She rf chang and he os oe en hanging Thi pas ‘Me ssumpton a fong ss oe delng wih resonable peopl Feyerabend plone mal eenon of igre art ‘oer log Ah ment hen Prabhy obed {thermal fom) he mre ooo piso. “angie wth bes male erp Pan's coalgy a2 aoa so en done, Althngh Paes fn Armen {banned entry hens wl he net Sa {he setue adv wld any athe loge ok es {sina oly o enone and prptae eerie Fonlas Inthe hour pe aspect wel Hemeneati of care ‘What els ur abot» ese mal euaope ome the wa the eta ood hae pda hi wore) For She orang metab ofthe Wekanchasng "Py ws wl Tact perce dence of bil aes ale cae with “Ahle® Pilog wl ve corset sucka deren. fi Perspective as Symbolic Form“tam Respecting it in lateatch Wat, beaten Duce (Pept is Latin word which meane ering hrvgh”). Th {show Der sought to explain the concep of pepe! Aad akhogh thi onic Non ae td lea by Boethin ad Aid no orginally ea pela meaning, we all eer lest adap in esenee Dre's definition, We shal speak a aly pespectnal” sew o pace aot when mete wo objects sich a howe o fia, ae represented in oresboecing” but rather only when the entire pictre hasbeen transformed = to ‘ite anther Renaisance thoretilan~ inte a “window,” and when we ar pant to believe we ate loking though hie wn ow into space! The material erfice upon which the idl tal figures or objects are draws wr painted or cared thus negated, and osead rlnterpreted sta mere “picture plane” Uper ei pies plan i ojecte he patil contin hich ‘nseenerough and which is undertood to contain all the ar. ous individual odjece.* Sofa dacs nt mater whether shi projection e dete by a tmmcdat venery impression or by mre or less “or rect geometrical coosructon This correct contraction was fact inert inthe Renasance, and slhogh lier vbjected to A‘avis echoes imprvements dspam, neverthe Texeverained in ite preiaes and goals unchanged to che cine of esau. set simpy explained as flows imagine the pture ~in acon wth the “window” definition ~a¢ planar {ross wvton hough the scaled wil pyramids the apex of this pyramid the ee hich shen connected with nv pints within the space tobe fepresented. Bocas the relative postion af thea vaul r" determines the apparent postion [rth coresponing pins in che inl iag, 1 eed only av the entre pet plan and cleaton In nde 0 deternine the Figure appearing onthe intersecting surface. The plan yields he sth the elevation yields che eight; andi combine these Cahs on hit drawing, wil bean ee desired perspec projection (Figure 1 Ta pieture constructed hia way — that is by meas of what Dares ale 3 “planar, eanspatent insect fall hose ys ‘hat ill rom the eye ono the abject ee" — the following Tow are valid ist all perpendicolrs or “orthogonal” meet a the scaled cena vanishing pint, which deveined by he | peepercaa raw rom the eye to the pcre plane Second pales, in hnteverdicetion he He, ve # common va [hing point. Ibe Hen shorn plane, den thei aii point le always onthe soalled orion, that on the hor otal ine through the central vanishing pois 6, moreover, they Tappen to form a 4S-degree angle withthe pte plane, then the distance between ther varshing pint and che central an ‘Shing point sequal to the dance Between the eye and hep tore plane, Finally, eqil dimensions diminish peogrstvely as they recede in spacess0 hat any portion of te petre = as sng that th action of he epee Know ~ icalelable from the receding or allowing portion (Figure 7 Tn oder ko gunante il aka ~ hat, ofa, om pce peebr Le ce pl el alos ei. igh pg ‘Sepearnl ty combing he grenade sein hanging and bomogenen ~ spicy this central perspective” makes wo act but eset assumptions fst, hi we ee with ‘single and immobile ee nd second, that the planar eon sec tomo the vs pyramid an ps for an adequate eproction of our opt imagen fet these two premine ar rather bold baratons fam rei “ely” we mean the aca ebjc: the opialimpreson, Fr the sacar of an inte, uncang ing and homogeneous space ~ in shor,» purely mathematispace — Is que unl the ance of pop puce Reap das ot kn the concept fn che very outer confined within cern pl its mpaed yo teay of