I'm not going to let you off easily. You want to claim that at some point taste is diminished to zero, particularly when rote systems are involved. I respond that rote systems cannot be implemented visually, not even in diagrams (which select elements for didactic values and thus express taste). Even the selection or invention of a rote system is flooded with taste.
The Ren. interest in perspective follows a growing interest in the all-at-once visual moment. The medieval narrative based visual space was episodic, more interested in compressing many event sin time and space into one easily "read" picture. Perspective arranged narratives as stage-like tableaus. You refer to the Greek 7 or 8 heads proportional system. The Sears Standard goes well beond that, involving limbs, neck and torso. But the Greeks used proportional systems because they did not know anatomy, except by external looking and the occasional sight of dead and wounded warriors, etc. There was no real examination of anatomy until late Roman times and even then it's uncertain. We have to get deep into medieval times, 15C, before anatomical knowledge abandoned proportional systems and guesswork or Galen's work (on pigs). --- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 4, 2008, at 1:36 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > So, what about all of this and > > your statement that people normally react against > > human anatomical distortions? Taste can become so > > normalized that it's not even recognized as > favoring > > distortions, as in the Sears Standard and in > > perspectival systems. > > The Sears-standard is another version of the > Lyssipian v. Polykleitian > standard. Or the old 7-head or 8-head rule for the > height of a human. > Or, it its own way, the preference for Twiggy over > "Rubensian" bodies. > It's well known that fashion drawings are way too > leggy and out of > proportion, but then too, no one believes that the > runway strut is in > any way a normal way to walk. This sense of "taste" > (or preference) is > more like "fashion," in the sense that, for a while, > the artifice is > accepted as relatively "natural" or "normal," but > then preferences > change, other artists come along and, in trying to > be noticed among > all the others, the new guys shift one or two > methods, adopt new > tropes, and voila, a new style is accepted and the > old style can be > seen for what it was, an artifice. > > Buy what you claim is still arguing the subordinate > point: > Instructing, informing, pointing out that when one > does X, others will > (normally, typically) perceive it this way--that's > "percieve" in the > strict sense of processing the perceptual data, not > construing it in a > social or cultural way--is far less susceptible to > the influence of > taste, per se. But if you then say, "good painting > consists of using > proper perspective," then you've slipped into the > role of taste- > mongering, for good or bad. > > I remember as a kid learning how to draw with, > first, one-point > perspective, then two, and then three, and being > pretty excited about > learning how it worked. But soon enough, I ran into > the limitations of > each, and by dint of seeing many more pictures, I > discerned how the > illusion of depth didn't turn on how well one or the > other scheme of > perspective was executed. But the illusion of depth > *did* turn on how > convinced I was that the image cohered. The > Lorenzettis' Good and Bad > Government frescoes, for example, are a great > mish-mash of misaligned > rooftops, out-of-scale or spatially ambiguous > buildings, and other > oddities of perspective, but they are at the same > time quite > charming ... and good paintings. So too, all those > medieval > illuminations and small altarpiece panels showing, > e.g., Christ's > entry into Jerusalem, great jumbles of terracotta > roofs and what-not. > These pictorial elements do not detract from the > paintings, and no one > misled about the spatial organization of the scenes. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
