3 ms·

This excellent anecdotes refers to the perception of space. As a proud possessor of monocular vision, I think a lot about spatial perception. Also a huge fan of

by Daub 3y ago

This excellent anecdotes refers to the perception of space. As a proud possessor of monocular vision, I think a lot about spatial perception. Also a huge fan of Oliver Sacks and also A. R. Luria (neurology) and Rudolf Arnheim (perceptual psychologist and artist). However, perspective is a different issue. Specifically, it is a mathematical model for projecting 3D space onto a 2D plane. This seems like a quible, but as someone who teaches perspective, I have a lot of trouble with people coming to my class with a misunderstanding of what it is. 3 point perspective is not the only spatial system out there, but it is the one that has had most impact upon European art, and it is also the most exact. It has not changed a bit since it was invented by Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham 1,000 years ago, and it is likely not to have changed even when we all have devolved into radioactive lizard rats in 1,000,000 years time.

scarface_74 3y ago
I reread your response three times and I still don’t understand the difference. In the real world, we have an intuitive understanding of how big something should be and if we see two objects that look the same size, but if we know that they aren’t, we infer that one object is more distant than the other. Isn’t that what the 3 point perspective in art trying to simulate? While most people would map the art to their real world experience or in the article the Disney buildings, the guy who has lived in the forest I assume wouldn’t have been fooled. Yes I’m self aware enough to know that my opinions come from one semester in art class over 25 years ago.
- Daub 3y ago
  > In the real world, we have an intuitive understanding of how big something should be and if we see two objects that look the same size, but if we know that they aren’t, we infer that one object is more distant than the other. I see your point. As a painter, physiology and perception play as significant role in my treatment of space as perspective. My original quibble was that these terms are being confused with each other. We infer space from many cues. When I paint a pastoral landscape (e.g. trees on a hill) I create depth by employing a whole lot of spatial devices. Most significantly by considering the depth planes (foreground, middle ground etc) and their relative differences. These differences can be of average lightness, local contrast (i.e. dynamic range), edge sharpness (distant objects tend to be more fuzzy), hue (distant objects tend to be more blue) etc etc. None of these have anything to do with perspective. However, the moment I paint a building, it is 90% an issue of perspective. Perspective is a device for projecting cubes onto a picture plane. The 3 points of 3 point perspective relate to the three visible sides of the cube. It is a mechanical process entirely within the domain of physics. This is why Ibn al-Haytham's treatise on optics simultaneously addressed perspective. > Yes I’m self aware enough to know that my opinions come from one semester in art class over 25 years ago. Its seems that it was a fruitful semester. :)

by Daub 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

I reread your response three times and I still don’t understand the difference. In the real world, we have an intuitive understanding of how big something should be and if we see two objects that look the same size, but if we know that they aren’t, we infer that one object is more distant than the other. Isn’t that what the 3 point perspective in art trying to simulate? While most people would map the art to their real world experience or in the article the Disney buildings, the guy who has lived in the forest I assume wouldn’t have been fooled. Yes I’m self aware enough to know that my opinions come from one semester in art class over 25 years ago.

Daub 3y ago
> In the real world, we have an intuitive understanding of how big something should be and if we see two objects that look the same size, but if we know that they aren’t, we infer that one object is more distant than the other. I see your point. As a painter, physiology and perception play as significant role in my treatment of space as perspective. My original quibble was that these terms are being confused with each other. We infer space from many cues. When I paint a pastoral landscape (e.g. trees on a hill) I create depth by employing a whole lot of spatial devices. Most significantly by considering the depth planes (foreground, middle ground etc) and their relative differences. These differences can be of average lightness, local contrast (i.e. dynamic range), edge sharpness (distant objects tend to be more fuzzy), hue (distant objects tend to be more blue) etc etc. None of these have anything to do with perspective. However, the moment I paint a building, it is 90% an issue of perspective. Perspective is a device for projecting cubes onto a picture plane. The 3 points of 3 point perspective relate to the three visible sides of the cube. It is a mechanical process entirely within the domain of physics. This is why Ibn al-Haytham's treatise on optics simultaneously addressed perspective. > Yes I’m self aware enough to know that my opinions come from one semester in art class over 25 years ago. Its seems that it was a fruitful semester. :)