MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
A Question Of Perspective (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
How did a cherub become a Cupid from a winged/antlered moose or reindeer? Thinking about the Archangel Michael and Michaelangelo makes you wonder if Michaelangelo wasn't the painterly equivalent of Ishmael's 'Shakespeare', the pinnacle of achievement by a cast of contributors under one collective name meaning 'the greatest'.


Yeah.

I have the same doubts about The Lion of Vinci as you've expressed here concerning the Archangel Michael.

But what to do with all the history and first-hand accounts written by those supposed to be contemporaries and friends? I've seen enough now to make it impossible for me to conclude that Da Vinci was a fiction (though the doubts remain). What convinced me was the testimony in contemporary writing to here-to-fore unknown aspects of some of his paintings, which Carl (with my assistance) has only recently uncovered. The writers had to have known the secrets of the painter.
Send private message
Angus McOatup


In: England
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Hatty wrote:
Almost looks as if the crab was added later... by an inferior artist.

I had the exact opposite reaction, thinking 'it looks like the cherub was added later'. If canvas or wood or whatever was hard to come by, would artists paint over earlier works like scribes did with vellum?


Here is one possible solution.

The child was painted using a living model, the image of which was projected onto the pillar using a concave mirror and traced over with paint brushes.

The crab was painted from memory.


The simple solution was that it was all knocked up from memory in about an hour or just before the plaster dried out (as a fresco), -as the image isn't especially mimetic (i.e. 'photographically' naturalistic).

Pliny (Natural History) recounts how the painter Famulus covered the acres of wall space of Nero's vast Golden House complex in next to no time. And Indeed this very Domus Aurea was rediscovered in the 1490's when it became the destination de jour of all the top Italian artists eager to learn from genuine classical decorative motifs. Yes, including Raphael and Pinturicchio (the partner of Raphael's master Perugino) .. and Michelangelo etc.. All leaving their graffiti there. Thus the stylistic influence of the Golden House can be seen in the 'groteschi' decoration of the Vatican and the Piccolomini library Siena etc.

The thing about Roman 'perspective' is that it is empirical and not true linear perspective ie it has been arrived at through observation and not constructed according to the mathematical precepts first written down by Leon Battista Alberti in his treatise 'Della Pittura' (1435). Vitruvius says some vague comments about perspective, but it doesn't sound like its true linear perspective..I'll chase it up though.

(If the Pompey cupid is a renaissance cupid Perugino (Raphael's master) would have to have rediscovered Pompey 200 years earlier than it actually was and dug through 30 feet of compacted tufa?)

P.S. Pompey was a strange place though, in the Naples Archaeological Museum there are dozens of willy-shaped oil lamps.. they were clearly obsessed with sex....come to think of it all Italians still are....so yes 'what was..is what is'...I think I'm slowly learning...
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Angus McOatup wrote:
(If the Pompey cupid is a renaissance cupid Perugino (Raphael's master) would have to have rediscovered Pompey 200 years earlier than it actually was and dug through 30 feet of compacted tufa?)


No. If the Pompeii Cupid is a Renaissance Cupid, Pompeii was covered by the ash of Vesuvius during the Renaissance.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Rocky wrote:
The Almagest was forgotten about for 1500 years.


Fomenko has an entire book devoted to proving the Almagest a forgery. Many reviewers believe him entirely successful.
Send private message
Angus McOatup


In: England
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Angus McOatup wrote:
(If the Pompey cupid is a renaissance cupid Perugino (Raphael's master) would have to have rediscovered Pompey 200 years earlier than it actually was and dug through 30 feet of compacted tufa?)


No. If the Pompeii Cupid is a Renaissance Cupid, Pompeii was covered by the ash of Vesuvius during the Renaissance.


This is genius. I'd love to think that there was a fully functioning Roman town just outside of Renaissance Napoli that was never mentioned by any Grand Tourist. Sadly, Pliny the Younger (the nephew of Pliny the Older - who wrote the Natural History) gives an account of his uncle's death from Vesuvius's pyroplastic flow in a letter to Tacitus (book 6).

P.s I've closely examined all the art from Pompey and stylistically it's a world away from renaissance artworks, and no grand tourist ever reported a large eruption from Vesuvius.... sorry Ish ..but I admire your audacity ...
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Angus McOatup wrote:
This is genius. I'd love to think that there was a fully functioning Roman town just outside of Renaissance Napoli that was never mentioned by any Grand Tourist. Sadly, Pliny the Younger (the nephew of Pliny the Older - who wrote the Natural History) gives an account of his uncle's death from Vesuvius's pyroplastic flow in a letter to Tacitus (book 6).


