You're acting like the 5th century church is the same church as the 13th century church. It is not. A lot has transpired over those 900 years. The 5th century church had a kneejerk reaction, which cooled off by the 13th century. By the 13th century their hand was not so heavy concerning iconography.
With my 1st child I was very over protective, over educational, over, over over..... With my 2nd child I was not as 'over'. Etc....
Moreover it was a social thing, no document needed.
Were the southern baptists able to keep all of their children from listening to Elvis?
No, it was the other way around.
Now the southern baptist music played during the worship service is Rock and Roll.
The church, which at one time forbade art, finally assimilated to art.
| But they already had perfect, geometric perspective in Pompeii! In 49 A.D. The skill did not need to be "perfected". The geometric principles were already in use in Italy (to decorate private homes no less) a thousand years prior to the Renaissance. |
Again, the interest in 'image craft' was lost due to pressure. If I do not teach my child 'Greek' then it is safe to say that she will not teach her child Greek. One generation, that is all it takes to lose interest, to lose skill.
FYI, IMHO Pompeii does not display perfect geometrical perspective like 14th century art.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
wireloop wrote:
Explain why perspective appears to evolve in second-millenium Italy, despite the fact that artists (according to you) already knew how to do it -- they were just pretending not to in order not to be persecuted by the Church.
Ish, perspective (and most other) artwork was essentially forgotten by 500 AD due to lack of interest/pressure. |
You can't appeal to "lack of interest" to explain the lack of artwork unless you have evidence for the lack of interest! Where is your evidence?
Maybe you've got it. But if you do, you must present it.
And don't say, "The lack of artwork is evidence that there was no interest in art!" That is a circular argument, as you well know.
Again. If you claim there was "pressure" on artists to quietly stop drawing and painting (an edict that I, as an artist myself, simply cannot imagine ever having any effect!) you must produce evidence that such pressure existed.
You have offered such a plausible explanation: Church policy and religious fervor led to a decline in artistic expression. There's nothing impossible, let alone implausible about this hypothesis.
But plausibility is never a reason to accept an explanation. Never. We require evidence for every claim.
| 'Tis the evolution of society. You're acting like the 5th century church is the same church as the 13th century church. It is not. A lot has transpired over those 900 years. The 5th century church had a kneejerk reaction, which cooled off by the 13th century. |
Statuary, bas-reliefs and two-dimensional picture-drawing were all just as associated with "paganism" as was perspective. As we see in Pompeii and Herculaneum, all these types of art were used even in brothels. Why was perspective artwork singled out for specific repression, such that every artist in Italy forgot completely how to do it and the principles all had to be reinvented?
Moreover, neither did perspective drawing survive in regions touched by Roman influence but outside the purview of the Italian Church. There was no perspective painting in Egypt or Byzantium or in areas neighboring the former empire. Perspective, having been invented in Italy, travelled nowhere and was practised nowhere. It flourished in one state for 500 years then -- poof -- it's gone and gone everywhere. Every Christian Church (and even some pagans apparently) adopted the same policy.
| Moreover it was a social thing, no document needed. |
Evidence is certainly needed. You must have evidence or your explanation fails epistemological critique.
| Were the southern baptists able to keep all of their children from listening to Elvis? No. |
No. They were not able to stop their children from listening to Elvis.
Yet you claim the Catholic Church was able to keep Italian artists from doodling life-like portraits in their private sketch-books.
| The church, which at one time forbade art, finally assimilated to art. |
Southern Baptists accept Elvis (a new development in art) within a single generation.
The Italian Catholic Chruch extinguishes perspective drawing universally in a single generation, successfully represses it for 14 generations, then becomes its greatest proponent within two generations.
| FYI, IMHO Pompeii does not display perfect geometrical perspective like 14th century art. |
I agree. It displays BETTER, more perfected geometrical perspective than that found in 14th century art! The stuff I showed to you was not equalled until much later. I showed you three point perspective, Wireloop. On the walls of Herculaneum. Three point perspective that fully incorporates human figures (a human head upon a pike!) in three dimensions!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wireloop
In: Detroit
|
|
|
|
|
If I do not teach my child how to do mathematics, or make baklava, chances are she will never ever learn it on her own. Nor will she probably have an interest. Advanced artist's techniques, 99% of the time, is passed face to face through monitored rehersal. You are using the word 'artist' like it means a coordinated group of people, like a 'church'. It is not so. Society simply forgot how to do art because there were no qualified artists to teach it, and it was in people's best interest not to teach it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
wireloop wrote: | Advanced artist's techniques, 99% of the time, is passed face to face through monitored rehersal. |
In fact, you are incorrect. Artistic techniques, even advanced ones, are one of those rare systems of knowledge that require no human transmission. The artwork itself testifies to the techniques necessary to create it. So long as the artwork survives, the techniques continue.