pceplon Ard conection wth prepa ace stcann mov peak ofhomogeiy than fii The tnt bs fe bomen of geome pce a all 1 ‘Kanes epi hich te jeder eer Sevonef piven posesing no inpesent contr of ht Mri thao, hi poton ich they ey 0 lao wo cache: The ely sexed I te ep toa eta purely fants a ot aban I Bsa fm he pnts ae Jot fal content Tecame they have become mere expen fe eats they cm nen qeston os hry conten Ther home eve slg nothing oer than chia of rou, {rounded in sh common oe acini com ea To ing Hes vgn she Space but pce rced by constacton ad ined the ge Tec concept of homoge eam be expend by he pone Ime tht rm very pit sce I must be poset dese Shige inl conan magude Nowe Sue meine perepon cn he ponte be ile theese it mens of pon a eto: tech pe hast own ma lc eV pc nd ttl pc Tato ae oth strep nd ween tenn tthe metic sp Faldo metry he main Shen fopantaton = eee, toe bow Habe ict avedainrin bot phylogial pcer” Tuact perso consracton stems aburacton frm tne ctr ofthis ychopyslogie pce. For ib to only she aes ppc contin, but aded mene pero to ele In the epresntan af ce pe A clely that homogenely and boualesnes frig to the deck ‘experience ofthat sce Ina seme, perspetie tansforms py hoplosolgil space ino miter space. nga the ferences between roa at ac, betwee it a I eter Dolls and intervening pace ("ermpty” pce) so thatthe sum ofall the pas of space ae all itr content ate aioe int single “quantum cooing.” I forgets tht we see no with 3 single ned eye but with two constantly moving eye eating fa sper Geld of vision, Wakes no ace ‘mous diferenceheeween the prycholoicly conditioned vi ul nag” though eich dhe rile wold fs brought to our consioenes, nthe mechanically conditioned “ein mage” which pies self upon ou physi ee Fora peculiar bili ‘ng tendency within our consiousets = potted by the sop ‘zation of vision with the tactile enne ~ cies to perceived object delnte and proper size and frm, nl hs tec ot to take patie, a feast not fll neice, of he dazomions hich ‘hese sizes and Forms slr om the rei, Finally, perspectval ‘omsraction ignores the erica icometance tha theresa Image enirely apart fons ubnequent paychologial "ter pretation," and ven apart fm the fat thi the es mane =a jection not on a Mat but on «concave slice. Th already on this owen, il prepsychoogia level of fat thee ia fan shmentaldiscrepaney between "clity” and ie contruction. “This is abo tue, of coun, forthe entirely analogous operation ofthe camer My to choose avery simple sample,» Kine i vied wo hat Ie three sections, Bad uber eal angles, these objec ff the enor tively unequal ction wil be represented on a concave sure Alike the etna a approximately ena engehs wheres pro Jected om a Mat susace they wil appear, at ber, #8 unegut lengths (Fre 2} The the source of thse marginal distortions |cue apni he map i ‘which re mote falar tow Bom photography, but which abo “eingutsh the perspectvly conic nage fom the rena Image These dntorions ean be mathematically expres os the tirerpancy between, onthe one Sand, the ratio ofthe visa teal aon the her ond hea ofthe linear ston pro ‘daced by projetin upon at srfce. The wider the ttl or “Composite vsul angle ~ tat bythe smaller the rato berween the dsance fom eye to image andthe sizeof the image ~ the more peomounced the dstocon’ But lngsde shi pel qa ‘Ste derepancy between resin mage ail perspec rep entation, which was recognized aleay in the ery Renan, there hob well a oral dacrepaey. This ter follows, in the Fant place, Fom the movement ofthe gee, and i the second lace once om the cesar fhe resin: for while per {pretve project staight ine: alg lines, ure perceives them (om the center of rojction) a comes cures noma ‘heckerboud pater appear alos ranger sellout the Sin of shield an objstively curved checkerboard byte same token, will snighten ell ou, The orthogonal of balding, ‘which in normal perpsctiel enero apes stag, would, WF thoy mee to conespond tothe fatal tinal mage, ‘be daw ss curves, Strict speaking, even she verteas would vet suit some bending (pce Guide auch, whose daw Ing reproduced as