Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;+VGO.DVCKS, post: 4973710, member: 110504&quot;][USER=44316]@Valentinian[/USER], many thanks for the valuable elucidation.&nbsp; Without even looking at the article, your observation about the Roman frescoes with multiple vanishing points set off a few more synapses, back to the self-alleged &#039;reverse precedent&#039; in early Modern art.</p><p>...About which, yet another digression ensues.&nbsp; (You Were Warned....)&nbsp; Starting from late Cezanne, while his landscapes use aerial perspective, his still-lifes are only cooler.&nbsp; They use the equivalent of multiple vanishing points, but on the scale of, say, a table top.&nbsp; Neither of these terms is likely to be original, but they evoke something like &#039;temporal&#039; or even &#039;tactile&#039; perspective --attempting to convey the phenomenon of looking at different parts of a motif in real time.&nbsp; A cloth might divide a table into two visual components, with the line of each one diverging at slightly different angles.</p><p>This is subtle enough to still count as &#039;Post-Impressionism.&#039;&nbsp; Along with some of Picasso&#039;s early work.&nbsp; ...Except, from here, the early Cubists take this ball, and make some serious yardage with it.</p><p>...So much for precedent in &#039;the art world,&#039; as far as Cubism is concerned.&nbsp; Martin Scorsese made a fantastic documentary (seen on Kanopy) about the no less profound influence of early cinema on Picasso and Braque.&nbsp; All about trying to convey how people perceive space as a real, &#039;concrete,&#039; but as such innately temporal, subjective experience.</p><p>...From here, it&#039;s too early to have any idea whether this made any sense or not.&nbsp; ...But you sure did.&nbsp; I got some real traction from your comments.&nbsp; Thanks Lots![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in