> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > Is that what you think?
> Am I wrong?
Yes indeed.. Making it up as you go along..
> > "No different" I suggest you take a closer
> > The contrast is overwhelming.
> Considering the different mediums and the culture
> behind who and why these statues are made, no, I
> find the differences quite "underwhelming".
Okay that about sums up your visio-spatial observational abilities.
Lets move on.
> > PRIMITIVE ART...
> > Primitive is not a derogatory term.
> > Primitivism. Read...
> > [en.wikipedia.org]
> Please pay attention Jon. I did not say "primitive
> art", but rather "primitiveness" which you have
> applied to AE culture at large.
I said "primitive" meaning primitive as in primitive art. The genre of primitive art.
As in the Wiki link I provided.
You have a definition of primitive art all of your own. Making it up as you go along.
Let's move on.
> > You are way out of your depth.
> Of course.
At last we agree on something.
> > Of course they could understand subjects in
> > dimensions, they lived in a three dimensional
> > world just as we do. However as you yourself
> > clearly stated, they did not express that three
> > dimensional world in their two dimensional art.
> And...? As I also stated clearly, neither did any
> other culture until the classical Greeks
We can agree again..
It's getting good.
> even then was merely forced isometric perspective
Are you talking about forced perspective or isometric perspective?
they are totally different things.
Isometric perspective is a modern technical drawing projection, as in isometric projection.
I think you mean oblique perspective, which is altogether different again.
By the way forced perspective is an architectural and photographic illusion. Sometimes both.. Hollywood film sets etc..
Lets move on..
> which it was not until the middle ages linear
> perspective was "invented" (though in reality I'd
> say this is a little muddy).
Renascence Italy. The middle ages were pretty much stuck with oblique (not isometric).
Bruno was the main man. It's no coincidence that art got good at about the same time as mathematics.
And of course, the invention of the camera at about that time. Secret knowledge.
Now Thanos is rewriting the history books.
Let's move on.
> > You claim it was a matter of choice. I see no
> > evidence of any "choice".
> Since we are all keen these days on not
> misrepresenting each other, what I "claimed" was
> that it was "not a matter of "ability", but
> rather sensibility." Meaning not, "choice",
> but rather the fundamental way in which their
> culture conveyed information through their art on
> a 2-D surface, a meme practiced by all cultures
> for thousands of years.
The choice was similar to their choice not to fly in jetliners.
No one had thought of it yet. For them It didn't even exist.
Nothing whatsoever to do with sensibilities and everything to do with abilities.
They were Choiceless.
The technical aspects of
> linear perspective is one thing as indeed it
> seemed to escape the human mind for longer than
> expected, but to assert they could not understand
> depth on a 2-D surface regardless of the fact it
> is not found in their painted art, is
> hardly one of "comprehension".
I agree, they understood depth, what they didn't understand was how to render it in any kind of 2D form .. A painting or a drawing. For them it didn't exist. It was not a problem.
Everything was pictorially rendered in two dimensions without depth or perspective because there was no necessity to do otherwise.
Fit for purpose, tomb wall paintings.
AE art was not a
> means to "express one's artistic ability", but
> rather a means of communication
Which is what visual art is today and always has been. A means of communication synthesised with the necessary production skill. A closed feedback loop. If you can do that without expressing your artistic ability, good or bad, then good luck to you.
Move on again.
and what is
> found in the tomb art throughout the Dynastic era
> is the very continuation of this artistic
> tradition of communication rooted in the carving
> in relief on stone which hardly lends itself to
> presenting depth in 3 dimensions, nor was it
Not artistic tradition but artistic necessity, they had no option. No other method was available until the classical period with Greek oblique (which you call isometric) perspective.
You could apply the same argument to the 18th century horse and cart. A transportation tradition. Being a transport of choice.
Even the relief carvings do not in any way represent any attempt at perspective. They are chisel relieved line drawings
sometimes field coloured. (field colour means a flat field of the same hue without any attempt at modulation in an attempt to create the action of light on a three dimensional surface.. Light, shade and scintillation).
Painting by numbers with big numbers/big fields...
To sum up ..
They didn't do it because at that time they did not know how to do it and were not interested for one reason or another in finding out how.. (just like jetliners)
They were early bronze age, primitive 2D artists. About as good as it got at that time but otherwise nothing more, nothing less.
Ask an art expert.
Over and out
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19-Apr-17 21:51 by Jon Ellison.