Posts Tagged painting

The most important discovery of the last millenium: Perspective 2/2

Posted by admin in Art and Design, Perspective, Tutorials on Haziran 17th, 2009

The Ottoman Fleet Blockin... , by Nasuh Al-silahi

If you have read my previous post you know about how artists interpreted what they saw onto their canvas and how they created techniques to depict their scenes in the past. From figurative cave art to Hellenistic monumental structures with exaggerated 3 point perspective emphasis we have taken a short tour of art history, and we have come to the last millenium. Now we will continue our trip by firstly understanding the medeival era and the period prior Renaissance.

Up until the Renaissance artists had become aware of perspective due to their predecessors in history. However, although many methods were developed to translate vision onto painting, these methods were not fully successful: they were either too theoretical or unpractical to apply to painting.

Meanwhile many artists were painting in miniature style, as you can see in the symbolic map to the left. This style was commonly used by the Eastern civilizations as well as in medeival Europe prior to the Renaissance. These artworks resemble the axonometric drawing technique used to draw technical items. Paintings were drawn as if seen by the eyes of a giant. Of course perspective was not present in this style, therefore lines did not converge in the horizon but went parallel to each other. Even after the perspective technique was found artists continued to use this style, especially in the eastern civilizations.

Pietro Perugino's usage of perspective in this fresco at the Sistine Chapel (1481–82) helped bring the Renaissance to Rome.

Now if we return to what artists were upto in the Renaissance, we see that they have come very close to finding out the mystery they have been searching for centuries.

Filippo Brunelleschi was also in pursuit of correctly interpreting his work on the canvas. The famous Renaissance architect used a mirror to draw the baptistry from the incomplete Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore (Duomo), which he had designed and engineered. His technique with the mirror was theoretically right, but still impractical. The depth of the picture was calculated right, however, the heights of objects were graphically depicted.

Scene from Durer's "Cours..., by Albrecht Dürer

With Brunelleschi’s findings perspective became a fashionable way of painting, lines converged in the horizon, and the heights were graphically estimated. This method was better than none. A while after, in 1435 Leon Battista Alberti published his mathematical explanation of the perspective. He had solved the problem by using rays of light and similar triangles to calculate the heights of distant obects. This established the basis of the perspective drawing technique we use today.

Well, now you can ask; “So What? How does this make perspective the most important discovery of the last millenium?” Until now you must have thought that the title was a bogus to catch more traffic. I must admit it is a catchy title, but with the content of this post I am sincere with my thoughts that perspective really is that important in the history of art and science. How is that? Let’s see:

Vitruvian Man, c.1492, by Leonardo da Vinci

The discovery of the perspective drawing technique has also triggered things other than painting, drawing and art in general. Together with the later discovery of the continent of America, Galilei’s discovery of the world being a sphere and not flat; in the following century perspective has shown us that man is not an object of inspection by the heavens any more. This finding of the visual cone has shown the Renaissance man that he is not only at the center of his own vision, but he is also at the center of the universe. Thus, emerges the “universal man“.

The Universal Man concept of the time has created an urge for people to see, to reinvestigate their environments with a new, enlightened, open mind. Vision and intellect had become rational. Knowledge became a blessing.

Of course all of this was a movement of the time. We cannot connect it all to perspective. However, I can admit perspective was one of the most important things that altered the way people thought. The notion was that all the knowledge in the world was available to man, and that for a man to be perfect he should know about many things or let’s say everything. Da Vinci, Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Alberti … were masters of science and art, all universal men of their time.

Cell structure 3D image by Ivan Dinev

Perspective has been used to elaborate realistic paintings up until the invention of the camera and photograph. The date of this invention has yet again changed the way we perceive. Artists have changed their outlook on vision again. But this is the subject of another post I will be writing later on.

