My point re Hopper is that he purposely skewed the perspective, so it actually does matter a lot with respect to his content. So did Manet and Van Eyck. James Elkins is the absolute expert on Van Eyck and perspective. In one of his books he examines VE perspective in detail.
The reason we draw lines is because our mental imagery is imagined as diagrammatic. Rembrandt was one of the great artists who didn't use outlines but squiggles from behind to forward, like half-circles and then broke the spaces between them. It was a fairly standard method. I don't know why it faded away...sometime around the time the Academies taught the "noble contour" going back to Raphael and DaVinci, etc. and the Roman copies. There's a wonderful painting of an ancient Roman Circus by Gerome in the Chicago Art Institute that actually is a masterful display of linear perspective balanced perfectly with aerial perspective. Technically, it's just a terrific painting, very engaging. But in the end it's all virtuosity, not a bad thing, but devoid of powerful feeling. I don't know where the technical stuff reaches the tipping point, spoiling the art or even if it can. That's the mystery. WC --- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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]
