So it is "done on purpose for compositional considerations of the whole". This was my preference out of three I suggested.
Regarding mirror effect and image on the canvas- it is too many common and different optical elements come into play to compare. Regarding focusing on a near and far simultaneously - it is not always necessary in order to evaluate composition as a whole. We have ability to 'scan' the whole thing without focusing on specific part. Boris Shoshensky Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Art and Optics Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Caravaggio was ahead of you. You can't focus on a near and far hand simultaneously. So when you see each your brain relates them to the body and your memorized notion of what seems right. An example of this is evident when you look at yourself in an ordinary mirror. You see yourself half-size or less. the distance between you and the mirror plus the distance of the reflected face back to the surface of the mirror. But we tend to correct our vision and imagine the reflection as life-size. Again, seeing is a construction in (mainly) the visual cortex. Caravaggio tended to show what we see, that is, parts, part by part, and in relation to the canvas surface which was another imagined plane, sometimes to be "broken" by an illusory projection. Manet paid attention to this realism in Caravaggio and took it further (see his Folies Bergere) to move the implicit vanishing point all around the painting as if to follow the eye. Of course, the vp is always where you're looking. What makes perspective interesting is that it enables yo to split your vision: the vp is where you're looking but it holds its place while your gaze wanders. Manet just took the vp with the gaze as it wandered. The hints of that occur in Caravaggio. One reason why artists like Caravaggio are so great is because they are so far beyond the simple business of direct imitation, with or without a camera lucida. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 4:30:09 PM Subject: Re: Art and Optics "Why is the right hand of the old man on the right the same size as his left, despite the fact that the left hand is so much closer to the viewer?" Your observation is correct. The reasons could be several. Sloppy usage of separate projected images. Sloppy drawing. Done on purpose for compositional considerations of the whole. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Art and Optics Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:13:52 GMT Here's a rather thorough presentation of the controversy concerning the use of an optical lens in historical European painting: http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/intro.html ... which is of special to me, because one of the examples shown is currently on display in Chicago. (Caravaggio's "Supper at Emmaus") Why is the right hand of the old man on the right the same size as his left, despite the fact that the left hand is so much closer to the viewer? Is this discrepancy caused by the artist using separate projected images without noticing that their relative sizes defied perspective? Or is there some spot on the floor where the viewer may stand in front of the painting, from which these proportions appear accurate? In the current re-rebirth of pictorial space, this apparent defiance of nature is a serious conundrum. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=cESnwzSMA95KG2t4m5DW0wAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