And when did Pliny and Nephew live?

...stylistically it's a world away from renaissance artworks


A seven year-old would only see the resemblance. It requires a university education to know the difference.

I rest my case.
Send private message
Angus McOatup


In: England
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Angus McOatup wrote:
This is genius. I'd love to think that there was a fully functioning Roman town just outside of Renaissance Napoli that was never mentioned by any Grand Tourist. Sadly, Pliny the Younger (the nephew of Pliny the Older - who wrote the Natural History) gives an account of his uncle's death from Vesuvius's pyroplastic flow in a letter to Tacitus (book 6).


And when did Pliny and Nephew live?

...stylistically it's a world away from renaissance artworks


A seven year-old would only see the resemblance. It requires a University education to know the difference.


Well circa 79 AD ? I really don't want to sound orthodox but bringing the Roman world in to the Renaissance world probably creates more problems than it solves ? I imagine, lovely as the idea is...i.e. Pliny writing to Trajan, creates more problems etc.
Send private message Send e-mail
Angus McOatup


In: England
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Angus McOatup wrote:
This is genius. I'd love to think that there was a fully functioning Roman town just outside of Renaissance Napoli that was never mentioned by any Grand Tourist. Sadly, Pliny the Younger (the nephew of Pliny the Older - who wrote the Natural History) gives an account of his uncle's death from Vesuvius's pyroplastic flow in a letter to Tacitus (book 6).


And when did Pliny and Nephew live?

...stylistically it's a world away from renaissance artworks


A seven year-old would only see the resemblance. It requires a university education to know the difference.

I rest my case.


Yes, obviously there is a pretty good resemblance because renaissance artists got the idea from classical coins, cameos, sculptures, bits of cupids they saw at places like Nero's vast Domus Aurea etc. But all the Pompey and Herculaneum stuff has been C14'd and given every test in the book and it comes out as first century.

Though the real great mystery of the renaissance is why was everybody obsessed with the classical ie Pagan world, especially all the Popes (who were supposed to be Christian )? And why did they fill the Vatican and Rome etc with images of this classical pagan world, eg Raphael's School of Athens fresco etc. Perhaps one solution is that they were consciously styling themselves on the Roman Emperors eg Pope Julius (Ceasar) etc. accruing Roman kudos etc.?

P.S I've had a good look into Vesuvius and, sadly, it looked pretty dormant and boring....
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Angus McOatup wrote:
...Yes, obviously there is a pretty good resemblance...


I suggest you leave it there. Nothing else you write constitutes a contribution. And this but qualifies for confirming the point you initially sought to deny.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A interesting post on Roman and Renaissance perspective that argues that Roman painters used a more advanced form of non linear perspective.

http://foundinantiquity.com/2013/08/09/pompeiian-fresco-painters-used-perspective-better-than-renaissance-artists/
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A strange article, Wile... it sets out the rules of perspective and realism in art which the author, Carla Schodde, says "were either discovered or rescued, after the utter ignorance of the Middle Ages" very clearly and graphically. At the end of the article she decides that art isn't progressive but 'cyclical' which seems contradictory since it's only the 'Middle Ages' when perspective was ignored but the Middle Ages are perhaps most famous for the great stone cathedrals.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
A interesting post on Roman and Renaissance perspective that argues that Roman painters used a more advanced form of non linear perspective.


Are you familiar with my case for dating Pompeii to the Renaissance?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
A strange article, Wile... it sets out the rules of perspective and realism in art which the author, Carla Schodde, says "were either discovered or rescued, after the utter ignorance of the Middle Ages" very clearly and graphically. At the end of the article she decides that art isn't progressive but 'cyclical' which seems contradictory since it's only the 'Middle Ages' when perspective was ignored but the Middle Ages are perhaps most famous for the great stone cathedrals.

Ish wrote:

Are you familiar with my case for dating Pompeii to the Renaissance?


I do find it interesting that the post (ok, not Carla's conclusions as she is obviously working on the basis of conventional chronology) could be used to back Ish up.

Unless I have it wrong....
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nope. I take it as evidence in my favour.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This whole thread really applies to early written history as well as paintings.

A visitor to a gallery can immediately see a lack of perspective in an early painting, let us for the sake of argument call them faults, or recording inaccuracies. Yet historians still look for nuggets of truth in scripts from the so-called same period. The idea that those who wrote history could hold a linear perspective, whilst those who sculpted or painted in the same era did not, is bunkum.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Jump to:  
Page 7 of 8

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group