It's speculative to discuss ancient perspective. Aside from a few examples fro Pompeii and possibly some mosaics --- all are of Roman origin and not ancient Greece. Apparently the Greeks had quite convincing illusionistic paintings but none remain, none, none, none. What was Panofsky to do but to try to construct some state of mind when no visual evidence remains?
Also as one who has mentioned both Alberti and Vasari, they are not the only artists who left informative writing about their practices. We could begin with Cennino Cennini, read commentaries by many other Ren artists and end, possibly with Benvenuto Cellini. Alberti is a most worthy source, credited as a Ren art theorist, a new genre, who wrote books on sculpture, painting and architecture. He is also recognized as an important architect of the period. Vasari was a late Ren painter whose book, Lives of The Artists, was the first effort to compose an art history of the Ren. It is anecdotal but extremely insightful with respect to the practices and ideas of the major Ren artists. Any reasonably alert student of art history is familiar with Vasari's book. I find Miller's assumptions and groundless comments about art history rather annoying because he presumes that others are as ill-informed as he. With slight effort he could have avoided his comments re Alberti and Vasari, There are various published sources, anthologies, for Documents of Ren. art. wc