Figure 3 “This curvature of the opti image has ben observe ce in modern times: by he great prycholngists od physics at he tnd ofthe ls centr but lo (and this has appreny not teen remarked upon until now) by the gest ttranomers and mathematicians he beginning ofthe seventeenth cer. We Soul call above all the words ofthe cemarhable Wiel Shethant, enon of the Waterberg achitee a alin Coovele, Henrich Scien: "sy tha al lines ven he staightst, which do nt stand dee cones papi [ie In front ofthe ee] necessary appar somenha bent. Never oon Hilofplcnace aside or coed rpc enacting heroine prgetne ih (he ate) AAhels psnterellees hin hie why ey pale the straight Sides of building with straight lines, xen though according 0 {he ni at of pepectve ti 8 ncoroct... Crack that mat ou vis!" The war endorsed by none ther han Kepler at lease Insofar ashe adie che posit tha the bjecevel straight tll of comet orth objerivey straight ejector of meteor ie subjectively perocved as a cure. What is most intresting i that Kepler ily ecignined hat he bad originally onerlooked for even dened then ilaory cards only beeuse he hal been ‘Schooled in iar perspective. He ba Ben ey the rules of Drinterly perspective to belive that atraighe is always sen a Seat witht sopping to coser tht the sy in at peo- jects not onto plone eoella but onto the inner surface of Spe And inde een today ony ery ew of us ave pet ind these cua, ta om rely x par due vo our habit {ation ~ fre nfrced by ooking t photographs ~ 0 liner perspestil construction constrain ht eel eampreer [eon for site speci, indeed specfesly madera, snse pce, of om wil sense f the word Thus in an epoch whove perception was gonered by 2 con ception of space expreed by tet nea perspective, the eu tures of os 0 speak, speraal opal wor had co be Tedlsoveed, Howeve ina ie that na accustomed Lo seing penpertlly bot not in ines perspotve~ hese cunatres Iver simply take for granted tha, nang. In antique ‘optics an hey (wean pulsoply. although here only tn the form of analogies) re constantly encounter the ober tions that saight lines age seen a crved and curved Lines 2 Seaight that cok rst be subjected to tas osaly rea ‘ively weak of cous, i ela nes) i oder no 0 ape tent that episyle and stylabate must be ile carved in onder to avoid the pronto of sping. And deed the fiir creatures ofthe Dorie temple atest the practical conte: tgunces of auch findings Antique optics, which brought al [ines innit rc te i [svc to linear perspective. And iit did understand so cealy the spherical dsorcion af form, this ony all fm (rat et conespondfo) it ll more ments Fengnition ted tortion of magnitude. For ere, oo, antique optics ti he impression tha id Kemasance perspective, Seose i conceal ts more nog 10 the feta sre of the eject opi oF he fel of vision a » sphere. anique apes manned, Always and without exception, tha apparent mags (ha, projections of objects ono that spherical field of rion) ae Aeterna not by the ditances ofthe objects fom the ee but rather excel by the width ofthe angle of vison, Th he Felipe Ing expesible ol in degre of angle ae, nd not simple mesures length! nde Eli's Light orem explily reempts any oppsing view. Elid aes hat ee apparent di ference beemcen two equal magnitudes perce rom une ixances is determined not by the ratio of these distances but rather by che fr les dsrepnt rato of the angles of non (Fe tre 4). This is diametrically opposed tothe doctrine behind thorn perspectn onset aii in the fr Jan Pera, known ae Vitor: "es quater te dtaces Ont cn endo iffiences” (The quantities an the tances ay pr rina"). And perhaps ee moe than mare acide that {i Renisanceparaprasen of Esc indeed even in tearsations, procisly cis lghth Theorem was ether entirely suppressed or mended” ui lett orignal meaning vient, deco sedition war Fl betwen Eacli’s pepo natr om uns which ough spy eo Formate mathematically he laws ‘matron aw nk le ron che magus foes is stele speak apparent sire to the vial Acoms: le pepe) Be epee tS) iment pope os deer Ban Dmg pee (ah append ences 2a ‘dhe perp aif developed