For over a decade now 3d design and rendering has taken the reign over from perspective hand drawings. No more do we need to understand the mystery of perception. Instead we need to learn digital interfaces of certain computing programs. Interpreting what we see is upto digital instruments, which create stations for us to distribute and receive knowledge. Vision has changed again. Man is still the center of his own universe, but the centralization has become dispersed and so has knowledge.

Where do we stand in our age? Where have we come to after the universal man? How do we perceive our worlds? The motto “What you see is what you get” no longer stands. The new version is “How you see is how you get.”

Well I guess we have come to a point where we understand that how we see alters us and the world around us. How do you see? Are you at the center of your universe?

Further Reading:
Perspective (graphical) @ wikipedia
Perspective in Mathematics and Art
Perspective history @ museum of graphical art
Drawing Techniques @ about.com

The most important discovery of the last millenium: Perspective 1/2

Posted by admin in Art and Design, Perspective, Tutorials on Haziran 9th, 2009

I’ve wanted to write about “the perspective” for some time now, and I think the time has come for me to mingle with this subject again. I say again because it has been quite a while since I have been teaching drawing with the perspective technique. I will be writing a series of posts, or should I say tutorials, about using this technique for your work. I’ll be explaining it thoroughly but with clear and easy instructions so you can easily adapt perspective drawing to your work. I know it seems difficult, but do not fear you don’t have to get that technical to use this technique right.

We will see to the perspective drawing technique later on. For now lets see where perspective comes from.

The artist’s intention has always been to convey his thoughts, ideas or creativity through his work. Sometimes the intention is to depict an important historical scene, so that it is documented for later generations. And sometimes the intention in the artwork is to be educational as well as figurative. Nonetheless the artist always wants to be understood. To be understood the artist uses the most suitable techniques at hand.

Cave paintings in Lascaux, France, circa 14,000 BC

If you observe paintings according to their drawing style you can easily see that the paintings before the discovery of the perspective technique are much different than the paintings produced after. The artist developed his technique through the ages to display his art more successfully and to be understood better.

The paintings or drawings pre-perspective are generally more 2-dimensional lacking the depiction of depth. For example if you observe cave drawings, although they are rich with colour, they are more figurative than realistic as depictions. Sometimes we see some use of shadow as in the cave paintings circa. 14,000 B.C., found in Lascaux, France. The horse’s belly as we see in the picture above has been painted in a darker tone to give us a sense of depth. However, since the drawing technique is flat, (in flat I mean near orthographic as in plan view or side view) the images only give us a symbolic depiction, not a visual depiction that we are used to in our time, such as in photography.

A wall painting from the tomb of an ancient Egyptian nobleman named Nebamun. The tomb was built circa. 1400 B.C. and is near Thebes.

When we observe Ancient Egyptian art we see a kind of different distorted technique used by the artist. This form of depiction is commonly found in the artworks of this era, and it is very interesting. What makes Ancient Egyptian art interestingly different is that we see different poses in one figure, as in the painting found on the walls on the tomb of the artist Nebamon, to the left. The portrayed figure is hunting for fowl, and as he takes action we see his torso and left hand from the front, while he is facing left, his feet are also displayed from side view. Even more interesting is the position of his right hand, we see this hand in a weird angle from the back. Why did the artists of Ancient Egypt display the human body in such fashion? What was the artists’ intent? We don’t know for sure. Did they see or want to see their figures like this? I doubt it. But I do know that their drawings and paintings were not implemented with the perspective technique. They most probably either were not aware of perspective, or they had not developed a technique. Instead, the artists of this period tried to tell us a story about an event, by showing us the figures through different angles at the same time, creating an enrichened painting with a kind of depth we see comic graphics nowadays.

Doric Order, Temple of Zeus, by J. Buhlmann

As significant as Ancient Egyptian art may be, the Egyptian artists were not the only ones who questioned the way we perceive. Later other civilizations continue to study and develop other techniques in the search of more realistic depictions. Moreover, In the Hellenistic period, the Ancient Greek were anxcious to display their architecture with more monumentality than the actual size permitted. So they went even further than depicting realistic scenes and used illusional tricks to give the impression that the building was larger than it actually was.

