Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 01:29:53 +0100, Remco de Korte wrote:
> >Ron Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 03:21:52 -0800, Peter Warren wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Ron Parker wrote in message ...
> >> >>Perspective came along fairly late in the game, so most "old" art
> >> >>doesn't look right.  Da Vinci's "The Last Supper"
> >> >>for
> >> >>example, has zillions of vanishing points.  At least he tried to
> >> >>establish depth, though.
> >> >Wow, honored, as always, to speak to you.
> >>
> >> I can't imagine why.
> >>
> >> >Zillions?, uh, for sure.
> >>
> >> Well, it should only have two, so more than two is a mistake.
> >
> >Three?
> 
> True, in some cases (when the camera isn't looking at the horizon.)
> And of course when the lines aren't parallel to the axes, they often
> have a vanishing point all their own, 

You got me there 8)

> so my statement that two is
> enough is just plain wrong.  But in the case of this picture, more
> than one is a mistake.
> 
Just for arguments sake (or because I'm slowly turning into a troll):
this is debatable.
Mistake meaning Da Vinci should've known better?
Could he? 
Supposing someone in this century would have painted an image like that
(with vanishing points all over the place) would he be wrong?

I suppose of course you're right (in a sense at least) but I like the
thought that _had_ DaVinci known how to work with vanishing points
according to the laws of perspective we get taught at schools he _still_
might have painted it the same giving this scattering perspective a
deeper meaning.

I like it when a picture has meaning 8)
(even though I may not understand it...)

> --
> These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
> The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
> My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Kind regards,

Remco

Post a reply to this message