inthe reat, which fon the contrary tied 10 provide a serviceable method fr con structing ges on two ensional sues Clea thi conte Aiton cold be resolved only by abandoning the angle 2 te reeogize the arom it export the creation of pespectnad linge, set speaking an posible ak, for sphere ob coun cannot be unrolled ona sic, A 1 this pit we are Hound 19 wonder whether iin what may antiquity itself might have developed geometries! perspex tive. The ancient, far as we bao, aver swerved for he principle hat apparent maces were determined nut by di tances but by angles. On the one hand i is lear eh as hn st respacted thi rncpl, ati png can ery el Ine contemplated projection upon uric, but ther would ave had co adbre co a projeton upon a shrclsurfce- On the other han, there canbe no dab ee antique pling wae ‘ven es propared han wa the Renaisancet work inpacice with stereogrphic™ projection, fr example in Hippachos’s sense, We ths have t conde most wheter or not anti ity managed to work ot an artialy services approxi tion. We might imagine sucha constrvetion founded on the notion of “iphere of prjection” on in plan an elevation, 4 cece of projetion = with, however the aes of the eltle replaced by tele chord. This would achive» ceria approx ‘ation of che depicted magniaes to the wid of the ales without posing any more tecknia! problems tan dh modern Procedure. Aad ides seems posible ~ we dare no esi hit ‘lth any ceraly~ ht acne patina leas by Ie Hellenticand Roman ines, ha jot sch a procedre at spo ‘Vitrvis, in 2 much-disosed posage ofthe Te Boks en Architects oes the lowing remarkable defiiions "Sco pop” tha the perpecial representation ofa theedimes Sonal soctore on sure, sed ona “omni nara Cina entra responses" At fist, of enue, oe had hoped to discover in thin co cntram the ental ashing point of rnlern perspective. BU nora ingle surviving antique panting sess sth 9 nifed vanishing pnt More npn, the ‘tons themselves appear to ul out hiro, fr en ‘enum propel means “compass pn,” ot “ceater ofc fle the central vanieag point of moder nea perspectin the mere emergence point of orthogonal, canoe posibly be ensued athe fixed pine of eam. howe, Vir ‘speaking abut an exact perspectial conseton al (which the mention ofthe iu imple) there 3 eas pos sibilisy that Vitrvivs meant y cantam ta vanishing pins widhin the peur, but rater "center of projection” standing Tor the eye ofthe beholder. That center (ad this would cow firm ently the antigen axon) would hen in prepa tory drawings be she center ofa cite iterecting he visual ‘aye ost the stright le repersenting he pctre plane ier cts the vs aes moder penpectival consttin, In any trent fone now conse with the hep of wich a “cele of projection” (whereby. a sld before, tho ars ofthe cre ate replced bythe comeponing chords), the ree does conform {othe surviving enonament in ec respect: che extensions tf he otogonal do not rege a single point but rather oy Srey converges and thus meetin pale at several psntsalong Common ats For when the ctl rolled out the ares res {ports so to speak, atthe tips. This rete shbone™ eee igure 5) leis ot clear that chan oterpretation of he Virus pat ‘ayo can be sustained cam hardly be prove since the svn, etres almost withow execption ar not girly constaced ‘Atay ate this fishbone of more formally pol anthing axis Prinefle was a leat a far a we can monitor ie, crucial in antique spl representation. Smetins we find in he Gr ‘of paral convergence, at just decribed and in acond with ‘our hypothe crleconrtruton (Pate 1) sometimes inthe A‘more schematic, but tore practise, frm of more oF es pts paralelian of oblique orhogonls. The latter version is ested aeady am southern lan sates ofthe fourth centy (Plates? and 3) ‘But this me frepeventig pace ser in comprison to ‘he moder nde, rom pect itabiity inet incon stency. For the madem ishing pont contin distort all, ‘vith, depts and heights ts costae proportion, and thus de- ‘nes unequivocally he aparent ste of any objec, the le cor responding ois actus gute and ts poston with espe tothe ee That