 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Zillions?, uh, for sure.
"At least?", I think he did an ok job, would you disagree?
Peter Warren
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> Zillions?, uh, for sure.
> "At least?", I think he did an ok job, would you disagree?
>
> Peter Warren
This, funnily enough, is also a matter of perspective. We're judging
DaVinci or whoever from our perspective as late 20th century Western
barbarians. It could well be that the Chinese for instance have an
entirely different opinion about that. There a few centuries ahead of us
in art.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
>"At least?", I think he did an ok job, would you disagree?
I think he did okay, too. My point was that this was one painting
that was done before the notion of perspective drawing took off.
Most painters of the time wouldn't have even tried, so their work
appears flat.
--
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
>
> >"At least?", I think he did an ok job, would you disagree?
>
> I think he did okay, too. My point was that this was one painting
> that was done before the notion of perspective drawing took off.
> Most painters of the time wouldn't have even tried, so their work
> appears flat.
>
There are some really funny 'mistakes' with perspective in paintings
from the earlier ages. On the other hand there are several other
techniques to create a sense of depth. Da Vinci's anatomic drawings are
quite convincing.
Oooooo......(shut up!)
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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, so my statement that two is
enough is just plain wrong. But in the case of this picture, more
than one is a mistake.
--
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] xs4all nl> wrote in message
news:38938601.E83E1621@xs4all.nl...
| Da Vinci's anatomic drawings are
| quite convincing.
Had you ever heard the thing about DaVinci using himself as the model for the
Mona Lisa painting? If true he must've not followed anatomy too closely.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> "Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote in message
> news:38938601.E83E1621@xs4all.nl...
> | Da Vinci's anatomic drawings are
> | quite convincing.
>
> Had you ever heard the thing about DaVinci using himself as the model
> for the
> Mona Lisa painting? If true he must've not followed anatomy too
> closely.
>
> Bob
That's probably a matter of perspective...?
;)
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote in message ...
>>Wow, honored, as always, to speak to you.
>
>I can't imagine why.
The "honor" I speak of, Ron, is for your, to my mind,
'vast' knowldege of the inards of PovRay.
This is something that I could never hope to achieve,
Whereas it may only be a normal part of your day
to day existence, for me it is a marvel.
>I think he did okay, too. My point was that this was one painting
>that was done before the notion of perspective drawing took off.
>Most painters of the time wouldn't have even tried, so their work
>appears flat.
The idea of perspective is a notion that had coalesced
fifty years before Da Vinci.(One need only to look at the
competition for the Baptistery doors in Florence.)
His exploration of this phenomenon may give the impression
of an unscientific result of perspective but I personally
would compare it to Picassos' breaking up of space
vis-a-vis Cubism in the 20th cent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote in message <38938D10.3C4AA785@xs4all.nl>...
>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.
Da Vinci's knowldge of perspective was, IMHO, greater than you or
I could ever dream of in our wildest dream.
If this was something we cared to dream of.
Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