For example, as a child, I was already drawing in rudimentary perspective (in fact, by my early adolescence, I was already quite good, without resort to rulers and compasses). Yet, I had never been taught. In a sense, I had already exceeded the capacity of the Early Renaissance artists!
I was able to do so because I had what they lacked: examples! I saw other art work incorporating perspective and was able to understand intuitively how it was shaped geometrically.
| You are using the word 'artist' like it means a coordinated group of people, like a 'church'. It is not so. Society simply forgot how to do art because there were no qualified artists to teach it, and it was in people's best interest not to teach it. |
It's you who argues that artists were "coordinated." Coordinated by the Church.
I'm saying that artists, as individual persons, cannot not draw. I can't imagine it. And forgetting how to draw is akin to forgetting how to count. Or forgetting how to speak.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wireloop
In: Detroit
|
|
|
|
| I saw other art work incoprorating perspective and was able to understand intuitively how it was shaped geometrically. |
Precisely! Between 500 and 900 AD there was none of this advanced artwork around any longer for people (like you) to use as an example. It was 'relearned' (incorporated in society) only after the church didn't really care about 'paganism' anymore.
Why didn't they care about paganism anymore?
Because it too was forgotten about.
I will grant you that the Pompeii perspective artwork (and other Greek skenographia) is good, but IMHO still not as good as Raphael (considering his attention to detail and usage of polygons in perspective).
| Perspective, having been invented in Italy, travelled nowhere and was practised nowhere. |
It is my understanding that 'perspective' is essentially the same as the Greek 'skenographia (ca 400 BC)' mentioned by Plato and used originally in stage settings. The Romans did not invent it, nor was it confined to Italy.
See here:
http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/dunkle/tragedy/c61.gif
| Artistic techniques, even advanced ones, are one of those rare systems of knowledge that require no human transmission. |
In a world without examples, 99 out of 100 wanna-be artists will never tap into and develop their inherent, advanced 'rare system of knowledge' on their own. That was my point.
| I'm saying that artists, as individual persons, cannot not draw. I can't imagine it. And forgetting how to draw is akin to forgetting how to count. |
Ish, you're not the only artist in this group ; )
You are again comparing society as a whole to an individual artist. Two hundred years is enough time for society to forget a skill. Shoot, 80 years is probably enough time. If it skips just 'one generation' then in principle it is forgotten.
I'm not talking about a single person 'forgetting' advanced artistry. I'm talking about a single person (in their best interest) not teaching their child advanced artistry, and, as a result, plunging their grandchild (the 2nd generation) into 'forgetfulness'. If this happens on a 'global scale' then all of a sudden society as a whole has forgotten the skill of advanced artistry.
Was there a mechanism in place (ca 400 AD) to convince people that advanced artistry was not in their best interest? Yes. The Church.
Why the Church? For many reasons, but primarily, at its core 'the church' is a sect of Judaism. And fundamentalist Judaism as a whole can be shown from history to have never seriously used art, especially in the form of iconography. Duras-Europa (ca 250 AD) being an exception in that some propose that the Judaism practised at Duras was perhaps of a more gnostic persuasion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| Science proceeds by universal rules. For example, if you say "Religious fervor lead to the suppression of artwork" then everywhere we see "religious fervor" in History; we must also expect a repression of artwork. |
Firstly Art isn't science.
Secondly religious fervor takes many forms depending on the belief. Indian religions banned the killing of cattle -- no repression of art there. Jews banned the eating of pork. Islam prohibits iconography but not geometric art.
