Can diplopia reshape our views of perspective?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1 This reading dates back at least to Erwin Panofsky, ‘Die Perspektive als “Symbolische Form”’, Vorträge des Bibliothek Warburg, 1924-1925 (1927), pp. 258–330. Translated as Perspective as Symbolic Form (New York: Zone Books, 1991).

2 Dominique Raynaud, L’Hypothèse d’Oxford. Essai sur les origines de la perspective (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998).

3 Milestone publications in these debates include: Panofsky (note 1); Alessandro Parronchi, Studi sulla dolce prospettiva (Milan: Martello, 1964); Samuel Edgerton, The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective (New York: Harper and Row, 1975); Martin Kemp, The Science of Art: Optical Themes in Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).

4 Pietro Roccasecca, ‘Evidenze materiali per una storia della prospettiva nella pittura italiana su tavola del XV secolo’, L’Artiste et l’œuvre à l’épreuve de la perspective, ed. by Marianne Cojannot-Leblanc, Marisa Dalai Emiliani, and Pascal Dubourg Glatigny (Rome: École française de Rome, 2006), pp. 323–51; Andrés de Mesa, ‘El "fantasma" del punto de fuga en los estudios sobre la sistematización geometrica de la pintura del siglo XIV’, D'Art, 15 (1989), 29–52.

5 The author builds on and challenges Judith V. Field, Roberto Lunardi and Thomas B. Settle, ‘The perspective scheme of Masaccio's Trinity fresco’, Nuncius, 4/2 (1989), 31–118, and Volker Hoffmann, ‘Masaccios Trinitätsfresko: Die perspektivkonstruktion und ihr Entwurfsverfahren’, Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 40 (1996), 42–77.

6 See Graziella Federici Vescovini, ‘Alhazen vulgarisé: Le “De li aspecti“ d’un manuscrit du Vatican (moitié du XIV^e siècle) et le troisième “Commentaire sur l’optique“ de Lorenzo Ghiberti’, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 8–1 (1998), 67–96.

7 Martino Bassi, Dispareri in materia d’architettura (Brescia, 1572), pp. 15–16.

8 Grégoire Huret, Optique de portraiture et peinture (Paris: The author, 1670); Sébastien Leclerc, Discours touchant le point de vue, dans lequel il est prouvé que les choses qu’on voit distinctement ne sont veuës que d’un œil (Paris: T. Jolly, 1679).

9 Abraham Bosse, Traité des pratiques géométrales et perspectives enseignées dans l’Académie royale de peinture et sculpture (Paris: The author, 1665).

10 Cherubin d’Orléans, La Vision parfaite (Paris, 1677).

11 Leclerc (note 8), p. 6.

12 Leclerc (note 8), pp. 40–50.

13 Leclerc (note 8), pp. 42–46, 51, 57–86.

14 For ‘curvilinear perspective’, see Guido Hauck, Die subjektive Perspektive und die horizontalen Curvaturen des dorischen Styls (Stuttgart: Wittwer, 1879) and Panofsky (note 1). For ‘synthetic perspective’, see John White, Perspective in Ancient Drawing and Painting (London: Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, 1956) and Bernard A.R. Carter, ‘Perspective’, The Oxford Companion to Western Art, ed. by H. Osborne (Oxford: 1987), 840–61. For the ‘arithmetic method’, see De Mesa (note 4).

15 Dominique Raynaud, Scientific Controversies: A Socio-Historical Perspective on the Advancement of Science (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2015).

16 See, among others, Working Group (https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de) and ‘Perspective as Practice’, conferences organised by Sven Dupré and Jeanne Peiffer in Berlin (Max Planck Institute, 2012) and Paris (Centre Alexandre Koyré, 2013), proceedings forthcoming with Brepols.