Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:My opinion is just that if you put Pen's reconstructions beside Mike's, I think Pen's is the most reasonable solution as to what the artist meant to convey. The fact that the legs never really "work" from a strictly orthodox perspective position is irrelevant, since it is not strictly orthodox perspective. It's the degree of divergence I'm talking about.
Pen and I take less as being more logical, you and Mike take more as being more logical.
I don't think the legs work particularly well from either perspective; my only point is that in the terms of byzantine perspective the table top shape suggested by Mike is conventional, as 'wierd' as it may appear to some. You yourself have given us the example of what may be considered the prototype of the image and which uses perspective more akin to Byzantine than the linear perspective we are more accustomed to. Mike is right to say his image of the table top is no more or less wierd than Pen's. Both are conventional and thus 'right' within the confines of differing systems of perspective: Pen's may only seem less wierd to some because it is one we are nowadays more familiar with and our accustomed way of reading a pictorial space (personally Pen's is more wierd looking to me by the standards of linear perspective that Mike's table top is in terms of Byzantine). It is not about more or less logical, but upon the anachronistic imposition of a perspective we are more familiar with in our time given greater credence over the possibilty of another perspective perfectly in keeping with the time and with other examples.
debra wrote:mmf, I wrote something about the similarities between the Vieville and the cubists for the ATA newsletter. I love these strange impossibilities.
Sounds like an interesting read Inverse perspective was one of the techniques made use of in cubism of course. Of our own time I like the use Hockney makes of it in some of his work.