On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:04 PM, William Conger wrote:
Well, he certainly knew perspective but I can't think of a single painting of his that follows it accurately.
Who cares, besides Miller? That is, if the painting coheres and infuses us viewers with a striking--or even just cherishable-- reaction, who cares if the perspective is inconsistent or "inaccurate"?
All perspective systems, the three varieties of linear perspective, Japanese orthogonals, the Medieval mish-mash of roofs, aerial effects, etc., all have limits, because they are artifices that deceive the eye with simulations and counterfeits, in order to set a stage for the artistic image.
Look at all the conventions of visual art that, on close examination, are conceits or deceptions. Line drawings are, as an entire genus of image making, fraudulent. As Laurie Fendrich said, there are not lines in nature, but edges. But we look at line drawings and look *straight through* the pencil marks to the "image" contained in them.
Ditto all of the stuff that paintings are made of. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
