No I do not disagree, Mr Miller. But the religious elements of a painting seem to be restricted to thematic content, or at least are not coextensive with its formal elements, whereas the philosophical developments concerning how we conceive of and structure space introduce technical developments that directly inform the formal composition. At least on Panofskys reading. So I am not sure what Smiths claim could mean. Mr Conger has already identified the crux of the issue at hand.
Moreover, ways of seeing (there was once a BBC series with this title; it was quite good from what I remember) are not identical with the biological modality of vision. there is a complex interactions between modality and culturally constituted conceptual frame, which make "seeing" possible. Even evolutionary psychologists will grant this point, I believe. The paradigmatic example might be the following: although all "beautiful women" exhibit an culturally invariant ratio among hips, waist and breasts, there are nonetheless culturally specific instantiations which are considered beautiful, whereas other are not. The ratio, like the biological modality, is invariant, but what each group calls beautiful depends upon a way of seeing that is not shared. In any case, all of this strikes me as a gadfly of a conversation. Smith rejects Panofsky on meagre grounds. Perhaps we should read Panofskys Perspective as symbolic form, a text which Panofsky later claimed was flawed, I believe, but I cannot remember why. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > >"I have no idea why Smith would assert that Panofsky ignores the > religious > registers of the works he deals with. ... > Perhaps you could elaborate a little more, Mr Miller, on how Smith > illustrates > the omission in Panofsky (or Riegl)?" (Imago Asthetik) > > > > > The only other mention Smith makes of Panofsky is as follows: > > "This is precisely Panofsky's procedure: in seeking to understand the > nature > of ancient perspective he begins not by examining specific ancient > paintings > but rather by citing Aristotle's assertions that it is better to regard > cosmic > space as limited rather than infinite. On the basis of that one statement > Panofsky concludes that only did the ancient painter not develop a > one-point > focal perspective but he could not have done so, since he did not > understand > the notion of space as an infinite continuum. Never mind that many ancient > philosophers disagreed with Aristotle and thought the universe to be of > infinite extent, and that Panovsky didn't trouble to show why either > conception of the cosmos should affect the way one sees a street scene, a > building, or an interior room (for surely Aristotle's eyes worked in the > same > way as Alberti's or our own). > > Panovksy goes on then to characterize the idea of "modern space" in terms > of > the thinking of Copernicus and Descartes, with special emphasis on the > latter's conception of space as res estensa, as something having real being > because it could be measured (never mind mind, again, that many of > Descartes' > contemporaries rejected this notion. Panovsky never retreated from these > high > levels of intellectual abstraction. As late as 1953, when he published his > Early Netherlandish Painting, he saw ft to summarize his 1920's argument > without change" > > > Just as, if I recall correctly, some listers have let Alberti or Vasari > speak > for the artists and patrons of their time -- when > they were, indeed, only two opinionated men (neither one of whom were > especially remarkable as artists) > > Does Panovsky "ignore the religious registers of the works he deals with"? > > I don't know whether Smith would go that far -- but he does assert that > Panovsky associated the historical phenomenon of visual perspective with > philosophical notions of space rather than with religious and ethical > dogma. > > Do you disagree? > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Weight Loss Program > Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=faokL822QnIUqlKFFfRt-wAAJz6c > l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