specs the enorme aleantae ofthe mod ‘rv meshed, pect why was so pustonaey pune. A con ‘ane disoron i imposible under the sanshing-xepiscipe Tecase the aangerent ofthe ray isn ay This sei Ing istry the aby of the waning ais rnp to foneshorten corel a chochenard pattems the squares the mle ar either ow lage or oo sal Alea in anquty, bt ‘hen above alin he lte Middle Ags, when tis constraction ves revi many pats of Europe, wach awkward crepe es were conceaed by anecutcheon, a etooa, a bic of drapery for some other pespectinl fig lel Moreover, the digonals of {checkerboard consrated fm his way wl only run saight the dept intra nehe rea af of the boar appear to prom, Instead of diminihing a they soul and conversely the ner ‘aldo dina, then the dagonl wl appa: broken. ‘Granted, eis los more ikea matheraticl shan anaistc mater, fr one might with justice polnt out thatthe relative Imperfection, indeed even the etl abvence, of perspctval onstruction ha nothing todo with arti value uso, com evel the strc aluernce of perspectial aws eed in m0 wise Chernch pom artiste “eedae") But espetine snot fa for of val it surely fctr of yl. deed may even be character (to extend Ernst Casi’ ficious term the sory far} one of thse "symbole frm in which spi ‘meaning isattached toa concrete, mater ign pd isinsically eo tsi” This why teen oak of tic pe ‘sand regons no only whether they hie perspective, bat so which perspective they have 1 Theat of classe! aniguty was a purcly corporeal arc recognized eats walt any what was angie well sb. es objects were material and thveo-dimensional wth leat defined fanedans and proprcans, and ths mere nas to acerain exten anthropomorphirid. Theve objects ere not ‘merged in piney ishion sto pail unit. bur rather were allied t each other in kind of ecctnic or plastic cluster, Hellenic ar, tobe sre gut lim not only the wale ‘the imterally motiated ody, but aluo th ehanns of user surface. I abo begen to perceive a worthy of depiction and {his ely else) not only animate bali nant mtr, rot ony the pli and beast but othe lr and ly ‘or common, not only solid bodes but also the suroundg ed unig space Yer even the Hele attic imagination ge mained atached to ivdual objects, ch an extent that space was il perceived ot ax something tit could embrace Al disole the opposition between bodes al ponies, but only as that which emai, 00 speth between the odes Th space was arty manifested partly by simple sperposition partly bya stilhusystemaic overlapping. Even where Greco: Roman art advanced to the representation eal interior ea landscape, thiseiched ad espaol world wa stl by no ans a perfectly und worl, world where bois an the gps between them were only ilerentitions or modifiation a ‘oncinuum ofa higher order. Depth inter ve become pal publ, but cannot be expressed inter fsa “module Phefoveshortened orthogonalsconnrgs, but they never conterge toward sgl rion, not to speak of single enter (oven f fg representations ofarchictare, tle the sing of ee ase Ties andthe fal fhe roo ies ae observed.” Magaldes seme inh they secede, tthe diminution i by 90 Incans constant, ined iti abwas being interrupted by mal proportioned igure gis “ttn sale” The wanformations ce hy distance and the intersening medias pon the form ‘door of balls arc represented with uch bold wiaosiy that the syle of these pacing as been held up a8 recurso or vena paalel to, modern Inpressonism and yet they never Shieve unified "ighting”® Even then the aoton of perspec {ive a eng through Ie tae serouly~ for example, when swe are meant to belee tht we ar locking nought of eo {inns onto ontngcus lance (ee Fate 4) = che epeented sper semaine an agregte space never becomes tht which ‘molest dead at elves, atric apace Precisely fete becomes clear that antique “ampresionsm” was only 4 qn impresonion. For the made thovement to which we fre chat ne alwaye howe empy space and oes; wa res is abseritions at Imacealy segue dtetion aed unity. Thies how lpesson km can wo persiently deal and diol slid farms without ‘rer jeopordiing the silty ofthe soe and te