I'd be more interested in following Miller's assessments of what mattered to painters in premodernist times if he had actual evidence in the way of their commentary to back him up. Instead we are left his own interpretations which have no support in history. His reference to the supposedly unfinished portions of paintings is not any indication that the artist didn't care about subordinate areas because degrees of refinement are no guide to quality and primary and secondary or tertiary areas in an artwork are equally important to the whole.
Anyone who has ever painted a portrait or still life in a traditional manner knows how important it is to create a sense of atmosphere enveloping the objects depicted (both in back and in front). That is the assured way to suggest the fullness of round objects. All the great portrait painters up to the late Baroque did that. One can't paint the area around something with the goal of making it seem like real atmosphere and regard it as inconsequential at the same time. Velasquez, arguably one of the best portrait painters in western art, gave special attention to that issue, as did, of course, Rembrandt, and let's not forget it was Leonardo himself who explicated the importance of aerial perspective, which is another term for atmospheric illusionism. One more thing: Portrait painters know that the least important features to portray are the eyes, mouth, nose; the most important are the relationships among them. They also know that it's wise to keep the features a bit vague so that the viewer will see the person they project. And people always like what they "see" more than what another sees. Even Jacques David knew that. When he finished one of his most edifying portraits of Napoleon, the emperor was said to reply that David didn't paint him as he was but as the people saw him. Napoleon, always imitating Alexander the Great, believed that as Alexander never sat for his portrait, neither would he, knowing that for a leader it's better to be idealized than shown as nature provides. All of this points to the significance of the flat plane of the painting surface, originally -- and perhaps always -- an architectural feature, whether or not perspectival and atmospheric illusionism is sought. It's a fool's game to imagine that artists were visually dumber in one time than in another. I think ample historical evidence justifies how artists "converse" across centuries or millennia. Even in literature, writers know that incident, a well chosen detail or some slight event brings a character to life, fully imagined and animate. The same is true in painting. And 'also' (to use a word made famous by Ms. Palin) no sculptor of any repute ever ignores the space around his work, but in fact employs it as essential to expression. 'Also', owner's marks on Asian artworks are like marginalia in medieval manuscripts. Space was alloted for the purpose in both types of work. WC