The Greeks designed their architecture with specific styles such as the Doric, Ionic, Corinthian. The mostly used style of this period was the Doric style, which was thick in proportion; Whereas the Corinthian style developed later on, was the most lean of the three styles. With this thickness of proprtion of the Doric style, the columns especially, were slimmed towards the capital. This gave the illusion of a 3 point perspective, (which I will elaborate later on in my posts), which is the kind of view we see when we look up towards a high building. We notice that buildings get narrower towards the top. Since the columns were slimmer at the top the architecture seemed taller than it actually was. It was an artificial enhancement of the perspective effect.

The Parthenon, Acropolis,..., photo by Grayce Roessler

Entasis

This enhancement trick wasn’t enough for the sake of monumentality. The architects of the hellenistic period also gave a slight bulging curve to the colums profile. Thus we see an additional visual effect that we normally ignore, an optical illusion to correct the fact that we see straight columns as pinched and flat surfaces as curved. We see objects this way similar to the fish eye view, but the curvature in our vision is much more subtle.

The Ancient Greek were certainly aware of the perspective in the Hellenistic period. They were aware of many other things as well, as we learned from the use of entasis in the architecture of the period. They utilized a portion of perspective in monumentalizing architecture, however, they didn’t know how to implement the technique into painting and drawing. Although an important step towards discovering the mystery of perspective was taken, the general problem was not yet solved.
Ofcourse, you must be eager to know why perspective is the most important discovery of the millenium. To learn about the rest of how perspective was integrated into art, wait for my next post. I’ll be explaining it all, soon…

Further Reading:

Perspective (graphical) @ wikipedia

Perspective in Mathematics and Art

Perspective history @ museum of graphical art

Drawing Techniques @ about.com

Las Meninas: who is painting who?

Posted by admin in Art and Design on Nisan 15th, 2009

What do you see when you look at this painting? It’s difficult to describe at the first glance isn’t it?

It isn’t a scene of a landscape or of some flowers, it neither describes a scene from history, nor is it a simple portrait. Well, what is this interesting painting, and what distinguishes it from it’s coevals?

Let’s have a look at the background of this painting. This is one of the major works of Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez (June 6, 1599 – August 6, 1660), painted in 1656. Velazquez was a successful painter in the court of the King Philip IV of Spain, but painting was accepted as a craft not as art such as poetry or music, therefore he worked hard to serve in other duties in the palace court. In 1651 he was appointed palace chamberlain, and had many heavy duties and not much time to paint. However, Velazquez was able to paint a few works, mostly portraits of the royal family.

The most famous of his works as a painter of royal portraits is this painting named “Las Meninas”. What creates its signnificance is the extra-ordinary composition of characters we find in this painting, which makes it an important turn-point in art theory. At the time it was painted it set an inconvenient example of art. Let’s see how this is so:

At a first look we see a little girl at the center of the scene, the Infanta Margarita is the daughter of the King Philip IV. The Infanta Margarita is surrounded by her entourage, maids of honour (Las Meninas) besides the infanta, two dwarfs and a dog at the front, and behind the Infanta’s maid to the right stand the Infanta’s chaperone and a bodyguard. To the left of the Infanta we see Velazquez the painter himself, and at the rear wall we see a mirror reflecting the King and Queen standing side by side as if they were posing for their portrait to be painted. Finally we see a man who is standing at the doorway, he is the queen’s chamberlain and is probably checking out what is going on in this chamber.

Now we know who is who in this painting, if we observe the interactions between the figures we can see that there are a lot of things going on.

1. Let’s start with the mirror that reflects the King and Queen who are looking towards us. Almost everybody in the scene are focused on the royal couple whose presence in the painting is missing. It seems that this painting was actually supposed to be a portrait of the royal couple. However, it turned out to be a painting depicting the royal couple being painted. The royal couple (objects of the painting) have been left out on purpose, and they are watching this scene through their own reflection. How did Velazquez come up with a plot such as this, I wonder?

