The camera-obscura debacle has been rebutted many times from many corners
and many angles,
and it lost its credibility, if it ever had any.
Traditional draftsmanship was capable of amazing things, but is practically
extinct, and Hockney
was simply looking for excuses for his own deficiencies.
They are NOT luthiers.
They are measuring perspective.
RT
- Original Message -
From: Edward Mast nedma...@aol.com
To: Andreas Schlegel lute.cor...@sunrise.ch
Cc: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Dürer
Andreas, what exactly are
Oh my God! It's full of stars!
And now I know how to divide a circle in 5, 15 or 17 sections. Thank
you, Andreas!
Sean
On May 4, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Andreas Schlegel wrote:
Have a look at this:
http://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/misc/content/titleinfo/2475220
Page 178 is our picture, but here's
we had it before, but there is a quite interesting article
http://virtualterritory.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/did-albrecht-duerer-got-it-wrong-a-surprise-discovery-in-one-of-his-prints/
B.
To get on or off this list see list information at
I think the drawing is what it is on the face of it, I don't think
Durer deliberately distorted it. It has been interpreted also from a
double perspective.
Whether the lute is too fat or not can be interpreted in a variety of
ways. One common variable is the angle of the viewer.
As to who is
