Perspective 2, no skill no art

The discussion about perspective now quickly decays into details and I want to bring it back to some main topics.

Roughly, paintings can be separated into two categories: - those which are projections and are thus depicting a scene: representational art (whether abstract or not) - those which are not projections, the painting is depicting nothing but itself: non representational art.

All representational art needs a system of projection for something that is 3 dimensional must be translated to the 2 dimensional space of the painting (in sculpturing there ain't such a problem).

Almost all projection systems fall into one of the following major categories based on primary geometry: - orthogonal projection - oblique, axonometric projection - perspective projection

Although these systems all create the illusion of depth they're not the only contributors of it. However: only in the perspective projection things get smaller the further they're away and Deli also very rightly called atmospheric perspective as a subset of the perspective projection system. Ofcourse, artists can use a blend of these systems.

Ofcourse the projection system is only a tool and in no way a central issue in a painting, nor does mastery of this tool guarantee art. But it is a tool which is very often used and thus very basic. Perspective projection is the most complicated of the 3 categories but its basics are quite easy to learn.

This is about how important it is to master this projection system and how bad it is if an artist using it messes up big time. Thus: the no skill, no art paradigm.

The painter typically (not Liechtenstein, no is a person who both has the idea (which is in terms of subject, composition, contrasts, etc.) and does the execution of that idea, the rendering in which the use of a projection system is needed if the painting is representational (and many more tools like a firm grasp of anatomy, shading, postures, a painter's eye, etc. for example). It is of the utmost importance that the 'tools' are used appropriately to serve the idea, the two cannot be separated and (as John Moore argues) the skills are typically picked up in order to give the idea shape. The skills as result of the love of the artist for certain things.

Looking at a painting one can see how succesfully the tools were being used to convey the idea. The mastery of the tools themselves (the perspective being rendered rightly) and the proper application or choice of tools (that 2 point perspective was indeed the best choice instead of an oblique system).

If a relative simple tool as perspective projection is used by an artist and he/she messes up big time (unintentionally) and doesn't even care then this person cannot be called an artist according to Deli and me (never thought it would come to this . The execution of a painting, which needs to be firmly grounded in skill, needs to be taken seriously by the painter. Failing to acquire a simple skill like perspective projection shows the painter has no respect for his/her own idea or customers.

For an artist is not only one who has ideas but is also one that can render them better than other people and something like perspective projection really is the absolute minimum recquirement, a fundamental skill. Paintings are certainly not made into art by proper execution of perspective but a failure in this field certainly dismisses them as

I thought I understood perspective pretty well, but I've never heard of the first two categories of projection: orthogonal projection oblique axonometric projection What do these have to do with depth perception? Are there examples of artists who use them?

I think in a very formal, academic sense you wouldn't call the other projection methods 'perspective.' As a matter of fact, when you learn drafting or engineering drawing 'perspective' is presented as it's own category of projection, distinct from others such as 'oblique' or 'isometric' etc.

You see quite a bit of oblique projection in Persian, Moghul (India) and Japanese art. Basically, it's a method of showing more that one plane of an object in one view, with no attention paid to convergence of lines. Draw two squares, and move one up and two the right, and connect the three visible

Doubtfull, Manet is not intent on Flatness, thats only the critics and now curators mistake... Stella's paintings aren't any flatter than an average persian rug design,.

+We+ have already seen the 'most' minimal art, but you weren't paying attention.

Anyway the average talked about 'minimalism' art work exists as a 'Minimax' Occupying the maximum space, pricetag, and wordfull description...

These categories simply do not exist in reality, art is neither itself nor a projection, it is what is what we think from it not what we think it is...

Ciao Babes

Bryn

Originally, my ideas of projections come from computer graphics. Non-oblique Perspective is your basic 'as seen by the eye' projection. Orthographic is basically an idealized case of perspective, one where the 'eye' is infinite distance from the scene being viewed. This gives you the look of seeing something through a super-zoom lens, where objects do not appear to get smaller as they get further away. Axonometric and Isometric are just special cases of orthographic, depending on the relation of the viewer to a specific object being viewed. Oblique actually refers to the case when the projection plane is not perpendicular to the direction of projection, something which is almost never used, but I've also heard it used to reference any orthographic projection which shows more than one face of a specific object but is neither axonometric nor isometric.

Perspective in art means something very different then the perspective projection. Perspective is a system of organizing the relationships of objects and lines in space. Some systems may attempt a rough approximation of true non-orthographic perspective projection, although actually achieving that without a computer or photograph is an extremely complicated task. Orthographic is more easily achieved, and I believe that the projection terms orthographic, axonometric, and isometric carry over directly as a description of perspective systems in art.

Things got much more complicated when I worked on maps. Not only do you project the Earth onto a plane, you may also project it onto a cylinder or cone or even more complex surfaces, and then figure out a way to flatten the surface into a plane for display purposes. You could create maps with very interesting properties, but none of these have any relevance to the artist. Just thought I'd mention it, though

- Bob C.

This is true. However mathematically speaking they are really one. Perspective (basically) is concerned with what sets of parallels lines look like when projected on a surface, (usually flat).

I guess my outlook on the matter is scientific. That Is why I essentially consider them one. However If I were to look at it from the point of view you describe, you are correct.

In Oblique, isometric. etc parallel sets of lines remain parallel. Strangely these are the views from infinity.

Mani DeLi ...no skill no art

Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page! http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/

sounds nice but if anyone (or anything) takes half a nanosecond 'thinking from it', then you can rightfully think of it as a projection.

The plane can be at any angle. A view camera tilts the plane to an angle usually in order to make aesthetic corrections.

Sounds to me like 'composition not perspective.

The object can be projected on any surface at any angle. Check out the math subject affine transformations. This will explain a lot about distortions.

Mani DeLi ...no skill no art

Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page! http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/