| View previous topic :: View next topic |
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
 |
|
| In his "Secret Knowledge" programme David Hockney... Absolutely fascinating to watch. |
Wasn't it, though? (There should be a book.) A wealth of interesting stuff there, including a 3D computer model proving that the perspective of a complex chandelier was flawless. Bits of paintings going out of focus and perspective changing with refocusing. Reference marks as though to allow a pose to be resumed accurately. Textured and lustrous objects being almost photo-realistic, even though looking closer to get the details would change the play of the light completely. A whole lot of portraits at the same scale (bigger than life size?). Great paintings from painters who didn't draw... ... ...
Hockney worked with a physicist by whom the image projecting properties of concave mirrors was taken for granted, but they found art historians didn't know about this, so optical techniques had been dismissed for the century of photo-realism before decent lenses.
What do they think lenses were for anyway? Not for telescopes, whose trick is to focus a second lens on the image from the first. They were already using lenses for forming images...
After some experiments, he reckons he can tell the difference between paintings using mirror projection and those using lens projection.
It seems all that stuff about 3-point perspective was derived from the optically accurate paintings, not vice versa, perhaps as a way of extending the field of view but projecting construction lines where the optical image can not go. (Reminded me of scaling a drawing by projection lines from a single point.) This was in Italy, while in Bruges they widened the field of view by tiling optical images.
Innit funny how that famous first perspective painting had a viewpoint a little way inside the opposite cathedral (where it's dark}, not just on the steps outside?
| 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. |
And no one seemed to notice the cock-ups, like the guy looking at the back of a head instead of over a shoulder; Doubting Thomas not looking into the wound where his finger is; the woman with life-like legs, but out of proportion to her upper body...
| Mirror-makers were also members of the Guild of St. Luke, the artists' guild. |
Talk about a smoking gun being hidden in plain sight!
And funny how the painters found something else to do, being expressive and wotnot, just when photography took away their monopoly on realistic images.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
If artistic techniques improved in the Renaissance in response to technological advances -- how is it that artistic techniques remained so poor throughout the Dark Ages when, as we now know, the very same technology had been available to the "Ancient Romans".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| how is it that artistic techniques remained so poor throughout the Dark Ages when, as we now know, the very same technology had been available to the "Ancient Romans". |
Roman paintings don't have anything like the photo-realism of the Renaissance.
Besides, the Dark Ages may really have been Dark. (Window glass really was crap after the Romans made decent stuff.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Hockney worked with a physicist by whom the image projecting properties of concave mirrors was taken for granted, but they found art historians didn't know about this, so optical techniques had been dismissed for the century of photo-realism before decent lenses. |
Eloquently demolishes the Academic Method. Obviously Art Historians should be doing all this in 101 but actually they are postitively discouraged from all technical questions in favour of constantly making aesthetic judgements. Eng Lit is just the same. And the reason's the same too: they are the modern equivalent of Rhetoric ie teaching one how to be superior in society.
Ask anyone who's done Eng Lit how they judge the "well-rounded person" and it will be familiarity with Floss on the Mill or somesuch. Fine Arts people think it's knowing that the Pre-Raphaelites are not pre-Raphael. Classical music buffs have their equivalent.
But what is tragic is that society agrees with them. You only have to watch an arts prog on the telly for five minutes to know how we judge 'superiority'. Yes, I do mean 'we'....I'm sure I suffer from the syndrome too whenever I'm not attacking it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | Every single one of the artists you mention is a Renaissance period artist. All of them are 14th century I believe -- perhaps there are one or two who are 13th? Not certain.
My point is that you cannot find such a sketch book in Italy from the period between 490A.D. and 1300A.D (or thereabouts). That's a millenium in which perspective art disappears -- because we find plenty of it on the walls of Pompeii.
And furthermore, the subject matter of the paintings in Pompeii matches that of the Renaissance period.
How do you explain this? |
What are you getting at? It seems you're saying that the Pompeii art dates from the same time period as the Renaissance art. Is that right?
And that the art with the more complicated perspective post-dates the perfect perspective art? And that the complicated perspective art could have been done before the perfect perspective art but wasn't, because the fashionistas, or the clerics, or the guy who ordered it for his living room didn't like it?
Am I following?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Rocky wrote: | | What are you getting at? It seems you're saying that the Pompeii art dates from the same time period as the Renaissance art. Is that right? |
Now why would I suggest such a thing?
| And that the art with the more complicated perspective post-dates the perfect perspective art?....Am I following? |
You tell me what makes most sense to you. What is the simplest explanation for the facts at hand?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which way do you see the dancer turning?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
I see her turning clock-wise. I don't know if I believe the theory about being right-brained or left-brained.
But can anyone switch back and forth and see her turning either way? No matter how hard I stare at her, I can't get her to go counter-clockwise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| I don't know if I believe the theory about being right-brained or left-brained. |
The categories are pretty broad; most people would probably recognise themselves in the descriptions, a bit like horoscopes that apply to almost everyone. Is there any connection with right- and left-handedness?
| But can anyone switch back and forth and see her turning either way? No matter how hard I stare at her, I can't get her to go counter-clockwise. |
It might be possible to see her turning the opposite way if you alter your perspective; I can only see the clockwise direction but my son who's studying psychology tells me that by looking out of the corner of your eye it can be done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| my son who's studying psychology tells me that by looking out of the corner of your eye it can be done. |
As I read the text on the left, she switched directions several times. I must be using the very centre of my brain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| As I read the text on the left, she switched directions several times. I must be using the very centre of my brain. |
That's remarkable. Not many people can use both sides of their brain at the same time. Did you have to look away?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| That's remarkable. Not many people can use both sides of their brain at the same time. Did you have to look away? |
The first time, I gave up thinking about it too hard - I couldn't switch it deliberately - but when I concentrated on something else, it switched by itself.
I just looked again and, again, just as I was gonna give up trying to work it out, it switched - and then a few more times - maybe coz of 'glitches' in the animation this time.
With static illusions I can usually choose which way to see it and once I got the hang of Magic Eye pictures, I could see into them in a couple of seconds. (Haven't tried that in a long time.) It still winds me up that Tomorrow's World played 2 notes close together and said a few people would hear them go down in pitch rather than up - which was me - but didn't give any explanation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Is it to do with the way the mind is programmed, expecting to see or hear something? The brain overriding what you can see/hear because it's making sense of received impressions in accordance with learned experience?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
And don't forget, Dan, you have difficulty with east and west. It keeps on switching for me too. I am right-handed in all things except for boxing in which I am a southpaw. Just like the Buddha apparently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Righthandedness is more common and therefore synonymous with dexterity, uprightness and so on as we've already seen (and with masculinity); if you trained yourself to be lefthanded or even to be ambidextrous would it affect the nervous system or interfere with thought processes (George VI's 'unmanly' stammer was attributed to his natural lefthandedness)?
Might be worth experimenting looking at the image with crossed eyes (as long as they don't stay that way).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