Thirdly you're forgetting the purpose of art at the time. During the period you are talking about artists were employed by or under the patronage of the church hierarchy or the nobility who were staunch supporters of the church hierarchy. Art was commissioned by and paid for by the state or the nobility. There were no independent free thinking artists around. If you know of any who weren't under the control of the state/church/nobility I'd be interested to know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Firstly Art isn't science. |
Art was a form of science in the sense that it was a teaching aid, a moralistic as well as aesthetic education. Seems to me that its role changed due to the advent of printing and literacy, when education was achieved by other means. {Textbooks went on being used for generations, books are reprinted regularly now because they quickly become outdated thanks to information being accessible}. And once you have the requisite tools widely available - pen and paper - drawing no longer becomes restricted to the select few.
The practice of established crafts can decline very rapidly, in our own lifetime countryside and domestic skills have become quite rare due to modern technology; Wireloop's daughter may not go on making her own baklava once she finds it's easily obtainable from a local deli if she decides it's too expensive in terms of time and labour. "Progress" can lead to regression over time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've seen pics of these street paintings and they're amazing - the trompe is only apparent of course when the viewer is able to get close up or walk around the artwork. NASA could be seen as our equivalent to the Church in terms of spending power. Maybe Mr. Wenner 'created' the moon landings:).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | For example, as a child, I was already drawing in rudimentary perspective (in fact, by my early adolescence, I was already quite good, without resort to rulers and compasses). Yet, I had never been taught. |
Like you, I too drew simple perspectives when I was just a kid. When I got a little older, I was able to mimic (through vector-graphic style sketchings) exactly what I saw with my eyes.
| Ishmael wrote: | | The early artists had no examples of two-dimensional renderings of three dimensions. They could not therefore learn to mimic two dimensional representations of three. They had to cross the boundary between two worlds. |
But they could use their eyes and see a fully rendered 3D landscape and simply replicate it on paper. If I look, just look, at a cube and draw what I see the result is that some lines are more contracted (shorter) than others. If I draw a 2D cube (something which is impossible OR extremely ugly), I am disregarding the information which hits my retina. In fact, I am making things up while I draw my sketch. If I draw the lines which pull away from me and give them the same length as those which face me and run parallel to my eyes, I am being dishonest. I am creating something which I PRESUME to be true. I may turn the cube and find that half has been removed. My drawing, which shows an ugly, apparently rectangular 'cube', would be inaccurate.
However, if I draw exactly what is there, the result is a 3D representation using 2D paper and pen.
P.S The image of the three figures (which as far as I know represents the early conceptions of Christ, God and Satan/fallen angel) does contain one small, teeny-tiny, mini, micro hint at perspective. Who can see it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
What you say, Morty, is subject to The Mandala Effect. Briefly put, this is an Applied Epistemological law which states: "Stuff on your nursery wall haunts you for life." The point being that we all tend to have the same stuff (Mercator maps of the world, pictures rendered in 3D etc) and therefore we all believe certain self-evidently true things that aren't really just because we all had the same formative influences. (Including and especially future geography and art teachers.).
| But they could use their eyes and see a fully rendered 3D landscape and simply replicate it on paper. |
But apparently medeval people couldn't. Either they had different mandalas on their wall or seeing fully rendered 3D landscapes is not part of the human condition after all. It has be discovered/learnt/taught. Or of course conditioned in childhood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
In his "Secret Knowledge" programme David Hockney, one of Britain's best-known artists, explored the reasons behind The Big Change in art c.1420, rejecting the idea that all of a sudden "everyone could draw better" yet wondering how an almost photographic realism could have been achieved overnight as it were.
So he concluded that lenses were used but, since glass was of poor quality in the early 15th century, good lenses weren't available so curved mirrors were the answer (and he also pointed out how many left-handed drinkers appear in paintings, even a left-handed monkey!). Pictures are reversed when using a lens although, according to Hockney, a painting in fact appears more natural when reversed.
Artists were intensely secretive and didn't write anything down, such as formulae for varnishes etc., never mind their methods. The only equipment needed was a piece of glass. And surprising how many paintings were 30 cm square.
The artist was a bit like a film director creating a scene and the same model was used more than once in the same painting. All that was required was to move the lens to where the projection was needed, though the scale tended to be altered with the repositioning of the lens. Absolutely fascinating to watch.
N.B. Mirror-makers were also members of the Guild of St. Luke, the artists' guild. Painters couldn't help but know about mirrors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