solids of the india cbjects om the contrary, conceals that tb: inyand solidi. Antiquity, om che other hn, aking tae dom ering nity mut, 0 to peak, pchas very pati ain with {Tos of comporalt, so that space ra ‘bjcets. This explain the almost paradxiel phenomenon that to ong ae antige at ake no atm 0 represent the space between bod ts tld seem more zld and hamoniows tian the world represented by mesdenn af; But + 30m a pace i eps thit higher any, over and included in the representation, bow al in lndseape painting thar world becomes eriouly unreal and consi ike team ora mirage" Antique perspective & thar the exprenion af a pec and fundamentally uomodern view of pace (although i certainly a geniney spi ven, Spengler notistanding) Antique pee spective fartheznor the expression of next specifi nd gully uoder conception ofthe worl. Ad nly now ean tee understand how the antique worl was abe ose ll with whit Goethe called “such « process, even fle” cee tion of the impreson of space Why di the ancients al o take the spparenely small sep of ineracsing the visa pyramid sve pine and hue proceed to uly exact an stem co struction of space? Tobe sure, that coal not happen along 3 «ean axiom of che heoretcas pred. But why dd hey ‘ot simply disregard the axiom, at would happen millennia sua balflater They didnot doe bees that ling for pace ‘which was seeking expression in che pliers simply didnot Aleman stamatic space. Sptematc space wat ar unehinkable forancique plosophers a1 was unimaginable for aniqu a ts. Thus ie would be methodol ule unsound to equate {he question “Did agi have pope" withthe question "Did antiquity have ar pespetve” ae war dane in the dis of Perle and Salley, Leng tnd Kloten As rarows as antique theoees of space were, none of them suceeded in defining space a sycetn of spl relationships between height width and depth?” tn tat cae in the guise ‘fa "cooediate seem,” the difference betwen “ont” and back" “here and "thee," body” and “nonbedy” would ave revolved into the higher and more abstract concept of three Aiensioal extension, o xen, «Arad Gcuines pa the concept of argu generate rmpe” (“body taken 3 gesense") Rather, the ety of the wold alas emaned something radically scontinvous. Democreus, for example, anstrcted a pels corporeal word out of indie elements tnd then, only in oder to secure for thor elements the pos. tility of moremen, portlet ther the infinite voi ma me nor noabeing (even if a comelte tothe ono bsg, this 's something ofa necessity). Plt let space stand in oppstion ro the work! of cements reducible ro geometrically formed tds, their formes huperdoct or receptacle (deed i ve hostile to form). Aristotle, Bally, with basically quite ‘rmathematiealtranlr af qualitative categorie tothe el of the quince, arbuted ix dimensions (dose, demas) ‘to topo fui or general space (up and down, fone ad back, ‘ight and lef), ven though individual bodies were sucenty defined by eee dimension (height, with deph), Moreone, ‘Arstotle conceived his “gneral apace” i erm sa merely the fonhes one of an absolutely lage ody namely the outer nos eee sphere ~ use sche specific oation of individeal things (aps id) sor hit the ronter where che One meets the Other Pethape this Aristotelian doctrine of space ile trace with special larity the inability of antique thought 10 ring the concrete empisical“atrbutes” of apace, and inp ‘ala the decnetion betwoen “body” and “nonbody.” toa common denominator of ian end: bodies ae not teebed ine a homogeneous ard init se of dimensional ‘eltonships, but ater ae the jtaponed content of «finite ‘este For js fr Aristotle there no "quantum continuum” In which the qlddey of individual cing would be disolved, ‘thee efor him alo no snr ape (a fine) which vould extend beyond the Dann of advil objects (Vo, ‘moder tenn, even the sphere of ised stars woud be a di ‘al object)" And precisely here it becomes quite clear tha “aesthel pace” and "seortis apace” es percept Space in the give of one ad the sme serstion: inne ese ion ic visually symbolved, inthe other i appears log fom,