3 ms·

The evolution of the rhinoceros in art is equally fascinating. Here's Dürer's famous rhino, from 1515: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Rhinoceros_(NGA_1

The evolution of the rhinoceros in art is equally fascinating. Here's Dürer's famous rhino, from 1515: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Rhinoceros_(NGA_1964.8.697)_enhanced.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Rhinoceros_(NGA_1964.... Dürer had received a rough sketch from an artist in Lisbon, where a real rhino was being displayed, and he sketched and printed it based on a physical description by two different people who had seen it. It's beautiful, but also hilariously inaccurate. Dürer's rhinoceros was copied — and made further inaccurate — by tons of artists who also had never seen one in real life.

dredmorbius 10y ago
I was going to cite that. Excellent example. People see what they expect to see, and what they already understand. I'd love to see the actual description Durer had to work with. This is an area I've been exploring in depth -- the ways in which we form, transmit, and (occasionally) validate our mental models. Key to this was also that Durer's model was, within reason, "good enough". His average reader would never encounter a rhino in the flesh (or armour plate, as it were), whilst those who did might realise they had a sufficiently accurate portrayal to recognise the creature when they did see it, allowing for the artist's own lack of immediate familiarity.
olavk 10y ago
Hilarously inaccuarte? It looks pretty accurate to me, compare this photo of a live one: http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pictures/o/1195761552/Indian-Rhino-Cincinnati.jpg http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pictures/o/1195761552/Ind...
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  Anatomically speaking, it has the right parts, but Dürer imagined all sorts of things that aren't real: He depicts an animal with hard plates that cover its body like sheets of armour, with a gorget at the throat, a solid-looking breastplate, and rivets along the seams. He places a small twisted horn on its back, and gives it scaly legs and saw-like rear quarters. None of these features are present in a real rhinoceros,although the Indian rhinoceros does have deep folds in its skin that can look like armor from a distance. (Wikipedia) Also worth mentioning is the very wrong horn, the fuzzy ears, and the entire anatomy of its rodent-like jaw/facial area. To me, it's the distinctly ratty appearance that's hilarious.
  - olavk 10y ago
    I challenge the "hilarious inaccurate" because I suspect it is due to people not knowing how a rhino actually look, combined with a prejudice towards pre-modern artistic depiction of exotic animals. If you actually compare the drawing to the photo, the drawing is actually amazingly accurate, down to details like the skin on the legs and the toes. And if you look at the photo you will notice the rhino actually has hairy ears.
    - lobster_johnson 10y ago
      There are so many details that are wrong. Rhinos have a tiny fringe of hair at the top of the ear (http://wandering-photographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rhino-ear.jpg http://wandering-photographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11...), but Dürer draws them as being all hair, like a dog. The shape is right, everything else is wrong, which makes sense given that he mainly had a textual description of the animal to work from.

dredmorbius 10y ago

I was going to cite that. Excellent example. People see what they expect to see, and what they already understand. I'd love to see the actual description Durer had to work with. This is an area I've been exploring in depth -- the ways in which we form, transmit, and (occasionally) validate our mental models. Key to this was also that Durer's model was, within reason, "good enough". His average reader would never encounter a rhino in the flesh (or armour plate, as it were), whilst those who did might realise they had a sufficiently accurate portrayal to recognise the creature when they did see it, allowing for the artist's own lack of immediate familiarity.

olavk 10y ago

Hilarously inaccuarte? It looks pretty accurate to me, compare this photo of a live one: http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pictures/o/1195761552/Indian-Rhino-Cincinnati.jpg http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pictures/o/1195761552/Ind...

lobster_johnson 10y ago
Anatomically speaking, it has the right parts, but Dürer imagined all sorts of things that aren't real: He depicts an animal with hard plates that cover its body like sheets of armour, with a gorget at the throat, a solid-looking breastplate, and rivets along the seams. He places a small twisted horn on its back, and gives it scaly legs and saw-like rear quarters. None of these features are present in a real rhinoceros,although the Indian rhinoceros does have deep folds in its skin that can look like armor from a distance. (Wikipedia) Also worth mentioning is the very wrong horn, the fuzzy ears, and the entire anatomy of its rodent-like jaw/facial area. To me, it's the distinctly ratty appearance that's hilarious.
- olavk 10y ago
  I challenge the "hilarious inaccurate" because I suspect it is due to people not knowing how a rhino actually look, combined with a prejudice towards pre-modern artistic depiction of exotic animals. If you actually compare the drawing to the photo, the drawing is actually amazingly accurate, down to details like the skin on the legs and the toes. And if you look at the photo you will notice the rhino actually has hairy ears.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    There are so many details that are wrong. Rhinos have a tiny fringe of hair at the top of the ear (http://wandering-photographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rhino-ear.jpg http://wandering-photographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11...), but Dürer draws them as being all hair, like a dog. The shape is right, everything else is wrong, which makes sense given that he mainly had a textual description of the animal to work from.