2. The Infanta Margarita is at the center staring at us with her head turned to her left with a dignified look, too dignified actually for a little child. She is at the center of attention according to the depicted scene, it is as if she were posing for her own portrait, however she is not actually what this portrait is about. She seems to be watching us instead of her parents being portrayed.

3. The two maids of the Infanta (Las Meninas as in the title of this painting), on her left and right are leaning over towards the Infanta. The maid on the Infanta’s left takes a slight glance at the missing King and Queen. Their primary interest is not in who is being painted, they are carrying out their duty, to assist the Infanta. They seem to notice us, but still go on with their duty, and do what they have been told.

4. The two dwarves at the front seem detached from the Infanta, one of them is staring straight at us out of curiosity wondering “what will happen next”, and the other is trying to catch the dog’s attention. They look like they are after some kind of mischief.

5. The Infanta’s chaperone and bodyguard seem to be talking to each other, maybe gossipping while taking place in the crowd. This doesn’t seem to be an appropriate thing to do in front of royalty. The Infanta and her maids, the two dwarves, the chaperone and the bodyguard all show an informal presence. Maybe Velasquez was trying to display the true characters of the royal entourage, we cannot know.

6. On the left Velazquez is working on a large painting, nearly twice his height, and he has taken a few steps back to take a good look at what / who he is depicting. As we know the King & Queen have been left out of the painting. We are standing where they were supposed to be. Is Velasquez painting a portrait of us? Could it be that we have become the objects / models of this painting? Instead of being an observer of a famous painting, the characters are actually observing us. We have become objects instead of subjects.

7. And finally the chamberlain is looking down through the doorway. He is passing by and spontaneously taking a glance at this scene. He doesn’t belong in the crowd. It is as though he wants to have control over what is happening from a distance, a distance that is neither too close to be present, nor too far to be ineffective. Something in the scene might happen that can get out of control, and he is there to fix it. He displays the omnipotent presence, the “gaze”, he is always and never there.

The power in visual interaction

Are we the real subjects experiencing this painting? Our power as observer or as being a subject has been thrown off course. We think we are observing a portrait, however we have replaced the King and Queen of Spain (the icons of power of the period) and have become objectified by the characters in the painting.

Michel Foucult begins his book “The Order of Things: An archaeology of the human sciences” with an interpretation of Las Meninas, where he investigates the visual structure of this painting, without considering the historical context. He simply analyzes the positionings of the characters.

Relevant to what I have mentioned previously, Velazquez has left no space for any “visitor” to intervene in the scene. Therefore, any observer, who stands before the painting, experiences a dis-positioning of his / her own subject. Within this context, Foucult observes that:

Around the scene are arranged all the signs and successive forms of representation; but the double relation of the representation to its model and to its sovereign, to its author as well as to the person whom its being offered, this relation is necessarily interrupted. (Foucault: 1970:16)

As we now know that the author (Velazquez), model (King & Queen), observer (us – subject), and the visitor (the chamberlain) have all been dis-positioned. All have been deprived of their power to experience the expected outcome; to be portrayed, to paint, to observe, to visit…

Who is really in control of this scene? Actually no one. Not Velazquez, he is trapped in his own scene; Not the King & Queen; their reflection says more than themselves; Not the Infanta, the dwarves or the chaperone or bodyguard… Even the chamberlain who is “passing by” does not have control. He maybe seeking control, but if he did actually have control, he wouldn’t need to pass by. Maybe the Maids of Honour have control over the scene, since they are applying their duties and the painting is named after them? Who knows…

Experiencing this painting means asking the question am I the subject (observer) of my experiences, or have I become the object? And this question has set a primary discourse in art theory. Aren’t we still asking the same question?